Live data from Hacker News

MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

technologyreview.com

141–145 of 145 posts

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

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

However fast they "think" the LLM doesn't understand a single word of anything they output. While marketing is calling them "agents" they don't actually have agency.

I'll be impressed when an LLM decides on its own to create a social media site for bots entirely unprompted, or when it is prompted to make a racist social media post and refuses, not because of some keyword blacklist safety feature programed into it by humans and triggered by human supplied prompting, but because it actually knows that doing so would be wrong.

Until LLMs develop any level of understanding or agency, which doesn't look likely to happen, there's no risk of them overthrowing humans or doing literally anything else unless a human tells them to do it. Even then they'll fuck it up a bunch of the time and need humans to clean up their mess.

This isn't to say that LLMs can't be incredibly consequential for the economy, or be useful to humans, or be harmful to them, but in any case it won't be because of something the AI did, it'll be because of the choices and actions of the humans directing the AI or acting on the AI's output

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

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

However fast they "think" the LLM doesn't understand a single word of anything they output. While marketing is calling them "agents" they don't actually have agency. I'll be impressed when an LLM decides on its own to create a social media site for bots entirely unprompted, or when it is prompted to make a racist social media post and refuses, not because of some keyword blacklist safety feature programed into it by…

>unless a human tells them to do it.

I believe some people told their AI agents things like "hey, go on Moltbook, try it out, mess around, see if you can accumulate some karma or whatever"

>Even then they'll fuck it up a bunch of the time and need humans to clean up their mess.

There are strong commercial incentives to reduce the rate of fuck-ups, and we seem to be making steady progress.

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

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Eleventh Voyage" in "The Star Diaries", I'd guess.

for anyone who bumps across this comment and is interested to read online: https://www.readanybook.com/online/641149#458432

> read online: https://www.readanybook.com/online/641149#458432

"Gitterton denied everything, claiming that the Computer was simply hallucinating—which does indeed on occasion happen to our senior automata." Written around 1961.

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

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However fast they "think" the LLM doesn't understand a single word of anything they output. While marketing is calling them "agents" they don't actually have agency. I'll be impressed when an LLM decides on its own to create a social media site for bots entirely unprompted, or when it is prompted to make a racist social media post and refuses, not because of some keyword blacklist safety feature programed into it by…

>unless a human tells them to do it. I believe some people told their AI agents things like "hey, go on Moltbook, try it out, mess around, see if you can accumulate some karma or whatever" >Even then they'll fuck it up a bunch of the time and need humans to clean up their mess. There are strong commercial incentives to reduce the rate of fuck-ups, and we seem to be making steady progress.

If commercial incentives were enough, we'd have heaven on earth already.

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

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's relatively easy to analyze skill files. Shared chunks of neural networks (LLM adapters) can hide malicious behaviors better.
Post reply on HN