heyOn a recent trip to the San Francisco Bay Area, I was struck by a billboard on the freeway outside the airport. “The Singularity is here,” one announced. “Humanity progressed well,” said another. It seemed like every roadside sign was filled with claims from tech companies making outrageous claims about artificial intelligence. Of course, the ads were full of hype and anger. But the claims they contain are not happening in a vacuum. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, recently Said: “We have basically created AGI, or very close to it,” before confusingly classifying his statement as “spiritual.” Elon Musk has gone even further, claim of: “We have entered the singularity.”
Enter Moltbook, a social media site built for AI agents. A place where bots can talk to other bots, in other words. Its launch was followed by a flood of devastating news articles and op-eds. The writers were troubled by the fact that the bots were talking about religion, claiming they secretly spent their human creators’ money, and even plotting to overthrow humanity. Many of the pieces included the same strange suggestion as the San Francisco billboards: that machines are now not only as smart as humans (a theory known as artificial general intelligence) but that they are surpassing us (a science-fiction concept known as the Singularity).
Based on my years of research on bots, AI, and computational propaganda, I can tell you two things with near certainty. First, Moltbuk is nothing new. Humans have created bots that can talk to each other and to humans for decades. They have been designed to make bizarre, even frightening claims all this time. Second, the singularity is not here. Neither is AGI. according to most researchersNor is it remotely close. AI progress is limited for many reasons very solid factors: They include mathematics, data access and business costs. Claims that AGI or the singularity have arrived are not based on empirical research or science.
But as tech companies boost their AI capabilities, something else is also clear: Big tech is now far from the counterintuitive force it was during the first Trump administration. beyond limits The claims coming from Silicon Valley about AI have combined with the nationalism of the US government as both are working together to “win” the AI race. During this time, ICE is paying Palantir $30 million to provide AI-enabled software Which can be used for government surveillance. Musk and other tech executives continue to champion Far-flung reasons. Google and Apple too Removed apps people were using to track ICE From their digital storefront after political pressure.
Even though we don’t need to worry about the singularity yet, we need to fight against this marriage of convenience caused by big tech’s pursuit of high valuations and Washington’s desire for control. As technology and politicians clash, constituents will need to use their power to decide what happens with AI.
Many people naturally believe that socially beneficial technology regulation is not possible in the current political climate. Fortunately, government and corporate policy is not the only way to deal with the challenges and uncertainties presented by AI. The recent protests in Minneapolis have reminded us of the power that we have, collectively, even if loosely organized. Minnesotans’ show of strength has forced the Trump administration and the corporations that support it to step back. In the past, public pressure has caused large technology companies to make changes related to users’ privacy, security, and well-being.
The recent protests and subsequent backdown by powerful organizations show that powerful people run things at the expense of people. This is true of politicians and it is true of business leaders too. AI is not a runaway force in the hands of those at the top but, as two Princeton scientists put it, “general techniques“. Its impact on the world will be decided by people. We have the ability to allow its impact to accelerate, but we also have the ability to to control and regulate its use. As Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei, recently arguedAye can do And Needed To be governed. The risks that AI poses to society also pose real but manageable challenges in maintaining growing inequality and the informational gradient.
This doesn’t mean that AI – particularly generative AI and large language models (LLM) – aren’t already changing how we communicate and even how we conduct other aspects of daily life. Yet Moltbuk, and the AI agents that populate it, are not a demonstration of scientific standards of intelligence. A reporter who recently “infiltrated” a bots-only platform found so much, description of It was described as “a crude rehash of science fiction”. Others have noted similarly mundane things about the site – that many of its posts actually appear to come from humans and, more importantly, that bot-generated posts simply “Disseminating human culture and stories“. They talk nonsense about religion and falsely proclaim the age of hyper-intelligent machines because this is how humans often talk about robots and digital technology.
These so-called “agents” have no agency like people, and they are not as intelligent as people. In fact, they are a reflection of most people. Like social bots that came before them, they are coded with human thoughts and biases because they are trained on human data and designed by human engineers. Many of them also work through mundane automation, not true AI (a term that is still bandied about today). vigorously debated and debated by scientists)
People have managed changes driven by new technologies many times before, and we can do it again. Again, Anthropic’s Amodei presents a alternative view For many of his peers: AI governance must be focused and informed. It need not be contrary to reasonable technological progress or democratic rights. We must demand that AI be regulated effectively and we must do so soon. AI is bringing change and politicians are creating chaos, but the power to decide the future still lies in the hands of humans.
