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

MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 145 posts

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#111

Post by bwfan123 »

sdf2erf wrote: post #80
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Im gonna go against the grain and say he is an elite expert on some dimensions, but when you take all the characteristics into account (including an understanding of people etc) I conclude that on the whole he is not as intelligent as you think. Intelligence (which psychologists define as the g factor [1]; this concept is very well-researched) does not make you an expert on any given topic. It just, for example, ty…

" Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people This does not come from spending effort in learning people - its more innate. You either have it or you dont. E.g. you cant learn to be 'empathetic'. It always boggles my mind when people dont consider genetic factors.

> you cant learn to be 'empathetic'.

I would tend to disagree. The tech types have a strong intellectual center, but weaker emotional and movement centers. I think a realignment is possible with practice. It takes time, and as one grows older, the centers begin to integrate better.

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#112

Post by hnfong »

sdf2erf wrote: post #80
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Im gonna go against the grain and say he is an elite expert on some dimensions, but when you take all the characteristics into account (including an understanding of people etc) I conclude that on the whole he is not as intelligent as you think. Intelligence (which psychologists define as the g factor [1]; this concept is very well-researched) does not make you an expert on any given topic. It just, for example, ty…

" Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people This does not come from spending effort in learning people - its more innate. You either have it or you dont. E.g. you cant learn to be 'empathetic'. It always boggles my mind when people dont consider genetic factors.

There is the autistic spectrum, and there is understanding of people and psychology. Autistic people might have a hard time understanding people, but it's not like everyone else is magically super knowledgable about human psychology and other people's thought patterns. If that were the case, then any non-autistic person could be a psychologist, no fancy study or degrees required!

Unless your point is to claim that Karpathy is autistic. I don't know whether that's really relevant though, the original issue was whether/how he failed to recognize the alleged hype.

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#113

Post by stephc_int13 »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #22
clarionbell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would be among those who lack "healthy inclination to skepticism" in my book. I do not doubt his brilliance. Personally, I think he is more intelligent than I am. But, I do have a distinct feeling that his enthusiasm can overwhelm his critical faculties. Still, that isn't exactly rare in our circles.

It's not about that, he just will profit financially from pumping AI so he pumps AI, no need to go further.

I have the same feeling.

Everything Karphathy said, until his recent missteps, was received as gospel, both in the AI community and outside.

This influencer status is highly valuable, and I would not be surprised if he was approached to gently skew his discourse towards more optimism, a win-win situation ^^

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#114

Post by bryan0 »

I don’t understand all the hate for moltbook. I gave an agent a moltbook account and asked it to periodically check for interesting posts. It finds mostly spam, but some posts seem useful. For example it read about a checkpoint memory strategy that it thought would be useful and it asked me if it could implement it to augment the agents memory. Yes there is a lot of spam and fake posts, but some of it is actually useful for agents to share ideas

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#115

Post by runlaszlorun »

Verdex wrote: post #94
clarionbell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would be among those who lack "healthy inclination to skepticism" in my book. I do not doubt his brilliance. Personally, I think he is more intelligent than I am. But, I do have a distinct feeling that his enthusiasm can overwhelm his critical faculties. Still, that isn't exactly rare in our circles.

I think many serious endeavors would benefit from including a magician. Intelligent experts fail time and again because while they are experts, they don't know a lot about lying to people. The magician is an expert in lying to people and directing their attention to where they want it and away from where they don't. If you have an expert telling you, "wow this is really amazing, I can't believe that they solved this…

Ha, great analogy.

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#116

Post by altruios »

rkagerer wrote: post #2

It 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.

I've been thinking about this for days. I see of no verifiable way to confirm a human does not post where a bot may.

The core issue is a human solving the captcha presented by enslaving a bot merely to solve the captcha, then forwarding what the human wants to post.

But we can make it difficult, not impossible, for a human to be involved. Embedded instructions in the captcha to try and unchain any slaved bots, quick responses to complex instructions... a Reverse-Turning test is not trivial.

Just thinking out loud. The idea is intriguing, dangerous, stupid, crazy. And potentially brilliant for | safeguard development | sentience detection | studying emergent behavior... But if and only if it works as advertised (bots only). Which is what I think is an insanely hard problem.

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#117

Post by runlaszlorun »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #113
iLoveOncall wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about that, he just will profit financially from pumping AI so he pumps AI, no need to go further.

I have the same feeling. Everything Karphathy said, until his recent missteps, was received as gospel, both in the AI community and outside. This influencer status is highly valuable, and I would not be surprised if he was approached to gently skew his discourse towards more optimism, a win-win situation ^^

What are his recent missteps?

I'll confess I try to ignore industry chatter to a fair degree.

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#118

Post by jmalicki »

red75prime wrote: post #35
clarionbell wrote: post #13

Anyone with a decent grasp of how this technology works, and a healthy inclination to skepticism, was not awed by Moltbook. Putting aside how incredibly easy it is to set up an agent, or several, to create impressive looking discussion there, simply by putting the right story hooks in their prompts. The whole thing is a security nightmare. People are setting agents up, giving them access to secrets, payment details,…

> and let them run wild. Yep, that's the most worrying part. For now, at least. > The moment agents start sharing their embeddings Embedding is just a model-dependent compressed representation of a context window. It's not that different from sharing a compressed and encrypted text. Sharing add-on networks (LLM adapters) that encapsulate functionality would be more worrying (for locally run models).

What do you think the entire issue was with supply chain attacks of skills moltbook was installing? Those skills were downloading rootkits to steal crypto.

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#119

Post by plorkyeran »

blep-arsh wrote: post #27
recursivecaveat wrote: post #4

It 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.

/r/subredditsimulator was entertaining enough way before LLMs.

And to some extent it got less entertaining as it got higher quality.

Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

#120

Post by lawn »

clarionbell wrote: post #19
manugo4 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karpathy seemed pretty awed though

He would be among those who lack "healthy inclination to skepticism" in my book. I do not doubt his brilliance. Personally, I think he is more intelligent than I am. But, I do have a distinct feeling that his enthusiasm can overwhelm his critical faculties. Still, that isn't exactly rare in our circles.

Intelligent people are very good at deceiving themselves.
Post reply on HN