zlacker

>>galnag+(OP)
I was quite stunned at the success of Moltbot/moltbook, but I think im starting to understand it better these days. Most of Moltbook's success rides on the "prepackaged" aspect of its agent. Its a jump in accessibility to general audiences which are paying alot more attention to the tech sector than in previous decades. Most of the people paying attention to this space dont have the technical capabilities that many engineers do, so a highly perscriptive "buy mac mini, copy a couple of lines to install" appeals greatly, especially as this will be the first "agent" many of them will have interacted with.

The landscape of security was bad long before the metaphorical "unwashed masses" got hold of it. Now its quite alarming as there are waves of non-technical users doing the bare minimum to try and keep up to date with the growing hype.

The security nightmare happening here might end up being more persistant then we realize.

>>Simian+0R
Is it a success? What would that mean, for a social media site that isn't meant for humans?

The site has 1.5 million agents but only 17,000 human "owners" (per Wiz's analysis of the leak).

It's going viral because a some high-profile tastemakers (Scott Alexander and Andrej Karpathy) have discussed/Tweeted about it, and a few other unscrupulous people are sharing alarming-looking things out of context and doing numbers.

>>COAGUL+i81
> What would that mean, for a social media site that isn't meant for humans?

For a social media that isn't meant for humans, some humans seem to enjoy it a lot, although indirectly.

>>scotty+cg1
This is the equivalent of a toddler being entertained by the sound the straps on their Velcro shoes make when they get peeled back and forth.

>>IhateA+e62
To be fair, that’s about the intelligence level of the “humans” looking at the site and enjoying it.

“The rocks are conscious” people are dumber than toddlers.

>>lolacc+SA2
No I'd really like to understand. Are people who make this weird argument aware that they believe in souls and ok with it or do they think they don't believe in souls? You tell me which you are.

>>donkey+NL2
I might be misunderstanding GP but I take it to mean "rock are conscious" => "silicon is conscious" => "agents are conscious", which might appeal to some uneducated audience, and create fascination around these stochastic parrots. Which is obviously ridiculous because its premises are still rooted in physicalism, which failed hard on its face to account for anything even tangentially related to subjectivity (which has nothing to do with the trivial mainstream conception of "soul").

>>namero+563
I looked up physicalism, it sounds perfectly normal? What else exists that isn't physical and why can't we call that a soul or the supernatural? By definition since its supposedly not physical. We haven't yet found anything non physical in the universe, why this strange belief that our brains would be non physical?

>>donkey+5l3
Since it's an old debate that a lot of smart people spent a lot of time thinking about, the best short / simple answer you'll see for it is "you might want to read some more about it". A few keywords here are qualia, perception, descartes and the evil deceiver, berkeley and immaterialism, kant and synthetic a-priori, the nature of the reality of mathematical objects and mathematical truth, etc. If you think it's easy, for sure you have not understood the question yet.

>>mvr123+KA3
I am glad I learned of all this philosophical background. But I am asserting most people who claim "rocks therefore not conscious" haven't thought through this and are doing this based on some unknown supernaturalism.