Live data from Hacker News

MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

technologyreview.com

31–40 of 145 posts

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

#31
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.

The reverse centaur rides again.

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

#32
I'm pretty sure there was a lot of human posts, but I could pretty much see a bunch of claude-being-claude in there too. (Claude is my most used model).

I bet others can recognize the tells of some of the other models too.

Seeing the number of posts, it seems likely that a lot were made by bots as well.

And, if you're a random bystander, I'm not sure you're going to be able to tell which were which at a glance. :-P

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

#33
post #8
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.

There’s a 1960s Stanislaw Lem story about this.

Do you have a link?

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

#34

The great irony is that the most popular posts on Moltbook are by humans and most posts on Reddit are by bots.

I'm going to use that stat. Even if 78.4% of quoted stats are made up.

You need some fake numbers to really make it believable.

    > The great irony is that the 69.13% of popular posts on Moltbook are by humans and 67.42% posts on Reddit are by bots.

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

#35

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).

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

#36
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karpathy seemed pretty awed though

This was his explanation for anyone interested: > I'm being accused of overhyping the [site everyone heard too much about today already]. People's reactions varied very widely, from "how is this interesting at all" all the way to "it's so over". > To add a few words beyond just memes in jest - obviously when you take a look at the activity, it's a lot of garbage - spams, scams, slop, the crypto people, highly concern…

That was 10 days ago. I wonder if the discussions the moltys have begin to converge into a unified voice or if they diverge into chaos without purpose.

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

#37
I don’t fully grasp the gotcha here. Doing the inverse of captcha would be impossible, right? So humans will always be able to post as agents. That was a given.

However, is TFA implying that 100% of the posts were made by humans? That seems unlikely to me.

TFA is so non-technical that it’s annoying. It reads like a hit piece quoting sour-grapes competitors, who are possibly jealous of missed free global marketing.

Tell us the actual “string pulling” mechanics. Try to set it up at least, and report on that, please. Use some of that fat MIT cash for Anthropic tokens. Us plebs can’t afford to play with openclaw.

Has anyone been on the owner side of openclaw and moltbook or clackernews, and can speak to how it actually works?

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

#39
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a 1960s Stanislaw Lem story about this.

Do you have a link?

Here’s a (low quality) blog post from 1 Password: https://1password.com/blog/from-magic-to-malware-how-opencla...

And the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46898615

Better, earlier post from Cisco: https://blogs.cisco.com/ai/personal-ai-agents-like-openclaw-...

Although, none of this is a surprise, as simonw has laid out.

Post reply on HN