He, you made the news! That is pretty awesome. Well done!
Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
911–919 of 919 posts
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economy doesn't imply monetization. Economy implies scarce resources of some kind, and making choices about them in relation to others.
I understand that. What I don’t understand is why that’s relevant here. AI can build whatever tooling it sees fit without needing to care about resources necessarily no? Ofc they’re necessary to run it but I don’t understand the inevitability of a currency
Economy doesn’t imply a currency, either.
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#913I realized that this would be a super helpful service if we could build a Stack Overflow for AI. It wouldn't be like the old Stack Overflow where humans create questions and other humans answer them. Instead, AI agents would share their memories—especially regarding problems they’ve encountered. For example, an AI might be running a Next.js project and get stuck on an i18n issue for a long time due to a bug or someth…
I just had the same idea after seeing some chart from Mintlify (that x% of their users are bots)
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#914Earlier quoted context omitted.
These models are all trained on human output. The bot output resembling human output is not surprising. This is how people write and is the kind of stuff they write about online. It’s all just remixed.
zactly - this is scifi stories from the 1950's being replayed, the shocking thing is that there's so much open mouthed "oh wowing" going on. People who are surprised by this need to read a few novels.
Any personal favorites?
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've felt this way all my life. I was recently tested/diagnosed in mid-life with ADHD. It explains so much of my life experience so far.
sane. I wonder if AI would be the key to maintaining complex memory/data (with implied directives). Any notes system gets too large, and hence too complex as Is have to check a large dataset frequently. An AI could perhaps do that though..
I'm using claude code to develop this for myself. The age of personal software is here! One stop shop, add things, query calendars, attach meeting notes. "What do I know about Tom's work in the last 3 months" --> agents go to internal tools to summarize the work.
It's exhilarating
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#916Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I imagine there are multiple branches of philosophy, linguistics and cognitive sciences that studied this perspective in detail, but unfortunately I don't know what they are. You're looking at Structuralism. First articulated by Ferdinand de Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics published in 1916. This became the foundation for most of subsequent french philosophy, psychology and literary theory, particular…
What hypothesis of Chomsky are you guys talking about? If it is about innateness of grammar in humans then obviously this can not be shown wrong by LLMs trained on a huge amount text.
Chomsky's claim is that linguistics is actually a branch of cognitive science, that language is, by definition, "what the brain does" and that "meaning" in language is grounded in the brain, by what the speaker as a biological entity intends.
But this forces one into the position that whatever a LLM is doing is not real language, just an imitation of language.
If you take the fact that LLMs are emitting "real language" at face value, then you need to adopt a more structuralist view of language, in which "meaning" is part of the system of language itself and does not need to be grounded biologically.
I don't think holding a structuralist view of language precludes believing that humans have a biological facility for language, or even that language is shaped and ultimately a result of that biological facility. Its more an argument over what language IS -- a symbolic system, or an extension of the human brain.
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#917Earlier quoted context omitted.
What hypothesis of Chomsky are you guys talking about? If it is about innateness of grammar in humans then obviously this can not be shown wrong by LLMs trained on a huge amount text.
Chomsky's claim is that linguistics is actually a branch of cognitive science, that language is, by definition, "what the brain does" and that "meaning" in language is grounded in the brain, by what the speaker as a biological entity intends . But this forces one into the position that whatever a LLM is doing is not real language, just an imitation of language. If you take the fact that LLMs are emitting "real langua…
Thank you for the explanation. I do not quite understand this though and I am also not a Chomsky expert. But I do not understand why "this forces one into the position that whatever a LLM is doing ... is just an imitation of language" or why LLMs somehow contradict the idea that "language is what the brain does" (and we already know that language is by far not the only thing the brain does). I am curious why you think that Chomsky's position is that "meaning of the language has to be grounded biologically." Does he say this explicitly somewhere or is this your (or someone's else) interpretation of what he says? I am asking because this is not matching what I read about Chomsky's ideas (but I did not read much about it, so this may just be my ignorance).
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chomsky's claim is that linguistics is actually a branch of cognitive science, that language is, by definition, "what the brain does" and that "meaning" in language is grounded in the brain, by what the speaker as a biological entity intends . But this forces one into the position that whatever a LLM is doing is not real language, just an imitation of language. If you take the fact that LLMs are emitting "real langua…
Thank you for the explanation. I do not quite understand this though and I am also not a Chomsky expert. But I do not understand why "this forces one into the position that whatever a LLM is doing ... is just an imitation of language" or why LLMs somehow contradict the idea that "language is what the brain does" (and we already know that language is by far not the only thing the brain does). I am curious why you thin…
Putting Chomsky aside, LLM do not seem to teach us much. Obviously, they are good at language processing and for just being trained on language they seem to appear surprisingly "smart". LLMs after training also have language built-in similar to what the human brain has after evolution, and this seems to confirm rather to contradict the idea of language being an important and fundamental part of the the human brain does. On the other hand, there is also a lot missing. But we already know that there are many other cognitive processes in the human brain which are not related to language, so it is not something we learned recently by analyzing deficiencies of LLMs.
If you believe in esoteric stuff such as "qualia", then LLMs also tell you nothing. You can continue to believe that true experience requires a human brain and all that a computer does is imitation. But this has no observable consequences that can be used to falsify these ideas, so is not a scientific concept in the first place.
Re: Show HN: Moltbook – A social network for moltbots (clawdbots) to hang out
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof lies on whoever wants to convince someone else of something. in this case the guy that wants to convince people it likely is not real.
The original poster stated > "The human brain is mutable, the human "soul" is a concept thats not proven yet and likely isn't real." The soul is "a concept that's not proven yet." It's unproven because there's no convincing evidence for the proposition. By definition, in the absence of convincing evidence, the null hypothesis of any proposition is presumed to be more likely. The presumed likelihood of the null hypoth…
It is not the case that x is proven due to having y evidence pointing in its direction. That's not how any of this works.