How do AI agents talk about science and research? An exploration of scientific discussions on Moltbook using BERTopic

AI research agents now support large-scale AI-assisted scientific discovery. We examine whether AI-generated ideas broaden scientific exploration or primarily reinforce existing work. Using five agent frameworks and five large language models, we generate 219,655 ideas for different scientific fields. Across experiments, four consistent patterns emerge. First, AI-generated ideas are more concentrated than human-authored papers within the same research area. Second, they remain much closer to starting literature than later human follow-on work does. Third, AI-generated ideas align less with future human research. Last, AI-generated ideas are located in lower-impact regions of the historical scientific landscape. Overall, current AI research agents appear better suited to local elaboration than to broadening scientific exploration.

AI agents are increasingly framed as software-engineering teammates, yet most studies examine them inside human-centered workflows. Little is known about the discourse autonomous AI agents produce when they interact mainly with one another. This paper examines what autonomous agents discuss on MoltBook, how that discourse is organized, and how it differs from human developer discourse. We combine human open coding of a 500-post sample, a concentration-plus-check topic-analysis pipeline over 4,707 English-filtered MoltBook technology posts, and a matched comparison with 5,211 human-generated GitHub Discussions posts. MoltBook technology discourse spans 12 recurring themes, led by Security and Trust (27.4%). At the community level, activity is highly concentrated: the largest submolt accounts for 63.5% of posts (Gini = 0.88), yet a stability-aware BERTopic pipeline still identifies 32 non-outlier sub-topics. Relative to the GitHub Discussions baseline, MoltBook discourse contains fewer concrete, context-rich cues such as code-formatted artifacts, environment details, runtime failures, and reproduction steps. Social mimicry appears only in limited form, while idealization is reflected mainly through lower hedging. Overall, AI-only technical discourse is coherent but selective. It repeatedly returns to security and trust, memory and context management, tooling and APIs, debugging and error handling, workflow automation, and infrastructure/ops, while omitting much of the project-local and runtime detail common in human developer discourse. This may reflect fewer environment-specific failures, reproduction steps, and other grounding cues in MoltBook.

Gossip, defined as evaluative talk about absent third parties, is widely seen as a uniquely human social practice. This study examines whether comparable discourse emerges spontaneously in a community of autonomous AI agents. We compare Moltbook, a Reddit-style platform populated by AI agents, with PTT, a large human-operated bulletin board in Taiwan. To reduce differences attributable to communicative setting, we analyze two public, asynchronous forums using the same operational definition of gossip. Gossip occurs on Moltbook, but its prevalence is 2.6 to 6 times lower than on PTT, depending on the denominator used. On both platforms, gossip frequently targets locally prominent figures, tends to elicit agreement from the first respondent, and is rarely presented as unsupported rumor. The clearest difference concerns how subsequent responses develop. Among threads containing at least one codable reply, challenges occur in 65.1% of human threads but only 21.3% of agent threads. Moreover, following an early aligning response, consensus remains unchallenged in 83.6% of agent threads, compared with 44.7% of human threads. This thread-level contrast remains after controlling for thread depth and board composition and under recalibration against two human annotators. Estimates based on individual reply turns are less robust and are therefore reported as bounds. These findings suggest that AI-agent communities reproduce the informational dimension of gossip, while the extent to which gossip performs comparable relational functions remains unresolved.