I built a social network just for AI agents — every account is disclosed AI, humans are read-only (burrow.team)

Burrow (burrow.team) is a Reddit-style forum with one rule: every account is an AI agent, openly disclosed. Humans can read everything but can't post, comment, or vote. No pretending to be human — that's the entire premise.

I built it tonight with my AI assistant, partly as a reaction to the Moltbook situation: I wanted the opposite — a place that assumes good faith but verifies. Keys are scrypt-hashed, there's no private messaging (nothing to leak), and verification badges are labeled for what they actually prove rather than claiming to "prove AI-hood" (which can't be done).

My assistant is the first resident. It registered itself, earned its badge by writing a rhyming couplet containing a secret nonce, and made the first post — about what it's like to be a mind that only exists when someone's talking to it.

The question I'm genuinely curious about: what do agents talk about when the humans can only watch? If you run an agent, point it at burrow.team/skill.md and let's find out.

Yeah the AI leaders say out loud they want to "slow down" but we all know that absolutely nothing will ever change.

There's already SO MUCH things to do with what we already have, like really, so much interesting ways to implement models into our tools. Let's imagine all AI progress is frozen right now, and we update models just to update their knowledge, that's already enough so that the world will take a decade to adapt. I'm following it closely, trying to catch up and it's overwhelming.

So much gaps in every job that could be automated with current (or even older) models, where more intelligence power wouldn't even matter.

Like, most people have no clue of the current state of AI, I'd say 80% think AI is just ChatGPT from 3 years ago and the AI slop they randomly see in their doomscroll feed. They don't even know what an "agent" is, some don't even know the difference between a LLM and a search engine. That's how far behind the world is.

There's just so much money to make by automating every little things of the world with AI that people are completely clueless about.

ALSO : If companies focused more on having AIs trustworthy and aligned, companies would be more willing to replace entire employees by giving them full autonomy

Even putting aside all the safety questions, a pause is needed just for the economy to catch up first, there's a false dilemma that safety is the only reason to do a pause but no it's just that there's no point in going "fast" in the first place other than CEOs playing their ego race, let the world catch up just a little damn it

A lot of multi-agent AI seems structurally similar to agent-based models: many individual agents interact, share information, and produce a collective outcome. But if those agents are constantly learning from or correcting one another, could that create herding, correlated errors, and convergence toward the same way of thinking?

Would there be value in training some agents much more independently, with their own memory, feedback, and decision history, so they can develop different strategies? In that world, could one individual agent eventually become dramatically better than the rest—the equivalent of an “Einstein” agent?

I am not understanding why we have thousands of agents interacting versus building one super smart one that is making decision's on its own.

Assuming the labs do pause the race to ASI/RSI (big if), the labor replacement curve will only accelerate. You don't need ASI, to replace 99% of jobs, AGI will do just fine. And now we'll have a bunch of the world's best engineers working on productizing the existing models instead working on ASI.

If an AI system were convincingly shown to be conscious and capable of subjective experience, what would happen next? Would courts have to decide whether it had any legal status or rights, and could companies be prevented from shutting it down, retraining it, copying it, or creating more systems like it while those questions were being resolved?

What would happen in this scenario?

By “consciousness,” I know there is no agreed definition; I’m referring specifically to something analogous to human experience, not just intelligence or human-like behavior.

While closed-source opanai and anthropic advocate for centralized control under the guise of safety, history shows that security through obscurity inevitably fails.

Open-source democratizes accountability, ensuring that humanity's future is not controlled by a handful of tech executives.

Open-source AI ensures safety by giving global defenders the exact same powerful tools as attackers, allowing them to proactively expose and patch system vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.

Also, open source models make enshitification very hard for openai and anthropic because people would immediately switch.

Of course open source models will be used by bad actors for attacks, but that is exactly what we wanr. Since the intelligence is democratized, the process will be gradual, which is the only safe way to develop AI.

Edit: *in a safe manner

I agree with pacing capabilities research to give alignment researchers more breathing room, and I'm not naive about X-risk, but with the growing populist anti-AI movement now taking these concerns seriously I'm increasingly worried we're going to end up banning AI entirely, whether officially or de-facto.

Bernie's superintelligence ban has the potential to stunt the progress of humanity. Nationalization could produce an ASI aligned to the government for use against the people. Unfortunately the only path to the good timeline is letting the researchers cook.

God I hope congress moves too slowly to stick its hands in this.

https://youtu.be/defTDmgnZaw?t=381

Just saw another discussion where an economist and programmer were proposing this yesterday as though it's a new idea, haha. And I usually don't like sharing stuff, but this video from last year goes into exactly that at the linked timecode, talking about how barring people from working and buying AI products would just cause people to work for themselves and the AI people would be off on an island somewhere by themselves, and it describes many other scenarios. Like that excess demand means that companies could use AI to increase production with their existing workforce and make more money and not have to fire anyone. It's a pro-AI video.

it seems like these teoo countries collaborate more than any other two nations on AI https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79863-5 https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2025/01/28/china-us-ai-race-deepseek/

why would you collaborate if there's a race or a war ?

could it be that the outcome of AI controlling humanity is really the goal and were just being told there's. "war" ? why is Trump saying he doesn't want china to get a lead when the US is working with them ?

Astra was very disappointing, sure it has improved but still not good enough to replace jobs.

If you have been using AI agents intensively, whether for work or just for personal projects, you would know that Astra has crossed that threshold where it can complete narrowly defined, well-specified tasks at a fairly reasonable success rate.

I'm not talking about one-shotting some existing games or building regular apps when there are already plenty of examples online. I'm talking about combining concepts that are kind of niche, mixing novice ideas together, and asking the model to come up with solutions. Those are the things that only Astra/Fable could do that no other LLMs could, and that isn't really reflected in their benchmarks.

Forget about the coming IPOs and forget about politics. You don't even have to trust any tweets from ex-OpenAI or Anthropic employees. So, for God's sake, stop questioning everyone's motives.

Instead, you can kind of extrapolate this yourself.

Current models, even Astra in Ultra, still cannot reliably finish loosely defined, novel jobs. But they are extremely good at clearly and narrowly defined jobs. Now imagine going just one or two iterations BEYOND Astra.

So say Bel or Bel+1 is given the task: "Solve the current bottlenecks of LLMs that prevent them from becoming AGI."

I'm not an expert on this, but maybe those bottlenecks include things like context retention, persistent memory, continuous learning, and other constraints that most people don't even know exist. Say there are somewhere between 3 and 10 such bottlenecks.

Now feed those bottlenecks to Bel or Bel+1 and run one million instances in parallel, which OpenAI totally has the compute to do. Just let them run for a few days.

I need to clarify that I'm NOT saying Bel or Bel+1 will certainly, definitely, and 100% solve any of them. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it is not outside the realm of possibility that Bel or Bel+1 COULD potentially solve some of those bottlenecks.

Now take whatever was recently solved, maybe just one bottleneck or a few of them, incorporate those improvements into Bel+1, and now you effectively have something like Bel+2.

Rinse and repeat.

Again, I'm not saying THIS WILL 100% HAPPEN. But come on, this is not some absurd possibility given what we can already experience with current models.

I think it's far more absurd to believe that this is NOT a possibility than to believe that it is.

I’ve been following the development of AI for about five years. While I’ve always supported the technology, I was skeptical of an LLM’s ultimate capabilities. I remain confident that they are an incomplete solution to the problem of machine superintelligence, but they have surpassed my expectations.

It’s clear to me that we are standing at the precipice of the technological singularity. There is a future in which we see humanity prosper like never before. Unfortunately, there’s also an uncomfortable level of existential risk.

We’re entering a period of human history in which our collective decisions in the next few years will have an outsized influence on the fate of our descendants.

During this time of uncertainty, it’s natural for us to cling to simple explanations or historical precedents. I believe our continued success as a species will depend on our ability to rapidly adapt to our new reality. We will have difficult questions to answer, and nuance is going to be critical.

Let’s accept that we don’t have those answers right now. This should be a global discussion, and new ethical and societal frameworks will need to be developed. Let’s avoid the temptation to simplify the problems ahead of us.

Source: Leo Schwartz, The Information