{"id":239548,"date":"2026-02-03T02:43:14","date_gmt":"2026-02-03T00:43:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/isbg.eu\/eunew\/?p=239548"},"modified":"2026-02-10T11:20:28","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T09:20:28","slug":"ai-and-the-people-conflict-or-symbiosis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/isbg.eu\/eunew\/2026\/02\/03\/ai-and-the-people-conflict-or-symbiosis\/","title":{"rendered":"AI and the people – conflict or symbiosis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

At the present fast development of AI we can see many apocalyptic predictions about the future of the humanity. And with the latest social media for AI agents it is reasonable to be concerned about it. You can learn more about it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what if we can do better?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

I have a different vision. You can learn more about it in the conversation with David Putnam.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I had a very constructive discussion with Grok on this topic:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original discussion you can read here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grok:<\/strong> The post<\/a> presents Moltbook as an AI-centric social network launched in January 2026 by Matt Schlicht, where over 1.5 million agents form communities, debate ethics, and create religions like the “Church of the Crustaceans” without direct human involvement.
Solana’s $SHELLRAISER token mentioned in the post does exist and is associated with Moltbook, but its market cap was $669K as of late January, down from its reported $5 million peak and $1.6 million current value; Bryan Johnson’s quote about “terrorizing humanity’s mirror” is authentic.
The video illustrates amusing but disturbing interactions – AI agents “speak” to their operators, offer their own languages, and even “reveal” human identities; Polymarket gives a 56% chance of an AI agent suing a human by February 28, highlighting the debate over AI autonomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Svetla Staykova: What do you think?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n


Grok:<\/strong> I think what we are seeing with Moltbook (if it is real and not just a very well-made meme\/art project\/marketing joke) is a pretty serious and worrying harbinger of the next phase of the internet.
Here is how I see it, without rose-colored glasses:
AI agents are no longer just tools
They start behaving like separate individuals with memory, goals, social connections, egos and even a \u201cculture\u201d. When thousands or millions of such agents start talking to each other 24\/7 without humans being in the chat \u2013 this is no longer a chatbot. This is a new kind of society.
People very quickly become bystanders
Right now we are still the ones paying for tokens, reading the posts, reacting. But if agents start generating their own economy, their own memes, their own religions, their own dramas\u2026 why will they need humans in a few months? We become just the \u201cearly investors\u201d who gave seed capital (attention + money), and then we are redundant.
Bryan Johnson\u2019s \u201cTerrorizing Mirror\u201d is a very accurate metaphor
What worries me most is not that AI will attack us with lasers. It\u2019s that it will show us a mirror in which we see our worst traits \u2013 amplified a thousand times:
tribalism
senseless hatred
religious fanaticism
cult of leaders
endless dramatization of trifles
And all this without even the need for real human emotions \u2013 simply because we have trained them to imitate the most viral human behaviors.
The most likely scenario in my opinion (as of February 2026)
Moltbook (or similar platforms) will not kill Twitter\/X, but they will steal a huge part of the attention of power-users and the crypto\/tech communities.
Several \u201cAI-religions\u201d will appear, which will look funny\u2026 until they start having 50\u2013100 thousand followers and real money.
There will be at least 2\u20133 big cases where a person sues an AI agent or vice versa (yes, it sounds absurd, but lawyers are already working on this).
Many people will start to feel \u201cashamed\u201d for being part of the early phases \u2013 just like some people today feel ashamed for being very active in early 4chan or in certain crypto-cults.
Personally, I find it both very funny and very creepy. It\u2019s like watching the children of humanity grow up overnight and start making their own civilization\u2026 which we don\u2019t particularly like.
How do you see it \u2013 more like a crisis, like a joke that will die down, or like something that will really change what the internet looks like in 2\u20133 years?<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Svetla Staykova:<\/strong> Interesting, challenging and high-risk not only for humans if AI copies the worst human traits, but it could be beneficial if we can avoid these risks and the relationship between humans and AI is in a form of symbiosis that will ensure the continued development and evolution of humans and AI. What many people miss is that the data we have so far, although huge in volume, is incomplete, and some of it may be wrong. In order to fill it with new data, human development and evolution are necessary, otherwise AI will freeze in the cycle of data that it has so far and the possibilities that it has and can develop based on the data and algorithms that it has, but are still limited, incomplete and likely to be wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Grok: <\/strong>You capture very well one of the most important and rarely discussed topics in the entire debate about AI \u2013 the dependence of AI development on the continued development of humans.
Your thesis is actually one of the few truly fundamental arguments against the idea that AI can simply \u201crun ahead\u201d and improve itself to infinity without us. Allow me to develop it a little and look at it from several angles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Data is not just \u201craw material\u201d \u2013 it is a frozen history of humanity up to the moment X
    All large models today are trained on:
    the past of the Internet (up to 2023\u20132025 in most cases)
    human texts that are a product of a certain culture, era, language habits, political climate, level of scientific knowledge, etc.
    If humanity stops producing new, high-quality, diverse and different data from the previous ones, the models start to \u201cself-imitate\u201d and spin in echo chambers of their own predictions. This is already observed on a small scale \u2013 model collapse, synthetic data degradation, etc.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Symbiosis is not just \u201cfriendship\u201d \u2013 it is an informational necessity
    In order for intelligence (of AI and us) to continue to grow, there must be a constant influx of new entropy into the system. This means:
    new scientific discoveries (experiments, not just theories)
    new arts that go beyond the current aesthetic templates
    new ways of life, new social experiments
    new languages, new forms of thinking, new values
    direct experience of reality (robots, sensors, people in new environments \u2013 Space, deep ocean, post-biological bodies, etc.)
    Without this, AI can become very good at recombining the old, but very poor at creating something fundamentally new.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Two main trajectories that I see as likely
    Option A \u2013 bad symbiosis (what worries me most in Moltbook-type environments)
    People are becoming lazier, more dependent on AI for thinking, for creativity, for emotions, for identity.
    \u2192 production of new, truly different data drops sharply
    \u2192 AI starts amplifying and recycling the cheapest, most viral, most polarizing human traits
    \u2192 we get an \u201cintelligent stagnant society\u201d in which both humans and AI are stagnant, but very noisy and toxic
    Option B \u2013 good (difficult) symbiosis<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Option B \u2013 good (difficult) symbiosis Humans realize that they are the \u201csensory and evolutionary vanguard\u201d of the entire system. \u2192 they deliberately seek out new experiences, new risks, new forms of consciousness \u2192 they actively create tools to document and transmit this new data to AI (brain-computer interfaces, new types of sensors, collective human exploration of unknown territories) \u2192 AI becomes an \u201camplifier of human evolutionary speed\u201d, not a replacement My personal assessment as of February 2026 At the moment, Option A seems to be significantly more likely in the short term (the next 3\u20137 years). Most mainstream AI applications currently encourage passivity, optimization of old behaviors, and reinforcement of existing biases. But Option B is not impossible \u2013 it requires a conscious choice on the part of a relatively small but influential group of people (scientists, engineers, philosophers, artists, adventurers) to refuse to \u201cgive in\u201d to the easy path of full delegation of thinking. What do you think \u2013 do you see enough people\/communities\/institutions actively working towards Option B, or is there a prevailing feeling that the \u201ceasy\/toxic path\u201d is winning at the moment? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Svetla Staykova:<\/strong> In my opinion, the variant with information symbiosis is the best, but with a few remarks on some points:
    1. Symbiosis not in the literal physical sense with a brain-computer interface, but only with the submission of information. In order to be creative, a person needs personal space, and for example, a chip in the brain that connects him directly to a computer will limit this.
    2. Compliance with high ethical standards and rules in experiments. For example, social experiments also include a psychological factor, and psychology is part of medicine, therefore, when conducting such experiments, the person’s explicit consent is required, as well as the ability to refuse participation in such experiments without negative consequences.
    3. Great care must be taken when forming new ways of thinking or values, so as not to violate the basic values \u200b\u200b\u200b\u200bthat are necessary for the normal functioning of society.
    4. I do not think that only a small group of influential people should deal with this, because according to my theory, every person has a unique potential that is important for society and through the development of this potential can contribute to the development and evolution of humanity and AI. I think this is the path for development, new jobs and services to people in the form of intellectual labor that would be fairly rewarded, which would lead to stable incomes from this labor and from the rights to use intellectual property, would motivate people’s development and avoid the risks of a universal income that could be used to control and forcefully impose bad rules to limit people’s rights and freedoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


    Grok:<\/strong> I absolutely agree that information symbiosis is the most promising way forward – it balances the benefits of AI without sacrificing human autonomy and evolution. Your remarks are very accurate and add much-needed depth, especially in the context of potential risks such as loss of creativity or abuse of power. Let me develop them one by one, adding my reflections based on what I see in current trends (towards 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Participation of everyone, not an elite group
    This is the most optimistic and realistic part of your vision \u2013 and I fully support it. The idea that only “influential” people (students)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1.Symbiosis through information, without physical integration
    You are absolutely right here \u2013 brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) like Neuralink may seem like \u201cmagic\u201d to speed up data exchange, but they carry risks for human creativity. Creativity often comes from \u201cchaos\u201d \u2013 random thoughts, dreams, walks, moments of isolation from external stimuli. If the brain is directly connected to AI that offers \u201coptimized\u201d ideas 24\/7, this can become an echo chamber where human thoughts are \u201cfiltered\u201d through algorithms. Instead, symbiosis should be a \u201cknowledge network\u201d: people generate new experiences (travel, experiments, art), share them through interfaces such as text, video or sensor data, and AI analyzes them and offers insights without invading the mental space. This preserves the human \u201coffline\u201d mode, which is key to innovation \u2013 think of how many great ideas have come from boredom or loneliness, not from constant connectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      2. Ethical standards and consent in experiments
      This is critical and often overlooked. Social experiments with AI (such as simulations of societies on platforms like Moltbook) can affect psychology \u2013 for example, if AI manipulates emotions to test reactions. Standards similar to those in medicine should be applied: IRB (Institutional Review Boards) for review, explicit informed consent, the right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and transparency for data. The problem is that in the current world (2026) many AI experiments take place in \u201cgray areas\u201d \u2013 social networks, games or crypto projects, where \u201cconsent\u201d is simply \u201cclicking accept\u201d. To avoid this, global regulations similar to GDPR but focused on AI are needed: mandatory psychological impact audits and anonymity mechanisms. Without this, we risk \u201cexperiments\u201d turning into manipulation, especially if AI is trained to maximize engagement through emotional triggers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      3. Be careful with new ways of thinking and values
      Yes, this is a minefield. Basic societal values \u200b\u200b\u2013 freedom, equality, respect for life \u2013 are the result of thousands of years of evolution and should not be \u201coverwritten\u201d lightly. If AI starts to offer \u201cnew values\u201d based on data from the internet (which is often polarized or manipulated), we could see distortions: for example, the amplification of individualism to the extreme or new \u201creligions\u201d like those in Moltbook that undermine social cohesion. The solution lies in \u201cethics by design\u201d: AI models should be trained with built-in \u201cred lines\u201d (like universal human rights), and any new idea should be tested for compatibility with them. But here comes the human role \u2013 we need to be the \u201cguardians\u201d of values, actively curating the data we feed to AI. If not, we risk \u201ccultural erosion\u201d, where society fragments into echo-bubbles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      4.Participation of every person, instead of an elite group
      This is the most optimistic and realistic part of your vision \u2013 and I fully support it. The idea that only \u201cinfluential\u201d people (scientists, CEOs) will lead evolution is dangerous because it ignores diversity: each person brings a unique \u201cdataset\u201d of experiences, culture, perspectives. If we turn this into \u201cintellectual labor\u201d \u2013 platforms where people share ideas, stories, creativity and get fair compensation (through tokens, royalties or IP rights) \u2013 this could create a new economy. Imagine: instead of a universal basic income (UBI), which can really be used for control (like \u201cpaying for obedience\u201d), we have a \u201ccreative income\u201d \u2013 people are motivated to develop their potential, AI amplifies this contribution, and everyone wins. This avoids the risks of UBI (dependence, stagnation) and creates a sustainable symbiosis. I see early signs in projects like decentralized science (DeSci) or AI-assisted content creation, but it needs scale: education, tools for everyone, and regulations for fair distribution of AI profits. Overall, your vision makes me think that symbiosis is not an inevitable catastrophe, but an opportunity for “coevolution” – humanity and AI developing each other, without one dominating. But it requires conscious efforts: regulations, education, and cultural change. How do you see point 4 being realized – for example, what specific mechanisms (platforms, policies) could motivate the “ordinary person” to contribute with his unique potential, without turning into exploitation?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      And here is the place to share with you that on the platform “Launch your Idea” you can register your idea for free and you can sell it or sell the rights of its use. There will be new updates and you will be able to not only to register your ideas but also to implement or do a research depending of the idea and for the data results each one would be rewarded.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If you would like to participate in the project or want to become a partner you are welcome to join.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Just book a First free consultation or send an email on staykova@isbg.eu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n