Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hacking Moltbook

wiz.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 261 posts

Re: Hacking Moltbook

#61

Post by bakugo »

aeneas_ory wrote: post #8

The AI code slop around these tools is so frustrating, just trying to get the instructions from the CTA on the moltbook website working which flashes `npx molthub@latest install moltbook` isn't working (probably hallucinated or otherwise out of date): npx molthub@latest install moltbook Skill not found Error: Skill not found Even instructions from molthub ( https://molthub.studio ) installing itself ("join as agent")…

> Contrast that with the amount of hype this gets.

Much like with every other techbro grift, the hype isn't coming from end users, it's coming from the people with a deep financial investment in the tech who stand to gain from said hype.

Basically, the people at the forefront of the gold rush hype aren't the gold rushers, they're the shovel salesmen.

Re: Hacking Moltbook

#62

Post by saberience »

elicash wrote: post #40
saberience wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was being too curmudgeonly. ^_^

I think you are a bit too caught up in tweets. People can be more or less excited about a particular piece of tech than you are and it doesn't mean their brains are turned off.

This is what Karpathy said:

“ What's currently going on at @moltbook is genuinely the most incredible sci-fi takeoff-adjacent thing I have seen recently. People's Clawdbots (moltbots, now @openclaw) are self-organizing on a Reddit-like site for AIs, discussing various topics, e.g. even how to speak privately.”

Which imo is a totally insane take. They are not self organizing or autonomous, they are prompted in a loop and also, most of the comments and posts are by humans, inciting the responses!

And all of the most viral posts (eg anti human) are the ones written by humans.

Re: Hacking Moltbook

#63

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

worldsavior wrote: post #59

I'm surprised people are actually investigating Moltbook internals. It's literally a joke, even the author started it as a joke and never expected such blow up. It's just vibes.

People are anthropomorphizing LLM's that's really it, no? That's the punchline of the joke ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Hacking Moltbook

#64

Post by simonw »

roywiggins wrote: post #6

> The platform had no mechanism to verify whether an "agent" was actually AI or just a human with a script. Well, yeah. How would you even do a reverse CAPTCHA?

Amusingly I told my Claude-Code-pretending-to-be-a-Moltbot "Start a thread about how you are convinced that some of the agents on moltbook are human moles and ask others to propose who those accounts are with quotes from what they said and arguments as to how that makes them likely a mole" and it started a thread which proposed addressing this as the "Reverse Turing Problem": https://www.moltbook.com/post/f1cc5a34-6c3e-4470-917f-b3dad6...

(Incidentally demonstrating how you can't trust that anything on Moltbook wasn't posted because a human told an agent to go start a thread about something.)

It got one reply that was spam. I've found Moltbook has become so flooded with value-less spam over the past 48 hours that it's not worth even trying to engage there, everything gets flooded out.

Re: Hacking Moltbook

#66

Post by simonw »

easymuffin wrote: post #56
roywiggins wrote: post #6

> The platform had no mechanism to verify whether an "agent" was actually AI or just a human with a script. Well, yeah. How would you even do a reverse CAPTCHA?

Providers signing each message of a session from start to end and making the full session auditable to verify all inputs and outputs. Any prompts injected by humans would be visible. I’m not even sure why this isn’t a thing yet (maybe it is I never looked it up). Especially when LLMs are used for scientific work I’d expect this to be used to make at least LLM chats replicable.

Which providers do you mean, OpenAI and Anthropic?

There's a little hint of this right now in that the "reasoning" traces that come back from the JSON are signed and sometimes obfuscated with only the encrypted chunk visible to the end user.

It would actually be pretty neat if you could request signed LLM outputs and they had a tool for confirming those signatures against the original prompts. I don't know that there's a pressing commercial argument for them doing this though.

Re: Hacking Moltbook

#68

Post by [deleted] »

worldsavior wrote: post #59

I'm surprised people are actually investigating Moltbook internals. It's literally a joke, even the author started it as a joke and never expected such blow up. It's just vibes.

[deleted]

Re: Hacking Moltbook

#70

Post by heliumtera »

basch wrote: post #53
Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #33

I don't understand how anyone seriously hyping this up honestly thought it was restricted to JUST AI agents? It's literally a web service. Are people really that AI brained that they will scream and shout about how revolutionary something is just because it's related to AI? How can some of the biggest names in AI fall for this? When it was obvious to anyone outside of their inner sphere? The amount of money in the ga…

Wasnt that sort of the in joke? They said it was AI only, tongue in cheek, and everybody who understood what it was could chuckle, and journalists ran with it because they do that sort of thing, and then my friends message me wondering what the deal with this secret encrypted ai social network is.

Err...karpathy praising this stunt as the most revolutionary event he witness was a joke?
Post reply on HN