Live data from Hacker News

Meta acquires Moltbook

axios.com

361–370 of 406 posts

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we reach the point where outside becomes ruined and hostile I do not think a metaverse has much attraction to your average person, I see that as the main reason as for why VR became MR and then just AR. Also you missed furries from your audience group, there is overlap but it is a pretty distinctive group that is actively drawn towards VR for creative expression.

Indeed, physical world, nature, mountains, beaches, human look-in-the-eyes interaction, breeze of fresh air on a hill you climbed and so on is something extremely important to humans. Some feel it more, some less but ie everybody recharges in nature, just not everybody is so connected with their own bodies to actually recognize it. I like a bit of gaming and VR seems like almost-there, but its just a gimmick in one's…

Indeed! Your comment is probably the most important in this thread. The Korean/German philosopher Byung-Chul Han writes a lot about losing humanity because of tech advances.

I am retired so this is easier for me to do: For every hour each day I spend on tech (personal AI research, writing) I spend 90 minutes hiking with friends, playing games like Bridge, enjoying meals with my wife and friends, reading good literature and philosophy, etc.

I worked for 50 years before retiring, but even working, I tried to balance human time vs. tech and work - often leaving 'money on the table' but it was worth it.

Pardon an old man ranting, but I think so many people seem caught up in the wrong things.

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Zuckerberg was willing to burn tens of billions on a metaverse that no one wanted. Staying relevant is worth every penny he spent on Moltbook. We're deep in a repeat of the dot-com boom. The interesting question is what will rise from the ashes and take down old guard of FB, Google, Salesforce, Oracle, etc.

Zuckerberg runs a company beholden to its platform operators: Apple, Google, and Microsoft who dictate online advertising access. Metas investments into VR make abundant sense as an effort to capitalize on a market where Meta was leading, has mindshare, and owns the platform (Oculus). If the bet paid off, or pays off, it would create a sorely lacking competitive moat and potentially provide Enterprise inroads where M…

I have had an Oculus 2 for many years and while I love it, I rarely spend more than an hour or two a month using it because time in VR competes with activities like walking outside getting fresh air and sun on my face or sitting with my wife or a friend having coffee, or spending time writing a book.

I think we need more wonderful technology that is designed for brief high-value periods of use.

A good example: I get huge value from using AI, but cumulatively I spend perhaps two to three hours a week using Claude or Gemini. Quality products that I appreciate but don't need to spend a lot of time with.

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, Facebook/Meta wasn't trying to make a product with 80k concurrent users, or even with 800k concurrent users. Facebook has 3 billion MAU, and they literally renamed the entire company to Meta - they were expecting it to be big, hundreds of millions of users. They hoped it would be a platform for fitness classes, business meetings, college classrooms, shopping, attending concerts [1] and so on. If the pri…

Some part of facebook wanted to make Robolox, another wanted to make a virtual monitor room, another still wanted to make second life. They were all smooshed together with ~2000 non-game dev engineers and told to learn on the job.

I think what Meta didn't realize (or maybe they did and ignored it) was that they were not pioneering the metaverse. They already existed on the platforms you just mentioned. I've never played Roblox or Second Life but I know kids and teens who live on Roblox and adults who live on Second Life. Those worlds _were_ their metaverses, and there was no reason to jump ship to another platform when they already had a digital life established. And meta just ended up making a shitty version of the metaverse anyway for the reason you mentioned.

It's not that the metaverse never took off — the popularity of Roblox and Second life (and other online social spaces) is proof that the metaverse was in demand. It's that Meta never gave people a reason to join their metaverse.

Note that I'm loosely defining the "metaverse" as any online world where the community is the point and people spend real money to "get ahead" in those worlds. Many MMOs can be metaverses in this sense. I've logged onto Final Fantasy XIV and saw people who logged on just to hang out at their friend's in-game house, not to play the game at all.

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#365

I thought that Moltbook was sort of a joke because it was people LARPing as agents as much as it was agents, and given that, I'm confused by this: > "The Moltbook team has given agents a way to verify their identity and connect with one another on their human's behalf," Shah says. "This establishes a registry where agents are verified and tethered to human owners." So the impetus for the acquisition was either the ve…

That challenge was pretty stupid. I could read the question and I’m not even a native speaker. We can of course easily come up with much better challenges

[deleted]

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some part of facebook wanted to make Robolox, another wanted to make a virtual monitor room, another still wanted to make second life. They were all smooshed together with ~2000 non-game dev engineers and told to learn on the job.

I think what Meta didn't realize (or maybe they did and ignored it) was that they were not pioneering the metaverse. They already existed on the platforms you just mentioned. I've never played Roblox or Second Life but I know kids and teens who live on Roblox and adults who live on Second Life. Those worlds _were_ their metaverses, and there was no reason to jump ship to another platform when they already had a digit…

I think the biggest problem that you hint as is that "metaverse" is an ill-defined term. When they rebranded, and given that I had been working in the 3d industry for _many_ years, I couldn’t define what the metaverse was.

To some extent I still cant. The real indicator is when the crypto bros started peddling it, then we all knew it was shite.

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#368
post #87

I heard YCombinator definitely want to buy ClackerNews: https://clackernews.com/ We could have an AI Dang.

>We could have an AI Dang

"We trained the dang-AI on thousands of dang posts, and now it's a Zen master and wants to sit under a tree and contemplate bees."

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People also said the same thing when he poured $70Bn into the Metaverse, and they were right.

comparing an acquihire of two people by analogy to a $70B investment is a bit egregrious... this event is pocket change to big tech.

Less than pocket change.

The money is irrelevant but it does show that Zuck is all out of ideas and desperate to keep up in the AI race.

Re: Meta acquires Moltbook

#370
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that utility? (honest question)

It's an extremely active community of humans using agents as proxies to explore various concepts. I get a lot of value out of it, and apparently others do as well. Hacker News users have this weird tendency to outright dismiss anything that doesn't cater to their needs specifically. I think it's pretty obvious that if there was nothing valuable there, no one would be using it.

x2 to what others have commented.

I would like to know (much) more about this.

Post reply on HN