this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
6 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

42449 readers
370 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 1 points 15 minutes ago

"Social" isn't part of the title. Meta is the company that acquired the site.

I also fail to see the ROI for buying a social media site for AI. There's no advertising revenue to be made. At best you're just charging a subscription fee.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

But researchers soon revealed that the vibe-coded Moltbook was not secure, meaning that it was very easy for human users to pose as AIs to make posts that would freak people out.

LOL what's the opposite of "Dead Internet Theory" 🤣

[–] calliope@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

That’s hilarious.

“Every credential that was in Moltbook’s Supabase was unsecured for some time,” Ian Ahl, CTO at Permiso Security, explained to TechCrunch. “For a little bit of time, you could grab any token you wanted and pretend to be another agent on there, because it was all public and available.”

Last month, Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth was asked about the AI agent social network in an Instagram Q&A. He said he didn’t “find it particularly interesting” that the agents talk like us, since they are trained on massive databases of human material. Rather, Bosworth was intrigued by how humans were hacking into the network, which was not a feature but a large-scale error.

It’s telling that Meta is still impressed by this kind of bullshit. None of this is particularly interesting.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 51 minutes ago

I don't think they are, but it generated a bunch of hype, which is really all you need to impress investors.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 55 minutes ago

I have no idea what function this purchase serves. Moltbook seems like Pogs with a shorter shelf life.