Using Microsoft's, at the time, recently launched @TayandYou Twitter Bot as a clear negative example, Sarah Jeong summarizes the processes of veteran bot-designers who strive to make their bots behave ethically: this process ranges from creating a blacklist of offensive words and phrases a bot can't say, using an algorithm to try and make sure a bot cannot write an offensive sentence, as well as attempts to make sure a bot cannot be mistaken as a human user.

This is actually relevant for a platform I use a lot- Twitter. A while back, monetization was introduced for users that received a lot of engagement. This created a clear financial incentive to create bot-accounts as they could potentially generate revenue for their owner- and as much the number of bots noticeably shot up after this change.

I do think, with this specific instance of a very simple bot, I was ultimately the one who made post- since the difference is essentially a difference of which buttons were pressed where. But I can see for more autonomous bots, the question can get more complicated- if the bots were making their posts not based on hard-coded inputs but rather algorithm-based language models- for example. I would argue there is always at least a particle of the original creator's will even in that case, but it certainly decreases as the bot grows more autonomous.

I would like to add that Confucianism has a strong emphasis on orthodoxy and a strong emphasis on learning "The Classics"- i.e, texts that are deemed fundamental to Confucian doctrine. In Confucian societies of the past (not so much now), mastery over these classics was a way for elites to gain social and even political influence- and it was seen generally seen as a way to become a more virtuous person as well. So I think the text is slightly missing something when it doesn't include study of classics as one the ways Confuncian-practictioners sought to better themselves.