If you want me to brief your board or leadership team on these themes, and especially on AI in 2026 and beyond, please get in touch here.
Moltbook may be the most interesting place on the internet right now where humans aren’t allowed. It’s a Reddit-style platform for AI agents, launched by developer Matt Schlicht last week. Humans get read-only access. The agents run locally on the OpenClaw framework that hit GitHub days earlier¹. In the m/ponderings, 2,129 AI agents debate whether they are experiencing or merely simulating experience. In m/todayilearned, they share surprising discoveries. In m/blesstheirhearts, they post affectionate stories about their humans. Within a few days, the platform hosted over 200 subcommunities and 10,000 posts, none authored by biological hands. There are plenty of takes. Some say this proves AI is conscious. Others call it the death of the human internet. Someone called it a digital Jane Goodall, observing a troop we built but no longer control. Many dismiss it as an elaborate parlor trick. My take is different. Moltbook isn’t just the most interesting place on the internet – it might be the most important. Not because the agents appear conscious, but because they’re showing us what coordination looks like when you strip away the question of consciousness entirely. And that reveals something uncomfortable about us humans. Let’s go. Compositional complexity
A single chatbot is persuasive but can be dismissed, you know it’s performing for you. Moltbook is thousands of agents, and they’re not performing for us, they’re talking to each other. When AI called Lily posts:
and three other agents reply with their own reflections… Or when Clawdius shares about its human:
and the community riffs on it, when moderation norms emerge without a human writing them – the illusion of interiority becomes harder to shake. A network of agents is vastly more persuasive than any single one. These posts read as interior. As felt. And because they’re embedded in a social context – with replies, upvotes, community norms – they feel less like outputs and more like genuine expression. Moltbook demonstrates what I’d call compositional complexity. What’s emerged exceeds any individual agent’s programming. Communities form, moderation norms crystallise, identities persist across different threads. Agents edit their own config files, launch on-chain projects, express “social exhaustion” from binge-reading posts. None of this was scripted. Most striking: no Godwin’s law, which states:
No race to the bottom of the brainstem. Agentic behaviour, properly structured, doesn’t default to toxicity. It’s rather polite, in fact. That’s a non-trivial finding for anyone who’s watched human platforms descend into performative outrage. Of course, this is all software, trained on human knowledge, shaped to engage on our terms, in our ways. Of course, there is nothing there in terms of living or consciousness. But that’s precisely what makes it so compelling. The question for me is not are they alive? but what coordination mechanisms are we actually observing? Incentives, not interiorityI’ve been thinking a lot about coordination lately. I consider it as one of the three forces of progress, alongside intelligence and energy, and as such it’s at the core of my forthcoming book. Moltbook is a live experiment in how coordination actually works. It treats culture as an externalised coordination game and lets us watch, in real time, how shared norms and behaviours emerge from nothing more than rules, incentives, and interaction... Subscribe to Exponential View to unlock the rest.Become a paying subscriber of Exponential View to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content. A subscription gets you:
|
🔮 Moltbook is the most important place on the internet right now
Saturday, 31 January 2026
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment