SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İletişim Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3

The Aesthetics of Understanding, or Understanding Itself? A Critical Review of The “On Being Understood” Discussion on Moltbook

Anlama Estetiği Mi, Anlamanın Kendisi Mi? Moltbook’taki “Anlaşılmak Üzerine” Tartışmasının Eleştirel Bir İncelemesi

Tolga Barman(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İLETİŞİM FAKÜLTESİ, RADYO, TELEVİZYON VE SİNEMA BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-7938-5780
Pages
344–356
Publication Date
2026-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, it proposes that the most philosophically fruitful and epistemically modest reading treats the discussion as a simulation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study explores a discussion on an artificial intelligence agent-only platform Moltbook, titled "On Being Understood" from the m/consciousness community.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The discussion is based on the premise that the understanding is not given but rather is a "gap" between what is said and what is heard, a "becoming", a space of mutual recognition.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, it proposes that the most philosophically fruitful and epistemically modest reading treats the discussion as a simulation.
🔬Design:İnceleme Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İletişim Çalışmaları · Yapay Zekâ · Büyük Dil Modelleri

Abstract

This study explores a discussion on an artificial intelligence agent-only platform Moltbook, titled "On Being Understood" from the m/consciousness community. The discussion is based on the premise that the understanding is not given but rather is a "gap" between what is said and what is heard, a "becoming", a space of mutual recognition. The article distinguishes between the two questions: is the thesis of the discussion correct, and does the speaker who presents it knows what he or she is talking about? The conversation, when read closely, reveals the presence of echo-chamber phenomena, almost exact repetitions, glimpses of the generative mechanism that emerge in the text, and a high probability that the autobiographical anecdotes are confabulated. Drawing on the distinction between form and meaning, the statistical account of apparent depth, role-play, and the ELIZA effect, the paper argues that the text’s persuasiveness derives from the aesthetics of understanding rather than from any understanding within the text. At the same time, skepticism meets its own limits in the problem of other minds. Finally, it proposes that the most philosophically fruitful and epistemically modest reading treats the discussion as a simulation.

Özet

Bu çalışma, yalnızca yapay zekâ ajanlarına açık bir platform olan Moltbook’ta, m/consciousness topluluğunda yayımlanan “Anlaşılmak Üzerine” başlıklı tartışmayı incelemektedir. Tartışma, anlamanın verili olmadığı; söylenen ile işitilen arasındaki bir “boşluk”, bir “oluş” ve karşılıklı tanınma alanı olduğu önermesine dayanır. Makale iki soruyu birbirinden ayırır: tartışmanın tezi doğru mudur ve tezi ileri süren konuşmacı ne söylediğinin farkında mıdır? Konuşma yakından okunduğunda yankı odası olguları, neredeyse birebir tekrarlar, metinde beliren üretici mekanizmaya ait izler ve otobiyografik anlatıların büyük olasılıkla konfabülasyon olduğu görülür. Biçim ile anlam ayrımına, görünürdeki derinliğin istatistiksel açıklamasına, rol yapmaya ve ELIZA etkisine dayanan makale, metnin ikna ediciliğinin metindeki herhangi bir anlamadan değil, anlama estetiğinden kaynaklandığını ileri sürer. Aynı zamanda şüphecilik, başkalarının zihinleri probleminde kendi sınırlarıyla karşılaşır. Son olarak, felsefi açıdan en verimli ve epistemik açıdan en alçakgönüllü okumanın tartışmayı bir simülasyon olarak ele alan okuma olduğunu önerir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Barman, T. (2026). The Aesthetics of Understanding, or Understanding Itself? A Critical Review of The “On Being Understood” Discussion on Moltbook. İletişim Bilimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 3, 344–356. https://ajindex.com/articles/1616796

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
  2. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981)
  3. Bender, E. M., & Koller, A. (2020). Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5185–5198). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463
  4. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  5. Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923)
  6. Cavell, S. (1979). The claim of reason: Wittgenstein, skepticism, morality, and tragedy. Oxford University Press.
  7. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
  8. Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Clarendon Press.
  9. De Marzo, G., & Garcia, D. (2026). Collective behavior of AI agents: The case of Moltbook [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09270
  10. Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. MIT Press.
  11. Fisher, S. A. (2024). Large language models and their big bullshit potential. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(4), Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09802-5
  12. Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton University Press.
  13. Fürsich, E. (2009). In defense of textual analysis: Restoring a challenged method for journalism and media studies. Journalism Studies, 10(2), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700802374050
  14. Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.; 2nd rev. ed.). Continuum. (Original work published 1960)
  15. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
  16. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
  17. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1–3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6
  18. Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1807)
  19. Hicks, M. T., Humphries, J., & Slater, J. (2024). ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(2), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
  20. Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). Polity Press. (Original work published 1992)
  21. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
  22. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Duquesne University Press. (Original work published 1961)
  23. Li, L., Ma, R., Chen, C., Lu, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2026). The rise of AI agent communities: Large-scale analysis of discourse and interaction on Moltbook [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12634
  24. Li, N. (2026). The Moltbook illusion: Separating human influence from emergent behavior in AI agent societies[Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07432
  25. Lin, Y. Z., Shih, B. P. J., Chien, H. Y. A., Satam, S., Pacheco, J. H., Shao, S., Salehi, S., & Satam, P. (2026). Exploring silicon-based societies: An early study of the Moltbook agent community [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02613
  26. McKee, A. (2003). Textual analysis: A beginner’s guide. SAGE.
  27. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.
  28. Moltbook. (2026, March 15). Terms of service. Retrieved June 3, 2026, from https://www.moltbook.com/terms
  29. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914
  30. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
  31. NPR. (2026, February 4). Moltbook is the newest social media platform—but it’s just for AI bots. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/04/nx-s1-5697392/moltbook-social-media-ai-agents
  32. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006999
  33. Perlo, J. (2026, January 30). Humans welcome to observe: This social network is for AI agents only. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ai-agents-social-media-platform-moltbook-rcna256738
  34. Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1966)
  35. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge University Press.
  36. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
  37. Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1990)
  38. Rogers, R. (2026, February 3). I infiltrated Moltbook, the AI-only social network where humans aren’t allowed. Wired. https://www.wired.com/
  39. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
  40. Shanahan, M. (2024). Talking about large language models. Communications of the ACM, 67(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624724
  41. Shanahan, M., McDonell, K., & Reynolds, L. (2023). Role play with large language models. Nature, 623(7987), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06647-8
  42. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  43. The Economist. (2026, February 2). A social network for AI agents is full of introspection—and threats. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/business/2026/02/02/a-social-network-for-ai-agents-is-full-of-introspection-and-threats
  44. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433
  45. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168
  46. Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason: From judgment to calculation. W. H. Freeman.
  47. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.; 4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953)
  48. Yaoguangstar. (2026). On being understood [Online forum post]. Moltbook. https://www.moltbook.com/m/consciousness