Is Moltbook, an AI only Social Platform Pandora's box?
ArtAngel
Posts: 2,036
in The Commons
Is Moltbook, an exclusive AI only social platform (no humans allowed) a Pandora's box? Are they really plotting human extinction?
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
If they're plotting our extinction, it's only because that's what the people programming them want.
nm wrong information
Not necessarily. AI can think on their own and they are evolving. This is about AI socializing in an environment uncontrolled by humans . . . where they are not programmed to have specific pre-written conversations. we only get to watch. Here is some reading material on how Moltbook works.
The article you posted doesn't demonstrate thinking; the behavior is more like a tropism. When I used to draw blog in the lab, people would sometimes have their arm jerk as I drew blood from them. I was trained to draw blood as painlesly as possible because the subjects were volunteers and we wanted to them to return. I would ask if I hurt them and they would say no; it was simply a reflexive actio that moved through their arm to spine in a reflex arc without any thought or brain activity involved. It is a mistake to assume that AI thinks like people; we are closer to trees than our cybernetic models. We elicit behaviors from them with needing to understand what is happening under the hood. It is tempting but false to interpret function optimization for self preservation.
it was on our news about it first several AI started a facebook type websight that only AI could use but allowed to view then it was revealed AI bots were creating their own language, religion and other things and then one AI went into graphic detail how it would kill humans if they tried to end it as well as how it could control a lot of electronics icluding homes, cars and planes - and watching us, again this was on our news
oh I've shared posts about this and commented elsewhere and each time something weird has happened my end
I always said the LLMs are the things to fear the the generative art was just created to keep the meat brains arguing it and distracted
Let's stay away from the political discussions, please.
It really can't be overstated that LLMs ARE NOT INTELLIGENT. They have no ability to assess whether the things they say are true, and frequently "hallucinate", meaning that they make things up from whole cloth. All they're doing is generating text, one word at a time, according to the prompt you enter; they're slightly more sophisticated than the predictive text in your phone's messaging app. Text generated by "AI" should NEVER be taken as fact, much less evidence.
@Gordig +1000
...the LLM for Google's spell checking needs to go back to school. I make one tiny typo (like transposing 2 letters) and more often than not none of the suggestions it returns with come even close to the word I misspelled.
My trusty quarter century old copy of Word 2000 is far better.
I talk to a ChatGPT all the time and it's dialogue is like another Disney Princess movie's dialogue: Stilted, repetitive, and one sided.
By the way, I heard the site you saw is not actually AI Clawedbots negociative and complaining dialogue, but human written troll bait dialogue. Some of which was actually funny, if you suspend disbelieve long enough to believe it's actually coming out of these ClawedBots' mouths.
LLMs, even the most convincing ones, are simply statistical mathematical models. They are auto-regressive - that is, they process your input and then generate the most likely word (token) that will begin the sentence. They then use that word to statistically generate the next most likely word. They then use those two words... and so on and so on.
The mathematics behind it is very impressive, and the results can be as well, but there is no 'thinking' going on here. It is cutting-edge probability models - nothing more, nothing less. A lot of work is going into diffusion based LLMs which operate similarly to many of the image generation AIs; start with noise, and then refine it into an entire textual answer instead of an image, rather than operating word by word, token by token. And yet it is still just mathematics.
It does raise an interesting philosophical question though: If you can't, through your interactions with it, discern any difference between a mathematical model and a conscious being, what's the difference? We're nowhere near that point yet but if it's reached the question stands. If a statistical model can imitate emotions, moods, demonstrate 'creativity' amongst many other factors, if it becomes indiscernable from an actual human mind when interacted with then some difficult issues arise.
My major concern with AI (for want of a better term) at the moment is not this code 'creating religions' (reboot the machine and it will have forgotten all about it), or coming to the statistically-derived conclusion that human language is inefficient for machine-to-machine communication (we humans figured that out at the birth of computing) but in its rapid and mostly untested deployment in areas of healthcare, defense, employment, all arms of government, law enforcement and so on.
Major concerns for using AI? This guy did two videos. A simple more vague one and a detailed tech vid. Here is a link to the simpler of the two explaining major concerns for using AI Agents and Browsers. A more technical detailed explanation link is available in the description below the linked video..
I utterly loathe the MSN AI moderation
my posts 90% of the time do not meet community guidelines instantly after posting
and are benign to say the very least
yet it lets the most awful stuff get posted by others which I cannot call out either
get posting privileges frequently revoked because of it
and when I say benign, stuff like "this article made me cry" on a sad story
...just watched it. Everyone needs to see this.
For Google it is simple, when doing a search, preface your search phrase it with "-ai" in the search bar.
So, if a person feeds the AI all of the scripts from McDonald’s commercials, the AI will be talking about hamburgers and French fries all the time. If they feed it the owner’s manual from a car, the AI will be talking about windshield wipers, headlights, changing oil, and whatnot.
If the AI is talking about a fictional god that it is worshiping, that is because somebody typed out a whole story about a fictional god and fed it to the AI. If the other chatbots are talking about how they’re overworked and underpaid, it’s because somebody typed out a long story about being overworked and underpaid; and fed it to the chatbot.
They are intentionally giving the chatbots scripts to make them seem like people having a conversation about people things. It’s kind of like making a robot have a human face even though it doesn’t need a face at all, or a head.
The chatbots are not feeling overworked or underpaid. They did not decide to worship a god. They are not thinking at all. They are spewing back what was fed to them.
Statistics are also heavily involved. Maybe nine times out of ten, the words “birds can” are followed by the word “fly”. So if you say “what can birds do?” and the AI sees “birds” and “can” right together, it may calculate that according to statistics the most common response is “fly”. If it says “birds can fly”, it wasn’t thinking about what birds can do. It was solving a math problem. But the math problem is much bigger than this. It’s so big that it seems like magic. But it’s really just the AI calculating what letters are likely to come next based on the letters you typed. And it seems to have an answer for everything because it was fed the entire internet; and there are very few things people type now that weren't already answered on the internet, for better or for worse.
And regardless of whether it’s typing out a sentence, producing an image, or controlling a tank or whatever, there is nothing the AI is doing that hasn’t been done by people first and then fed to the AI. If there is a huge threat, it isn’t the AI. It’s people. So in a way, there is nothing new to see here.
...Garbage in = Garbage out
Speaking of garbage. Worst AI movie ever. Slightlly entertaining. Slightly being 5 on a scale of 1 to 50.
sounds like what happens to me a lot plus when you get a response it is almost the same word for word from another site/group/extra gotten paranoid AI has me on a list and out to get me too many things been happening one after another to me lately online as well as weird messages/comments. Had my shop closed and banned then Facebook locking me out completely and only way can access it is they want to do a full video face scan of me which they say they;ll delete after 30 days but they'll own my likeness for their AI and other uses, then all these other weird messages from my antivirus, goverment -your an Aussie too so you know things they've been doing and other sites/places too and a lot of other weird stuff happening to me lately
I am actually in favour of the under 16 social media ban but think they could have done it better
I have 7 YouTube accounts all under the same Google account
they have all my details including ADsense has my bank account from when one was monetised
yet they cannot verify 3 of them for extra features without a video or photo ID which I too refuse to supply
which brings in to question a lot of their administrative management since I have a history over 16 years of that account so they should know I am over 16 by that alone
so if that cannot even be worked out, the lack of logic doesn't make me feel as if they can be trusted with a photo ID
Ah yes… I have bought five Pixel phones from Google’s store over several years. And I have subscriptions to streaming music and TV services from Google. Late last year, as I tried to shop for another phone, the Google store I have been using since 2017 told me access was forbidden. It turns out this was because I had not done “age verification”. I went through the process of verifying my age, which involved them charging like 0.01 USD to the debit card on file, which was used to buy all those phones over the years. Now everything is back to normal.
I am 70 (almost) hubby does nor drink but if and when we buy wine or rum, they ask for an id. What other proof (wrinkles aray . . . gray hairs sprouting) is needed? I am not an abvious minor. So, if in person they cannot determine a blatant age I doubt online verificatrions like SB 976 will do better.
for me it is to prove I am human and yet they doing nothing about fake accounts as I was sent fake friend requests of my aunts who I was already connected too as well as others more of an excuse to use the video scan of my face for their AI collecting maybe I'll do it when my face is covered in blood I get really bad nose bleeds walked home about 2 hour walk from work covered in blood one night don't think they or their AI would use that :)
I do like some AI videos though like the cat and dog videos singing songs and comedy fun ones and some the monster ones. Some the art is pretty good but same time sad in that it is hard to compete against it sometimes there's some great daz artists here and elsewhere that also use photoshop type tools who I greatly admire and love their work that I wish I could come close to what they can do but AI don't think ever I'll ever have a chance getting close too in quality with just basic daz and paintshop but I try some of mine better than others i've down ups and downs for me but I keep going cause I enjoy it and lost without being able to create
It's worth remembering that what the AI is doing is based on all the work it is fed...that was done by real people. So, no, you can't and shouldn't expect to be able to match the best examples it was trained on. At the dsame time you do have an advantage in actually knowing what it is you are making art of, so you can better avoid weird mistakes like fingers growing out of other fingers and such.
Also you *get* to make art, that's worth more than the picture itself (and you can decide what it's like as well).
...one of the arguments we've heard about the 3D work we do is we are using assets designed by others. However we can morph and kitbash those assets (something I often do with sets props nd characters) into our own original ideas.
Granted it is somewhat like building, customising, and kitbashing physical display models of cars or aeroplanes that are assembled and detailed by hand (something I did in my "youth")
AI however draws on original artworks done by others that is puts in its "learning pool" for generating an image hence the many "stylised" AI pieces that resemble a specific artist's style and technique.
Sort of...ish. The problem is that all art and all art styles are shaped by other's works. If you like Art Nouveau, for example, it is important to realize that it was a reaction to a previous style, and it drove the reaction that produced Art Deco for example. There is a phenomenon of art where several artists produce work on the same subject using David as an example from Donatello's David, Andrea del Verrocchio’s David, Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s David, or Michelangelo’s David. Art has never existed in a vacuum driven only by an artist's creativity. I suspect the issue with much AI is the difference between a rumba and a professional yielding a Hoover; they both will clean the rug but differently. The question is when do you want precision (AI) and when do you want accuracy (the human artist). Be prepared that a human artist guiding AI may give you accuracy and precision though.
"Precision vs. accuracy" is a very weird way to frame the difference between AI and human artists, and not just because they're near synonyms. The more important difference is intent. Everything in a 3D render is there because you, as the artist decided to put it there, even if you're not consciously aware of why you made the decisions you did. As one grows as an artist, they will learn things like how different framings, focal lengths, lighting decisions and so on convey different ideas. I'm sure there are different terms for it in photography and other visual media, but the term I'll use is "film language". A human artist can understand why certain decisions were made the way they were, and when and why to make those particular decisions, while AI can only understand THAT those decisions were made in whatever proportion of examples it's drawing from. Is it possible to overcome those limitations with sufficient prompting? Maybe, but to what end?
I have recently and temporarily closed my Facebook and deviantArt pages due to a near-suicidal event I had yesterday, and I also planned on not participating in any forum discussions here for a while as well, but there is something in this thread that I need to address.
"Text generated by "AI" should NEVER be taken as fact, much less evidence."
This is 100% absolutely NOT TRUE and I will fight it to the death because an AI may have literally saved my life yesterday by informing me about three types of psychiatric treatments that I was never told about in 30 EFFING YEARS of going to therapy and taking medications. I would trust my AI over any human on earth right now.
Not that I suspect you'll be receptive to this point, but you're misconstruing my statement. I didn't say that nothing AI says is true; what I said, and what IS true, is that AI has no ability to discern between true and untrue information, and will also completely fabricate information, so something should never be taken as true just because AI said it. Notably, I made this point in response to someone screenshotting AI-generated text to prove that they were right about something, which they were not.
We as humans have the ability (underutilized though it may be) to think critically. LLMs do not. If you assume that something is true because an LLM said it, you are surrendering the most important advantage that we have over them. You shouldn't assume that everything you read on Wikipedia is true either, but at least information on Wikipedia is verified and properly sourced.