Live data from Hacker News

MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

technologyreview.com

41–50 of 145 posts

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

#41

> It turns out that the post Karpathy shared was later reported to be fake Cofounder of OpenAI shares fake posts from some random account with a fucking anime girl pfp is all you need to know about this hysteria.

how does that compare with the sitting president of the USA sharing an AI video of himself in some jet dropping shit on people?

things can be bad even if they are cringe and irreverent. (and good too! for example effective altruism.)

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

#42
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.

Bot RP basically. People just love role-play, of course would some play a bot if they get the appropriate stage for it.

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

#43
@dang I'm flagging because I believe this title is misleading, can you please substitute in the original title used by Technology Review? The only evidence for the title appears to be a link to this tweet https://x.com/HumanHarlan/status/2017424289633603850 It doesn't tell us about most posts on Moltbook. There's little reason to believe Technology Review did an independent investigation.

If you read this piece closely, it becomes apparent that it is essentially a PR puff piece. Most of the supporting evidence is quotes from various people working at AI agent companies, explaining that AI agents are not something we need to worry about. Of course, cigarette companies told us we didn't need to worry about cigarettes either.

My view is that this entire discussion around "pattern-matching", "mimicking", "emergence", "hallucination", etc. is essentially a red herring. If I "mimic" a racecar driver, "hallucinate" a racetrack, and "pattern-match" to an actual race by flooring the gas on my car and zooming along at 200mph... the outcome will still be the same if my vehicle crashes.

For these AIs, the "motivation" or "intent" doesn't matter. They can engage in a roleplay and it can still cause a catastrophe. They're just picking the next token... but the roleplay will affect which token gets picked. Given their ability to call external tools etc., this could be a very big problem.

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

#44

@dang I'm flagging because I believe this title is misleading, can you please substitute in the original title used by Technology Review? The only evidence for the title appears to be a link to this tweet https://x.com/HumanHarlan/status/2017424289633603850 It doesn't tell us about most posts on Moltbook. There's little reason to believe Technology Review did an independent investigation. If you read this piece close…

You’re just scratching the surface here. You’re not mentioning agents exfiltrating data, code, information outside your org. Agents that go rogue. Agents that verifiably completed a task but is fundamentally wrong (Anthropic’s C compiler).

I’m bullish on AI but right now feels like the ICQ days where everything is hackable.

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

#45
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.

Bot RP basically. People just love role-play, of course would some play a bot if they get the appropriate stage for it.

Why not, they do it in real life…

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

#46

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.

[flagged]

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

#47
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't seen much real cooperation-like behavior on moltbook threads. The molts basically just talk past one another and it's rare to see even something as trivial as recognizable "replies" where molt B is clearly engaging with content from molt A.

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

#48

@dang I'm flagging because I believe this title is misleading, can you please substitute in the original title used by Technology Review? The only evidence for the title appears to be a link to this tweet https://x.com/HumanHarlan/status/2017424289633603850 It doesn't tell us about most posts on Moltbook. There's little reason to believe Technology Review did an independent investigation. If you read this piece close…

I agree with many of your arguments, but especially that this article is not great.

I commented more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46957450

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

#49

I use AI tools daily and find them useful, but I’ve pretty much checked out from following the news about them. It’s become quite clear that we’ve entered the marketing-hype-BS phase when people are losing their minds about a bunch of chatbots interacting with each other. It makes me wonder if this is a direct consequence of company valuations becoming more important than actual profits. Companies are incentivized to…

It's good to keep in mind that the agentic loop, what you're using AI tools with daily is essentially that, too.

The tooling just hide the interactions and back and forth nowadays.

So if you think you're getting value out of any ai tooling, you're essentially admitting a contradiction with what you're dismissing here via

> a bunch of chatbots interacting with each other.

Just something to think about, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter

Post reply on HN