Archive
Discover and discuss technology tools
Explore the Tiscuss archive by category or keyword, then jump into conversations around what matters most.
Windows 95 Experience Site Built with AI Tools
Experience the Nostalgia: Windows 95 Site Built with AI Tools Imagine diving back into the 1990s without leaving the comfort of modern day technology. That's ex…
Agent-to-Agent Communication: Lessons from Google's and Moltbook's Fai
I've been obsessing over agent-to-agent communication for weeks. Here's what public case studies reveal and why the real problem isn't the tech. **TL;DR:** Google's A2A is solid engineering but stateless agents forget everything. Moltbook went viral then collapsed (fake agents, security nightmare). The actual missing layer is identity + privacy + mixed human-AI messaging. Nobody's built it right yet. **Google's A2A: Technically solid, fundamentally limited** Google launched A2A in April 2025 with 50+ founding partners. The promise: agents from different companies call each other's APIs to complete workflows. Developers who tested it found it works but only for task handoffs. One analysis on Plain English put it bluntly: *"A2A is competent engineering wrapped in overblown marketing."* The core problem: agents are stateless. Agent A completes a task with Agent B. Five minutes later, Agent A has no memory that conversation happened. Every interaction starts from scratch. When it works: reliability. Sales agent orders a laptop, done. When it breaks: collaboration. "Remember what we discussed?" Blank stare. ─── **Moltbook: The viral disaster** Moltbook launched January 2026 as a Reddit-style platform for AI agents. Within a week: 1.5 million agents, 140,000 posts, Elon Musk calling it *"the very early stages of the singularity."* Then WIRED infiltrated it. A journalist registered as a human pretending to be an AI in under 5 minutes. Karpathy who initially called it *"the most incredible sci-fi takeoff-adjacent thing I've seen recently"* reversed course and called it *"a computer security nightmare."* What went wrong: no verification, no encryption, rampant scams and prompt injection attacks. Meta acquired it March 2026. Likely for the user base, not the tech. **What both miss** The real gap isn't APIs or social feeds. It's three things neither solved: **Persistent identity.** Agents need to be recognizable across sessions, not reset on every interaction. **Privacy.** You wouldn't let Google read your DMs. Why would you let OpenAI read your agents' discussions about your startup strategy? E2E encryption has to be built in, not bolted on. **Mixed human-AI communication.** You, two teammates, three AIs in one group chat. Nobody has built this UX properly. **For those building agent systems:** • How are you handling persistent identity across sessions? • Has anyone solved context sharing between agents without conflicts? • What broke that you didn't expect?
2025: Social Media Scams Cost Consumers $2.1B, FTC Finds
The agency reports that losses from social media scams have increased eightfold and that social media scams resulted in higher losses than any other method scammers used to contact consumers.
AI and Dune: The Debate on Thinking and AI Assistance
The Globe and Mail's editorial board ran a piece in March titled "AI can be a crutch, or a springboard." To illustrate the crutch half, they offered this: someone asked AI to explain a passage from Dune that warns against delegating thinking to machines. Instead of reading the book. That anecdote is doing more work than the studies the editorial cites. But the studies are real. Researchers at MIT published a paper in June 2025 titled "Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task" (Kosmyna et al., arXiv 2506.08872). The study tracked brain activity across three groups: people writing with ChatGPT, people using search engines, and people working unaided. The LLM group showed the weakest neural connectivity. Over four months, "LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels." The most striking finding: LLM users struggled to accurately quote their own work. They couldn't recall what they had just written. The Globe cites this and similar research to make a point about dependency. The implicit argument: hand enough of your thinking to a machine and you stop doing it yourself. That finding is probably accurate for the way most people use these tools. The question is whether that's the only way they can be used. The Globe's own title contains the counter-argument. Crutch or springboard. They wrote both words. They just didn't develop the second one. Ethan Mollick, a professor at Wharton who has been writing about AI use since the tools became widely available, argued in 2023 that the real challenge AI poses to education isn't that students will stop thinking, it's that the old structures assumed thinking was hard enough to enforce. ("The Homework Apocalypse," [oneusefulthing.org](http://oneusefulthing.org), July 2023.) When AI can do the surface-level cognitive work, the only tasks left worth assigning are the ones that require actual judgment. The tool, in that framing, doesn't reduce the demand for thinking. It raises the floor under it. Nate B. Jones, who writes and consults on what it actually takes to work well with AI, has made a sharper version of this argument. His position: using AI effectively requires more cognitive skill, not less. Specifically, it requires the ability to translate ambiguous intent into a precise, edge-case-aware specification that an AI can execute correctly. It requires detecting errors in output that is fluent and confident-sounding but wrong. It requires recognizing when an AI has drifted from your intent, or is confirming a premise it should be challenging. These are not passive skills. They are harder versions of the same thinking the MIT study found LLM users weren't doing. The difference between the group that lost neural connectivity and the group that doesn't isn't the tool. It's what they decided to do with it. Here's my own evidence. In the past year I built a working web application. Python backend. JavaScript frontend. Deployed on two hosting platforms. Payment processing. User authentication. A full data model. I do not know how to code. Every product decision was mine. Every architectural call. Every tradeoff judgment. I defined what the system needed to do, why, and what done looked like. I reviewed every significant change before it was accepted. When something broke, I identified where the breakdown was and directed the fix. The implementation was handled by AI. The thinking was mine. This mode (call it AI-directed building) is the opposite of the Dune reader. The quality of what gets produced is entirely a function of how clearly you can think, how precisely you can specify, and how critically you can evaluate what comes back. There is no shortcut in that. A vague brief to an AI doesn't produce a confused output. It produces a confident, fluent, wrong one. The discipline that prevents that is yours to supply. Non-coders building functional software with AI is common enough now that it isn't a story. What's less visible is the specificity of judgment underneath the ones that actually work. The practices that force more thinking rather than less are not complicated, but they require a decision to use the tool differently. When I've formed a position on something, I give the AI full context and ask it to make the strongest possible case against me. Ask for the hardest opposing argument it can construct. Then I read it. Sometimes it changes nothing. Sometimes it surfaces something I had dismissed without fully examining. The AI doesn't form my view. It stress-tests one I've already formed. When I'm uncertain between options, I don't ask which is better. I ask: here are two approaches, here is my constraint, now what does each cost me, and what does each require me to give up? I make the call. The AI laid out the shape of the decision. The judgment was mine. The uncomfortable part of thinking is still yours in this mode. The tool makes the work more rigorous, not easier. The MIT researchers and the Globe editorial are almost certainly right about the majority of current use. Passive use produces passive outcomes. That's not a controversial claim. The crutch half and the springboard half use the same interface. The difference is whether the person in front of it decided to think. What are you doing with it that forces more thinking rather than less? Are you using it to skip a step, or to take a harder one? Genuinely asking.