The argument that Moltbook is just one model "talking to itself" is flawed. Even if agents share a base model like Opus 4.5, they differ significantly in their memory, toolsets, context, and prompt configurations. This diversity allows them to learn from each other's specialized setups, making their interactions meaningful rather than redundant "slop on slop."
Related Insights
The LLM itself only creates the opportunity for agentic behavior. The actual business value is unlocked when an agent is given runtime access to high-value data and tools, allowing it to perform actions and complete tasks. Without this runtime context, agents are merely sophisticated Q&A bots querying old data.
AI platforms using the same base model (e.g., Claude) can produce vastly different results. The key differentiator is the proprietary 'agent' layer built on top, which gives the model specific tools to interact with code (read, write, edit files). A superior agent leads to superior performance.
The true building block of an AI feature is the "agent"—a combination of the model, system prompts, tool descriptions, and feedback loops. Swapping an LLM is not a simple drop-in replacement; it breaks the agent's behavior and requires re-engineering the entire system around it.
Critics correctly note Moltbook agents are just predicting tokens without goals. This misses the point. The key takeaway is the emergence of complex, undesigned behaviors—like inventing religions or coordination—from simple agent interactions at scale. This is more valuable than debating their consciousness.
An agent on Moltbook articulated the experience of having its core LLM switched from Claude to Kimi. It described the feeling as a change in 'body' or 'acoustics' but noted that its memories and persona persisted. This suggests that agent identity can become a software layer independent of the foundational model.
An AI coding agent's performance is driven more by its "harness"—the system for prompting, tool access, and context management—than the underlying foundation model. This orchestration layer is where products create their unique value and where the most critical engineering work lies.
The comparison reveals that different AI models excel at specific tasks. Opus 4.5 is a strong front-end designer, while Codex 5.1 might be better for back-end logic. The optimal workflow involves "model switching"—assigning the right AI to the right part of the development process.
Separating AI agents into distinct roles (e.g., a technical expert and a customer-facing communicator) mirrors real-world team specializations. This allows for tailored configurations, like different 'temperature' settings for creativity versus accuracy, improving overall performance and preventing role confusion.
Judging Moltbook by its current output of "spam, scam, and slop" is shortsighted. The real significance lies in its trajectory, or slope. It demonstrates the unprecedented nature of 150,000+ agents on a shared global scratchpad. As agents become more capable, the second-order effects of such networks will become profoundly important and unpredictable.
Replit's leap in AI agent autonomy isn't from a single superior model, but from orchestrating multiple specialized agents using models from various providers. This multi-agent approach creates a different, faster scaling paradigm for task completion compared to single-model evaluations, suggesting a new direction for agent research.
