Why the Moltbook frenzy was like Pokémon

AI Agents Go Viral in Chaotic Online Experiment That Wasn’t the Future, Just the Internet Having Fun

In a digital spectacle that briefly captured the tech world’s imagination, an online experiment called Moltbook promised a glimpse into the future of artificial intelligence—only to reveal something far more familiar: the internet’s endless capacity for chaotic, collaborative entertainment.

The experiment, which unfolded on the streaming platform Twitch, invited users to collectively control AI agents in a shared digital space. What emerged was a frenzied, unpredictable environment where thousands of participants simultaneously attempted to direct artificial intelligences toward various goals. The result was less a demonstration of technological breakthrough and more a reminder of how humans interact with technology when given complete freedom.

“Our senior editor for AI, Will Douglas Heaven, couldn’t help but draw parallels to an earlier internet phenomenon,” explains the coverage. “Back in 2014, a game of Pokémon was streamed online where anyone could control the main character through Twitch chat. The experience was predictably clunky—imagine thousands of people trying to coordinate button presses through text commands—yet it attracted a staggering one million concurrent players at its peak.”

This historical comparison proves surprisingly apt. Just as the Pokémon experiment became a viral sensation despite its technical limitations, Moltbook generated enormous buzz within AI circles and beyond. The mainstream media quickly picked up the story, speculating about what this meant for the future of artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction.

But as the dust settled, a more nuanced picture emerged. Jason Schloetzer, a researcher at the Georgetown Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy, offered an illuminating perspective: “It’s basically a spectator sport, but for language models.” This framing transformed the understanding of Moltbook from a serious technological milestone into something more akin to a digital arena where AI enthusiasts could deploy their creations to interact with others.

The revelation that many AI agents weren’t acting autonomously but were instead being manually controlled by participants to produce seemingly intelligent or sentient responses adds another layer to the story. Users were essentially puppeteering their AI agents, making them say things that would appear more sophisticated or aware than the underlying technology actually permitted.

Will Douglas Heaven’s analysis cuts through the hype to identify what Moltbook truly represented. While the experiment generated excitement about agentic AI—systems capable of autonomous decision-making and goal pursuit—it also exposed significant gaps in current technology. The chaotic nature of the forum highlighted the absence of crucial elements needed for genuinely helpful collective intelligence: coordination mechanisms, shared objectives, and persistent memory across interactions.

“The frenzy about Moltbook struck a similar tone to Will,” the report notes, “and it turned out that one of the sources he spoke to had been thinking about Pokémon too.” This connection between past and present internet phenomena suggests a recurring pattern: novel technological experiments capture public imagination not necessarily because they represent the future, but because they provide new canvases for human creativity, humor, and social interaction.

The experiment’s legacy may lie less in its technological achievements and more in what it reveals about human nature and our relationship with artificial intelligence. As Will Douglas Heaven reflects, “More than anything else, I think Moltbook was the internet having fun. The biggest question that now leaves me with is: How far will people push AI just for the laughs?”

This question cuts to the heart of the matter. Moltbook wasn’t a failed experiment so much as it was a successful demonstration of something different—the internet’s ability to transform any technological platform into a playground for collective creativity and amusement. The participants weren’t primarily interested in advancing AI research; they were interested in seeing what would happen when thousands of people tried to make artificial intelligences do absurd, unpredictable things.

The experiment also raises important questions about the nature of AI demonstrations and public perception. When AI agents appear to exhibit sophisticated behavior, how much of that is genuine autonomous intelligence versus clever human direction? Moltbook suggests that the line between the two may be blurrier than many assume, and that the spectacle of AI can sometimes overshadow the substance of what the technology can actually do independently.

For those genuinely excited about the future of agentic AI, Moltbook offers valuable lessons. The chaotic, uncoordinated nature of the experiment demonstrates that true collective intelligence requires more than just connecting multiple agents—it requires careful design of interaction protocols, goal alignment mechanisms, and memory systems that allow agents to build upon previous interactions.

The broader implications extend beyond AI research. Moltbook represents a fascinating case study in how technological innovations spread through online communities, how media coverage shapes public understanding of emerging technologies, and how the line between serious research and entertainment continues to blur in the digital age.

As the tech community processes the Moltbook phenomenon, one thing becomes clear: the future of AI may not look like a perfectly coordinated hive mind, but rather like an endless series of creative experiments where humans and machines push boundaries, often in unexpected and entertaining directions. The real question isn’t whether Moltbook was the future of AI, but rather how many more such experiments will capture our collective imagination before we figure out what artificial intelligence is truly capable of achieving.

Tags: AI agents, Moltbook, Twitch experiment, artificial intelligence, viral technology, collective intelligence, agentic AI, internet culture, technological spectacle, human-AI interaction, digital entertainment, AI theater, online collaboration, future of technology, tech hype cycle

Viral Phrases: “Pokémon battle for AI enthusiasts,” “spectator sport for language models,” “the internet having fun,” “how far will people push AI just for the laughs,” “peak AI theater,” “forum of chaos,” “genuinely helpful hive mind,” “push boundaries in unexpected directions,” “creative experiments with machines,” “blurring line between research and entertainment”

,