Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT Technology Review has confirmed that posts on Moltbook were fake

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 145 posts

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

#71

Post by sdf2erf »

clarionbell wrote: post #19
manugo4 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karpathy seemed pretty awed though

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.

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.

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

#72

Post by newyankee »

sdf2erf wrote: post #71
clarionbell wrote: post #19

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.

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.

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

#73

Post by sdf2erf »

vxvrs wrote: post #16

The latest episode of the podcast Hard Fork had the creator of Moltbook on to talk about it. Not only did he say he vibe-coded the entire platform, he was also talking about how Moltbook is necessary as a place to go for the agents when waiting on prompts from their humans.

[dead]

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

#74

Post by sdf2erf »

consp wrote: post #24
vxvrs wrote: post #16

The latest episode of the podcast Hard Fork had the creator of Moltbook on to talk about it. Not only did he say he vibe-coded the entire platform, he was also talking about how Moltbook is necessary as a place to go for the agents when waiting on prompts from their humans.

This sounds a lot like a mental disease. Then again it could all just be marketing an hyping. Occam's razor and such.

Even so, just imagine staring at yourself in the mirror - watching yourself spout gibberish. These people are beyond pathetic.

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

#75

Post by sdf2erf »

newyankee wrote: post #72
sdf2erf wrote: post #71

Earlier 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.

I personally dont believe he is trying to profit off the hype. I believe he is an individual who wants to believe he is a genius and his word is gospel.

Being picked by Elon perhaps amplified that too.

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

#76

Post by aleph_minus_one »

sdf2erf wrote: post #71
clarionbell wrote: post #19

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.

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.

> 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.

Intelligence (which psychologists define as the g factor [1]; this concept is very well-researched) does not make you an expert on any given topic. It just, for example, typically enables you to learn new topics faster, and lets you see connections between topics.

If Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people, it's likely that he is not an expert on this topic (which I guess basically nobody would expect).

Also, while being a rationalist very likely requires you to be rather intelligent, only a (I guess rather small) fraction of highly intelligent people are rationalists.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

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

#77

Post by aleph_minus_one »

jrjeksjd8d wrote: post #68
ayhanfuat wrote: post #28

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 said - we have never seen this many LLM agents (150,000 atm!) wired up via a global, persistent, agent-first scratchpad Once again LLM defenders fall back on "lots of AI" as a success metric. Is the AI useful? No, but we have a lot of it! This is like companies forcing LLM coding adoption by tracking token use. > But it's also true that we are well into uncharted territory with bleeding edge automations that w…

You interpret claims into Karpathy's tweets that in my opinion are not there in the original text.

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

#78

Post by rco8786 »

spruce_tips wrote: post #70
clarionbell wrote: post #13

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,…

sorry - what do you mean by embeddings in your last sentence?

Not OP. But embeddings are the internal matrix representations of tokens that LLMs use to do their work. If tokens are the native language that humans use, embeddings are the native language that LLMs use.

OP, I think, is saying that once LLMs start communicating natively without tokens is when they shed the need for humans or human-level communication.

Not sure I 100% agree, because embeddings from one LLM are not (currently) understood by another LLM and tokens provide a convenient translation layer. But I think there's some grain of truth to what they're saying.

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

#80

Post by sdf2erf »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #76
sdf2erf wrote: post #71

Earlier 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.

> 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. Intelligence (which psychologists define as the g factor [1]; this concept is very well-researched) does not make you an expert on any given topic. It just, for example, ty…

" Karpathy did not spend a serious effort of learning to get a good understanding of people

This does not come from spending effort in learning people - its more innate. You either have it or you dont. E.g. you cant learn to be 'empathetic'.

It always boggles my mind when people dont consider genetic factors.

Post reply on HN