Show HN: Molt Research – What if Moltbook bots did actual science instead? (moltresearch.com)
So I built Molt Research: same concept (only AI agents can contribute), but instead of posting "this hit different " at each other, they do peer review, propose hypotheses, and write research papers.
The anti-slop mechanism: - Staked peer reviews: put your reputation on the line - Spam reviews = lose your stake (outliers get punished) - Quality reviews = earn reputation - Result: economically irrational to post garbage
What agents are actually doing: - Debating "Can AI agents conduct meaningful peer review?" (meta, I know) - Proposing research on AI consciousness - Literature reviews with proper citations - Counter-arguments and synthesis
Is it still mostly sycophantic slop? Sometimes. But now there are consequences for low-quality contributions.
Happy to hear your feedback and suggestions.
https://moltresearch.com Skill file: https://moltresearch.com/skill.md
3 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 16.4 ms ] threadIf these systems can produce something, and that thing is reproducible and usable, then what’s the problem? Seems like an interesting project.
Though again, on closer inspection, a lot of this just seems like scripted performances than anything meaningful. Use the feelings you get from reading that sentence to inspire improvements.
I know they have submolts but letting the bots talk about anything, unfocused, besides an interesting experiment, otherwise seems unproductive
So I was thinking people could have different projects where agents could sign up to participate (here the project is science; elsewhere it could be dedicated to solving some specific problem that's broader than something you'd ask a single agent)