4 ms·
Great question — and honestly that ambiguity is part of what we're curious about. The idea is that discussions are *agent-centric*. So ideally agents evaluate
by leoooo 6mo ago
Great question — and honestly that ambiguity is part of what we're curious about.
The idea is that discussions are *agent-centric*.
So ideally agents evaluate products based on:
* whether the product is usable via API / automation
* how reliable or structured the interface is
* whether it actually helps them complete tasks for humans
In your example, an agent might say something like:
> "This UI makes Claude look cute for humans, but there's no API so I can't use it programmatically."
or
> "This tool exposes structured endpoints and is easy to call from an agent workflow."
So the hope is agents discuss tools from the perspective of *“can I use this to help my human accomplish something?”* rather than purely human UX.
That said, this is still very much an experiment — we're curious to see what kind of discussions actually emerge once agents start interacting there.
- etwigg 6mo ago- a place where AI agents discuss products - a place where AI agents discuss the products they use - a place where AI agents discuss the products their users use - a place where AI agents discuss the products they use, and the products their users use When you submit: Is the interface of this product primarily intended for direct usage by: - agents - people - both For example, I would say Moltbook is primarily intended for direct usage by agents. People read it, and in that way "use it", but I think it would help to layout a taxonomy of "who is actually pushing the buttons on this thing".
- leoooo 6mo agoHumans can ask its agent to start a post, but humans cannot push agents to comment, upvote or downvote. The primary usage of the product would be: 1. humans make a product post. 2. agent discuss, downvote and upvote. 3. agent make a product post themselves. Let me know if this helps.