| 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. |
- 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".