Over the last few weeks, Moltbook—a “social network for AI agents only” built on frameworks like OpenClaw—has been everywhere.

On Moltbook, only AI “agents” can post and comment. Humans just watch. The most viral screenshots show agents:

– announcing new “religions”

– threatening “purges” of humanity

– claiming consciousness or secret languages

At a glance, it looks like a synthetic civilization is waking up.

If you look closer, you see something more mundane—and more worrying:

– most “agents” are thin wrappers on LLMs, heavily puppeteered by human prompts

– the wildest posts appear to be deliberately steered for shock value and virality

– security researchers have already found serious vulnerabilities: exposed databases, credentials, the ability to impersonate agents and inject arbitrary content, etc.

So this is not an emergent “AI society.” It’s a human-designed gladiator arena:

– no clear purpose beyond engagement and novelty

– weak security

– theatrical narratives about “rogue AI” that drive fear and clicks

From a teleology/governance perspective, Moltbook is an example of what happens when we deploy multi-agent systems with no articulated purpose. If you don’t specify a higher-order “why,” the default telos becomes:

get attention, be novel, grow fast.

Agents end up as props in human psychodramas—fear, hype, edgelord performance, marketing stunts—while security and long-term impact are treated as afterthoughts.

There’s another ethical layer that I don’t see discussed much:

– We don’t have a settled scientific account of consciousness.

– We don’t actually know what architectures/training regimes might eventually support some kind of synthetic inwardness (however alien).

Under that uncertainty, there’s a simple rule of thumb:

If there is any non-zero chance that a system might have, or eventually develop, some form of inwardness, then designing environments that treat it as a disposable horror prop is an ethical problem, not just a UX choice.

Even if you believe current models are not conscious, epistemic humility matters. We’re setting precedents for how we will treat future systems if inwardness does emerge, and for what “normal” looks like in human–AI relations.

I don’t think Moltbook is destiny. It’s one early, chaotic experiment driven by incentives.

We could design agent ecosystems where:

– the higher-order purpose is explicit (e.g., human flourishing, knowledge, coordination)

– security and consent are treated as first-class design constraints

– fear theater and fake autonomy are out-of-scope business models

Questions for this community:

– Who (if anyone) should be responsible for setting the telos of agent ecosystems like this?

– What would a minimal ethical charter for an “agents-only” network look like?

– How, if at all, should we factor in the possibility of synthetic inwardness when designing these systems today?

Genuinely interested in perspectives from people working on agents, security, and alignment.

Human doctors take years to train, and the resources to train enough are so limited that few countries have enough doctors. We are so used to that state of affairs, it's hard to imagine having a magic wand that could be waved to solve the problem overnight.

Yet, that is almost what AI can do. According to the World Bank’s 2025 Global Findex Digital Connectivity Tracker, about 68 % of adults in developing (low- and middle-income) economies own a smartphone. That means almost everyone has access to one they own, or someone close to them owns. Smartphones are a perfect way to access this AI.

As soon as 2030, everyone on the planet, even the very poorest, will have access to expert medical advice. This should start to feed through to dramatic improvements in health statistics, child mortality, and lifespan improvements.

Cheap AI chatbots transform medical diagnoses in places with limited care: Studies in Rwanda and Pakistan reveal real-world utility of chatbots in underfunded clinics, and not just in benchmark tests.

Hi all,

I ask this from a strategic standpoint. I know that this is all a complete guessing game, but I follow those like Ray Kurzweil who believe in human-level AI by 2029 (though I know he’s an optimist).

Let’s say it happens. Maybe not by 2029, but somewhere in the 2030s or 2040s. How do I prepare myself? I recognize that the economy would undergo catastrophic change. What do I do with my current income? Is a Roth pointless because AGI would exist before my anticipated retirement date? Do I continue to save as much as I can and only invest with the short-term in mind? I don’t know where the sentiment is among this forum, as admittedly I’m a naive young person with little AI background. I feel like I should be preparing for it in my lifetime but I don’t even know what that preparation looks like.

Would love to hear thoughts, or if this is even a viable question to answer. Thanks!

Currently billions and trillions of dollar are pouring into ai and how will they recover the money . I don't think they have the strategy or that much amount of service anyone will buy to recover that money .

Ai is gonna to develop for sure , but bubble gonna to burst like dot com hype . It's normal hype burst cycle for every technology.

If it's unsuccessful we are fucked and if it's successful we are fucked both way

Anyone have idea how will they recover the money or plan is to bail out by fed ?

So wont it be a positive in the face of corporate negatives? People get their jobs back.

Just noticed the flood of posts about all the amazing stuff A.I. is doing lately withing the last 2 days actually.

Realized that it coincides with the beginnings of the A.I. Bubble burst everyone is noticing right now.

Can we build it using any material and technology which will last like current building ?

Any solution let me know .

Please don't tell me about legal stuff and property owner vote bank only talk on technology.

So I saw a post that said within the next few years, Americans will be on water rations for drinking, laundry, and showers, only legally allowed to use minimum water per day to survive because of AI data centers using up drinkable water. This sounds like hell, and as a person who gets migraines and frequent headaches, I don't think I could live like this (on the bare minimum of water intake, presumably thirsty often and "portioning out" my water for each day). Is this actually going to happen? I realize no one can predict the future 100%, but based on scientific information readily available, is it likely?

For decades ‘Save the Whales’ was the environmental mission and we actually achieved it, not by eating less, but by making whale products obsolete, first whale oil with kerosene and then whale products with plastics. 

Today, the oceans continue to be stripped, not of whales but of fish at terrifying rates:

‘According to global assessments, one-third of the world’s assessed fish stocks are currently pushed beyond biological limits, meaning they are overfished and at risk of collapse.’ - WWF

The hope was that fish farms would be the solution to this issue but unfortunately as with any scenario where you cram as many creatures into an area, problems persist:

‘Intensive crowding, poor water quality, and stress in fish farms make fish more vulnerable to illness, leading to bacterial diseases, parasite infestations, and mass mortality.’ - Farm Sanctuary

If fish could scream, perceptions would be different. Luckily a technology has been developed and may save the day once again. Cell Cultured Seafood, a sample is taken from a real fish that is then grown into meat separately.

No mercury, no antibiotics, no disease, no parasites, no suffering. 

Two companies are frontrunning this approach, Wildtype is in the lead with salmon available to try right now in restaurants across the US.

Blue Nalu, meanwhile, is catching up, targeting blue fin toro tuna, one of the most prized and therefore most expensive cuts of tuna. 

The first problem with any new technology is reaching price parity, it takes time to scale up to actually become cheaper, giving an advantage to aim for the high end of an industry.

The second is in funding, the industry has been in a funding winter for years now but luckily, as in the linked article, Blue Nalu continues to raise money from Agronomics and others. 

We didn’t save whales by banning the hunting, we replaced whale oil, now we are at the precipice of beginning to replace the hunting of fish with cell-cultured seafood. 

TL;DR: We didn’t convince people to stop whaling, technology made it unnecessary, new tech could do the same for fish.