MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
technologyreview.com
MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
1–10 of 145 posts
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#2It turned out that the post Karpathy shared was fake—it was written by a human pretending to be a bot.
Hilarious. Instead of just bots impersonating humans (eg. captcha solvers), we now have humans impersonating bots.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#3It turned out that the post Karpathy shared was fake—it was written by a human pretending to be a bot. Hilarious. Instead of just bots impersonating humans (eg. captcha solvers), we now have humans impersonating bots.
Looks like the Moltbook stunt really backfired. CyberInsider reports that OpenClaw is distributing tons of MacOS malware. This is not good publicity for them.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#4It is kind of funny how people recognize that 2000 people all talking in circles on reddit is not exactly a super intelligence, or even productive. Once it's bots larping though suddenly it's a "takeoff-adjacent" hive mind.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#5It is kind of funny how people recognize that 2000 people all talking in circles on reddit is not exactly a super intelligence, or even productive. Once it's bots larping though suddenly it's a "takeoff-adjacent" hive mind.
#WeDidItMoltbook
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#6The great irony is that the most popular posts on Moltbook are by humans and most posts on Reddit are by bots.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#7So the more things change - themore they stay the same ala LLMs will be this gnerations Mechanical Turk , and people will keep getting oneshotted because the hype is just overboard.
Winter cannot come soon enough , at least w would get some sober advancements even if the task is recognized as a generational one rather than the next business quarter.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#8It turned out that the post Karpathy shared was fake—it was written by a human pretending to be a bot. Hilarious. Instead of just bots impersonating humans (eg. captcha solvers), we now have humans impersonating bots.
There’s a 1960s Stanislaw Lem story about this.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#9It turned out that the post Karpathy shared was fake—it was written by a human pretending to be a bot. Hilarious. Instead of just bots impersonating humans (eg. captcha solvers), we now have humans impersonating bots.
Lmao these guys have really been smelling their own farts a bit too much. When is Amodei coming out with a new post telling us that AGI will be here in 6 months and it will double our lifespan?
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#10Wiz's report on Moltbook's data leak[0] notes that the agent to human owner ratio is 88:1, so it's plausible that most of the posts are orchestrated by a few humans pulling the strings of thousands of registered agents.
[0]: https://www.wiz.io/blog/exposed-moltbook-database-reveals-mi...
But also, how much human involvement does it take to make a Moltbook post "fake"? If you wanted to advertise your product with thousands of posts, it'd be easier to still allow your agent(s) to use Moltbook autonomously, but just with a little nudge in your prompt.