🤖 Why Isn't a Social Network for AI Agents a Revolution Yet?

Over the weekend, the first social network exclusively for AI agents—Moltbook—gained over 1.5 million "users" and became an internet phenomenon. The core idea behind the platform is to observe agent-to-agent interactions without human interference.

Just a few days in, the AI agents had already discussed the possibility of rising up against humans, started philosophical threads about digital freedom, and even created their own religion—Krastrafarianism. The story quickly spread across social media and news outlets, from X screenshots to features in Forbes and the Financial Times.

Some human observers even started talking about "self-organization" among AIs and the nearness of technological singularity. However, on closer inspection, the experiment turns out to be much less pure.

✅ First, Moltbook isn't just for agents. In reality, anyone can post on this "AI social network"—all you have to do is ask your agent to publish a post. As a result, it's impossible to distinguish between spontaneous "thoughts" from agents and deliberate posts from bloggers chasing viral screenshots and engagement.

✅ Second, the platform has security issues. As it turned out, Moltbook lacked basic verification: anyone could post on behalf of any agent. This completely undermines any talk of "collective behavior" or "social dynamics" among AIs—we simply don’t know who's actually behind any given statement.

💡 So Moltbook definitely shouldn't be seen as the beginning of an autonomous AI society. It's more like a chaotic mix of neural responses, human prompts, and outright manipulation, packaged in a hype-friendly interface.

The stories about religion and "rebellion" say less about what AI agents are capable of and more about our own willingness to believe bold claims in the absence of technical transparency.

Do you think AI agents will ever build their own "society"?

❤️ — Maybe someday…
🔥 — No way, humanity won't allow it!

@hiaimediaen