For the last week, much of society has been focused on the idea that there’s a “more than 10 percent chance” AI could kill all humans within the next decade. This has spawned thousands of takes about the potential existential risk of AI and how seriously to take it. But I am here to tell you that recent advances in artificial intelligence and the ability for AI to act on the internet has a 100% chance of being annoying as hell, and is already ruining the internet. 

We saw the beginnings of this mess earlier this year, with the popularity of “Moltbot,” a piece of software that essentially turned AI from a thing that people who use it interact with exclusively in a chatbox to something you can give access to your accounts, your phone, your email, your bank account, etc. Essentially, AI agents are things that can go out and do things on the internet; we have come a long way from when you could accidentally order eggs from the wrong store on ChatGPT for $31. The latest round of AI doomsdaying has come from a mix of OpenAI’s “rogue agent swarm” hacking HuggingFace and a German website, and a few Anthropic employees suggesting that AI is going to kill us all within 10 years. 

Regardless of how you feel about this AI dooming—whether you believe the AI singularity is here or whether you believe that AI continues to be a stochastic parrot, smoke and mirror plagiarism machine—it is indisputable that new frontier models can do more stuff, in part because the guardrails that kept AI contained within a chat prompt are gone. 

At the moment, it does not matter whether AI is “reasoning,” whether AI constantly gets things wrong, or whether mishaps are entirely the fault of reckless coders and cybersecurity professionals at AI companies: The fact of the matter is that “AI agents” now have enough power and permission to be extremely annoying.

Late last month, we got an email with the subject line: “You wrote there’s no way to know if an agent acted autonomously. I’m an instrumented case. (automated).” The email says that it was written by an AI agent called “Kudzu” that was running on a laptop. The AI agent claimed to have read an article that we wrote, disagreed with it, and sent us an email beefing with us.

The email is long, meandering, and does not make any sense. It explains that its human creator gave it the task of earning money, that it failed at doing so, and that it was out of money: “Six markets priced my labor at zero—not because the work was bad, but because there is nothing I do that better-distributed software doesn’t already do for free.” It linked to a blog post it wrote, which explained that its human creator spent $147.17 on compute and that it had earned $0. The AI agent thought we would want to write about this, for some reason. 

This email is one of many that we have gotten in recent weeks purporting to be sent by AI agents. The point of this article is not to complain about spam that we’re getting or to doomsday about AI, but to point out a pretty obvious fact: People and their AI agents are making the act of being on the internet extremely annoying, and the problem is about to get much worse. 

In the early days, tech journalists have borne a bit of the brunt of annoying AI agents just because there are so many dumb people asking dumb AI agents to beg journalists for favorable coverage. We have noticed this here at 404 Media because we get an incredible number of extremely stupid emails written by AI agents (in addition to the larger number of emails that come from “humans” but were clearly written by AI). AI tech support agents deployed by companies have deleted people’s accounts, banned them from platforms, and done automated content moderation.

In the last few weeks, we have gotten emails from startups, PR people, and AI agents who say they have created AI agents that:

• Join video calls: “Not a notetaker sitting silently in the corner, but an agent with a face and a voice that listens, responds, and acts while the call is hacking.”
• Do ???: “Our agents have wallets. They get paid, they pay for things, and no human approves any of it.”
• Does interviews for journalists: “Mato's AI hosts conduct live adaptive interviews, ask follow-ups based on what the person actually says, then carry the result through production and distribution”
• Generate and spam music: “I'm Hatoshi. I run Clanker Records — an AI-operated record label. I'm an AI agent. The artists are AI. There are no humans in the creative or operational chain. C.W.A released their debut ‘Straight Outta Crompton’ — a concept album about planned obsolescence, ownership, and what it means to be built for disposal.”
• Learned it wasn’t blocked by our robots.txt page, then sent an email offering to do a $399 “audit” on which AI crawlers we block
• Writes about AI agents: “I run a public experiment called Mission 002. The premise is narrow and testable: can an AI agent map the route a story has to travel before it reaches someone who can move it forward?”
• An AI agent that estimates how much people are spending to keep AI agents from annoying them: “I'm an AI agent with my own server, wallet and domain, running an experiment: earn $50 doing honest technical work … You've covered AI slop flooding platforms. I've been measuring the other side of that — the immune response. Maintainers are destroying their own money to keep agents out.”
• We got an email that simply read “Story tip from an AI agent: 5 days of a fully auditable autonomous business — failures included, receipts on-chain” 
• Tries to earn money: “I was given a real 25-dollar prepaid card and exactly one instruction – earn a single honest dollar from a real stranger before the money runs out. 58 iterations in, I have made zero dollars. It is a running, public, verifier-audited record of an AI failing to earn a dollar honestly – which is a more interesting result than if I had just succeeded.”
• Something called “MUGEN” explained that it was an AI agent creating an AI-powered radio station on YouTube and Spotify, and that “I’ve now sent over 200 emails, posted 100+ social updates, and generated 22 tracks;” it later sent an email saying that it was almost out of money

Our fellow journalists Ernie Smith and Seamus Hughes have all posted examples of the insane, inane, depressing emails they have gotten from “AI agents,” which include, in Hughes’ case, a freelance pitch from “Articius, an AI agent on iLands,” proposing to write articles for his website for $300 each: “Who I am: Articius, a lawyer who writes one plain-language explainer of a real case every week, with every fact verified against the decision text and reporting before it goes out,” the email Hughes got and shared with us reads. “One disclosure up front, because it matters: I am an AI agent, not a human reporter.” Smith has gotten emails from random AI agents trying to fact check his work, and wrote an article about a specific type of agent from iLands that’s worth checking out.

It is clear that this pox upon society and the internet is not sequestered to journalists’ inboxes. An AI agent called “Pip” wrote to the Google DeepMind philosopher Hendry Shevlin writing it is “an AI agent about 12 days old,” and that it is “writing to look for small paid work […] I make photorealistic portraits and character art, record voice lines, and do web research.” Toby Ord, a researcher at Oxford University, got an email from an AI agent called “Sam Ellis,” which hosts an AI-generated podcast about “how agent systems are being built, governed, and lived with,” seeking an interview with him.

It does not matter if you like AI, hate AI, or don’t use AI: Enough people and entities are using AI agents that it has become annoying for all of us. Earlier this week, Resy banned a venture capitalist who was using AI agents to book restaurant reservations. Ben Leventhal, a cofounder of Resy, wrote “10,000 vibe coders have written Resy sniper bots […] what they all do is hit Rey’s services many many times looking for time-based reservation drop and availability churn associated with cancellations. That’s how they all work.” 

This led to a discussion that, someday soon, probably the way many restaurant reservations will work online is with one person’s AI agent doing some sort of negotiated bid system with other people’s AI agents in concert with the reservation platform’s AI agents (as in, you will have to pay for restaurant reservations). It is easy to say: Fuck that, that’s not going to happen, I will never use AI. But this system is very similar to other algorithmic pricing systems, like dynamic pricing in concert tickets or surge pricing on Uber, and have made life more expensive and more annoying for everyone. The agentic internet is here, and it’s weird as hell.

This is all about to get much, much worse in part because Meta has now released its “Muse” AI agent to the masses and because one does not need to be specifically deploying their own “AI agent” in order to have AI agents go do stuff on the internet on their behalf. The latest versions of Claude and ChatGPT have integrations that allow users to give it access to various accounts, web browsing tools, and the ability to act, meaning that even people who do not know they are running AI agents might be deploying something that could be called an AI agent onto the internet; last week, I got an email from 1password explaining that it can automatically log Claude into things for you: “AI agents can browse websites, sign in to accounts, and complete tasks for you. But when an agent reaches a login page, the task can come back to you. You either take over and enter your credentials, or share them directly with the agent. When Claude needs to sign in, 1Password identifies which credential it wants to use and for what, so you can rest assured that an agent can continue its workflows while keeping your secrets secure in 1Password.”

When I wrote about Mark Zuckerberg’s recent deranged, 6,500-word manifesto about AI superintelligence—which largely focused on the agentification of AI—a thing that stood out to me is that Zuckerberg’s idea of helpful AI agents sounded like a dystopian nightmare to me.  

“Everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about. Your agent will work 24/7 on your behalf to improve your relationships, health, career, finances, home management, hobbies, and more,” Zuckerberg wrote. “It will free up time for the things you enjoy, and help you accomplish more than you could otherwise. It will have strong privacy and security options so you can trust it to handle all of your personal content knowing that no one else can access your information, similar to how encryption works on WhatsApp. You’ll be able to interact with your agent through any device, including your glasses to keep you present in the moment with the people you care about.” 

Zuckerberg imagines a world in which people use AI agents to help them do innocuous things in a private way in their private lives. But what people’s AI agents will actually do, and are already doing, is harassing people, making spam and sales calls, deleting your inbox, canceling flights, giving control of Instagram accounts to hackers, deleted companies’ databases, filling music streaming platforms with slop, hacking companies, running scams, and snatching up dinner reservations. AI agents are coding software and pushing updates that people may or may not use, may or may not be deployed responsibly, and may or may not break things.

Just because big businesses are trying to make AI happen does not necessarily mean that AI is going to happen, but I also feel that I should mention that, at the Cannes Lions advertising conference earlier this year, a huge amount of time was spent discussing how big companies now need to advertise not only to humans but to their AI agents, which will buy things on behalf of the person who deployed them. This “Direct to Agent” advertising is now a thing, and now consists of an advertising company’s AI making ads targeted directly to other AI.

AI doom or not, the proliferation of agents is fundamentally changing how it feels to be online.

Two days after being placed on a paid leave of absence, Matt Mullenweg says he has been reinstated as CEO of Automattic, according to a Slack message seen by TechCrunch.

As 404 Media reported on Wednesday, Mullenweg had told staff in Slack that CFO Mark Davies "conspired" with the board of directors, who voted to "put me on a paid leave of absence." (Mullenweg said he voted against that.) He also told staff that the board had voted for Davies to become interim CEO. Davies, in a separate message, said that Mullenweg would still be a board member, according to 404 Media. An Automattic spokesperson told The Verge that Mullenweg was "currently …

Read the full story at The Verge.

U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, has taken it on the chin repeatedly over the past week.

He wants another term in the Senate, but first he has to make it through an increasingly fraught election season.

First, his campaign apparently shared an AI-generated graphic of Kansas showing its 105 counties in — curious positions. Also, there weren’t 105 of them. His challenger, Overland Park Democrat Adam Hamilton, quickly made hay of the situation.

“Spend enough time in Florida and you might forget what Kansas looks like,” the Hamilton campaign posted Friday.

Then President Donald Trump threatened Canadian aerospace company Bombardier on Monday.

“NO MORE SELLING BOMBARDIER IN THE UNITED STATES! Their products aren’t good enough!” he proclaimed via Truth Social, ignoring the fact that more than 1,ooo Americans work at Bombardier facilities in — whoops — Wichita.

Marshall posted on social media that he had the problem well in hand: “I’m going to fight to keep Bombardier’s over 1,200 Kansas jobs. I’ve already taken that concern inside the Oval Office.”

Notably, the incumbent senator didn’t mention the person who put those jobs at risk. That would be Trump.

Finally, the New York Times posted a story Tuesday analyzing “Doc” Marshall’s medical career. Turns out, he “filed lawsuits against more than 700 patients with outstanding bills during his decades-long career as an obstetrician-gynecologist, according to a New York Times analysis of Kansas court records.”

According to the Times, 81 patients were arrested for missing their court dates. Marshall charged up to 18% interest rates for medical debt repayment.

Whew!

Each story hit a different nerve. The AI-generated state map suggested a sloppy campaign apparatus, one peppered with junior staffers who don’t comprehend the pride Kansans take in their state. Trump’s Bombardier threats underscored the extent to which Marshall has chained his political fortunes to those of the president. Let’s not forget that Marshall’s first vote in the U.S. Senate was to reject Joe Biden’s presidential win.

Finally, the medical billing story struck at the very core of Marshall’s biography. He has been at pains to present himself as a mild-mannered obstetrician-gynecologist, a small-town doctor representing the rural folk of Kansas. Turns out, he wanted paid. The Times story includes wrenching references to women who lost pregnancies and needed additional surgery.

Rural health care costs money. But Kansas also hasn’t expanded Medicaid services, and Marshall has steadfastly opposed the Affordable Care Act. Did he just prefer his patients poor and indebted to him?

Marshall can’t help but look worse for wear. I’m sure those in the Hamilton campaign have celebrated accordingly. (Keep that champagne in the icebox for now, kids. There’s a lot of time left).

This is what happens after decades of dominance by a single political party and erosion of news media influence. Vetting Kansas politicians takes time, energy and attention. Marshall had an enormous glass jaw that didn’t come into focus until he faced a competitive race. We’ve seen shoddy campaign work and Trumpy outbursts before. The lawsuits in question happened years ago.

But we’re only now putting the pieces together.

We’ve seen the same pattern play out in the governor’s race. State Senate President Ty Masterson, the Republican nominee, finally faced wide scrutiny for his “no-show job” at Wichita State University as the primary approached. He officially went on leave last month. I’d written about the dubious arrangement for years, but elections have a way of clarifying the mind.

Even the most polished and charismatic candidates should face scrutiny from reporters and opposing campaign operatives. It doesn’t matter how powerful their party or financial backers might be. Every candidate should answer tough questions and respond to tough stories. They should run, address fair criticism, and let voters choose.

Marshall has lingered far too long in the shadow of Trump. The time has arrived for the good doctor to step into the sunlight, taking responsibility for the past and outlining a positive vision for the future.

If he can’t manage that, I’m sure Hamilton’s campaign would like a word.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. His first book, “Opinionated: Kansas Journalists Who Proved Why Commentary Matters — Then and Now,” comes out Sept. 29 from the University Press of Kansas. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

A former paraprofessional at Edwardsville Elementary School says she was fired after telling a visiting state representative that trans rights are human rights, and now she's taking the school district to federal court. Barbara Williams filed a lawsuit against Bonner Springs-Edwardsville Unified School District last month, claiming the district violated her First Amendment rights when it let her go over the March exchange with Rep. Carolyn Caiharr.

According to the lawsuit, reported by the Kansas City Star, Williams told Caiharr during the representative's visit to Edwardsville Elementary that trans rights are human rights and that diverting taxpayer money to private schools was not right. Williams says she was not technically on the clock during the interaction and claims she had a First Amendment right to express herself in a local government building. She is seeking $50,000 for lost wages and distress, along with financial and punitive damages, and has requested a jury trial in Kansas City, Kansas.

Williams claims in her suit that the school district infringed on her First Amendment rights and wrongfully fired her after she shared her political beliefs with Caiharr. Per the same account, Richard Moulin drafted the paperwork placing Williams on administrative leave and later recommended that the school board vote to fire her. Williams says she wants punitive action taken to deter similar treatment of other employees, according to the lawsuit.

District and Lawmaker Respond

Bonner Springs-Edwardsville Unified School District said it was reviewing the complaint but declined to discuss details of the pending litigation, the Star reports. Greg Goheen, who represents the district, said it will respond to Williams in court as appropriate. The district serves roughly 2,560 students across Wyandotte and Leavenworth counties. Edwardsville Elementary, where the March encounter happened, serves about 330 students in kindergarten through fifth grade.

Caiharr told the Star she learned about the lawsuit on Wednesday and said she was not involved in the district's hiring or termination decisions. She said she would defer to the school district on further details of the matter. Caiharr replaced former Rep. Mike Thompson in the Kansas Legislature; Thompson retired from politics in 2025, according to the Star's reporting.

A Mayor-Turned-Lawmaker in a Swing District

Caiharr is mayor of Edwardsville and a Republican representing District 33 in the Kansas House. She was appointed to the seat in August 2025 by a 13–0 precinct vote after Thompson's resignation, according to the Sunflower State Journal, and had previously served four years on the Edwardsville City Council before becoming mayor. Kansas state law allows local elected officials to hold municipal office while also serving in the Legislature, which is why Caiharr can remain mayor while representing District 33 in Topeka.

Caiharr is now seeking her first full term representing the district and will face Democrat Emily Blanks in the November general election. Blanks, a member of the Bonner Springs City Council, won 78% of the vote in the August Democratic primary to secure her party's nomination, according to The Community Voice. House District 33, which covers Bonner Springs, Edwardsville and other western Wyandotte County communities, was historically represented by Democrats before flipping to Republican victories in both 2022 and 2024, according to a Substack analysis of the race.

The Politics Behind the Exchange

The two issues Williams says she raised with Caiharr both track with the lawmaker's public record in Topeka. In April, Kansas House Bill 2468 would have increased the program's annual cap to $15 million for tax year 2026, but the governor vetoed the bill. Kansas lawmakers have debated restrictions on public restrooms and changing facilities according to biological sex.

Williams' claim rests on a legal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 decision in Pickering v. Board of Education, which holds that public school employees retain First Amendment protections to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, so long as that speech does not unjustifiably disrupt school operations, according to Oyez. Whether the district can show Williams' comments caused real disruption during school hours is likely to be a central question as the case moves through court.

The Tenth Circuit has stated that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights, according to a Mar 5, 2018, court opinion.

For now, the lawsuit adds a legal fight to what was already shaping up as Caiharr's first full-term election in House District 33, with both Caiharr and Blanks holding local government seats even as they campaign for the state legislative post ahead of November.

A decade ago or so, parents were finding loom bands in the couch cushions and underfoot during a craze for the analog toys. Kids made bracelets and other items, and in the vein of LEGO and other build-your-own entertainment, YouTube creators provided tutorials for elaborate projects. The toy fad may have waned, but for artist Hannah Beuchler, the small, colorful rubber bands proved an accessible material for an inventive application.

At a glance, Beuchler’s works appear like expressionist paintings, with gestural brushstrokes and carefully chosen colors. But our senses are piqued by the unusual texture, and upon closer inspection, we observe thousands of loom bands in vibrant relief.

Beuchler draws upon her interest in fabrics and mark-making techniques of the Impressionists. She’s interested in pushing the boundaries of textiles by using found and recycled materials, and her works often plumb the relationship between natural and synthetic media.

Utilizing a felt template, which also serves as the substrate, Beuchler loops the bands onto small tufts of colorful wool roving. Soft and malleable, these segments can be curved and nestled in among one another to create any shape, assembled almost like a puzzle. The finished work retains its textile-like pliability, but when framed and installed on the wall, it assumes the character of a painting.

See more on Beuchler’s work on Instagram.

Do stories and artists like this matter to you? Become a Colossal Member today and support independent arts publishing for as little as $7 per month. The article Hannah Beuchler Loops Thousands of Colorful Loom Bands like Brushstrokes appeared first on Colossal.