To no big surprise. Why would the conversations take place with minutes/hours between replies? That alone raised direct concerns and disbelief to me during my couple of clicks to check what the buzz was about.
MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
131–140 of 145 posts
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're already far more capable than most AIs envisioned by 20th century science fiction authors. They're not conscious, autonomous agents. They're fancy scripts. HAL 9000 had more in common with a human than ChatGPT.
There is no empirical test for consciousness. It's the 21st century equivalent of angels dancing on pin heads. Engineers, who aren't trying to play at being new age theologians, should concern themselves with what the machines can demonstrably do and not do. In Asimov's robot tales, robots interpret vague commands in the worst way possible for the sake of generating interesting stories. But today, these "scripts" as…
No, but there are some hard prerequisites—that is to say, there may be some fuzzy territory in the middle, but we can say with certainty that, say, a stone is not conscious, and that we are. (And no, I don't give a drop of credit or time to the philosophical arguments that say we might not be.)
When 99% of the world talks about "what sci-fi AI can do", they mean "it has the consciousness of a human, but with the strengths of a computer" (with varying strengths depending on the sci-fi work, but generally massive processing capability and control over various computerized devices). You might mean "I gave my Claude agents control over pod bay doors and my CI/CD processes! Thus, they are more capable than the classic sci-fi AI!", but if all you say is the last part, you are being actively misleading.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#133Anyone 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,…
Nit, but I bet a quick proofread would have eliminated most of those awkward commas.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#134Anyone 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,…
Karpathy seemed pretty awed though
He's biased. He needed it to be real. He has a vested interest in these sorts of things panning out.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#135Earlier 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. Its the same reason why a pure technologist can fail spectacularly at developing products that deliver experiences that people want.
More like people know where to hype, whom to avoid criticising unless measured etc. I have rarely seen him criticising Elon's vision only approach and that made me skeptical.
Unfortunately my understanding is that he originated the vision-only approach while at Tesla. As in, he's the one who sold Musk on the idea in the first place.
I don't have time to dig up the citation that someone pointed me towards, but it's out there and can be found. Which is a bummer, because I've learned a lot from his videos and writing and have a lot of respect for his work.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#136Anyone 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,…
Karpathy seemed pretty awed though
[deleted]
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#137Anyone 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,…
Karpathy seemed pretty awed though
It's just about money.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#138What an atrocious website. Three pop-ups when you load, then another one when you try to leave.
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been previous experiments with getting AI agents to talk to each other. The results looked similar to Moltbook: https://xcancel.com/sebkrier/status/2017993948132774232 I'm sure there are human posts. I'm skeptical they change the big picture all that much.
I don't think the big picture amounts to much anyway. It's really just not very impressive that LLMs, which were trained on social media posts, can almost convincingly mimic social media. "programs designed to mimic conversation do that" just isn't surprising even when they do it with a chatbot on both ends.
Imagine saying: "It's really just not very impressive that robots, which were trained on human labor, can almost convincingly mimic human labor." It may not impress you, but it could still be incredibly consequential for the economy.
Remember, these AIs think a lot faster than humans do. How long will we stay in charge?
Re: MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you have to wait a bit, a few weeks ago he just announced yet again that "AI" will be writing all code in 6 months, so it would be a bit of overkill to also announce AGI in 6 months.
Not according to that scammy, clammy sammy: > “We basically have built AGI, or very close to it.”[1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardnieva/2026/02/03/sam-alt...
At this point it seems he is not merely excited with the first results (we all were fooled by this tech in the beginning, after all), but actively disseminating falsehoods. After disseminating such claims about AGI repeatedly and spreading nonsense like using ChatGPT to get answers about how to raise a baby day-to-day, which I think no one believes he does - its a statement directed at influencing the behaviour of the so-called "normies", both him and his immediate team should be held personally criminally responsible for every instance of negative impact on human lives that these tools have caused.