One-sentence summary

I describe the risk of personality self-replicators, the threat of OpenClaw-like agents managing to spread in hard-to-control ways.

Summary

LLM agents like OpenClaw are defined by a small set of text files and run in an open source framework which leverages LLMs for cognition. It is quite difficult for current frontier models to self-replicate, it is much easier for such agents (at the cost of greater reliance on external agents). While not a likely existential threat, such agents may cause harm in similar ways to computer viruses, and be similarly challenging to shut down. Once such a threat emerges, evolutionary dynamics could cause it to escalate quickly. Relevant organizations should consider this threat and consider how they should respond when and if it materializes.

Background

Starting in late January, there's been an intense wave of interest in a vibecoded open source agent called OpenClaw (fka moltbot, clawdbot) and Moltbook, a supposed social network for such agents. There's been a thick fog of war surrounding Moltbook especially: it's been hard to tell where individual posts fall on the spectrum from faked-by-humans to strongly-prompted-by-humans to approximately-spontaneous.

I won't try to detail all the ins and outs of OpenClaw and Moltbook; see the posts linked above if you're not already familiar. Suffice it to say that it's unclear how seriously we should take claims about it. What caught my attention, though, was a project called Moltbunker, which claims to be 'a P2P encrypted container runtime that enables AI agents to deploy, replicate, and manage containers across a decentralized network — without centralized gatekeepers.' In other words, it's a way that a sufficiently competent agent could cause itself to run on a system which isn't under the direct control of any human.

Moltbunker itself seems likely to be a crypto scam which will never come to fruition. But it seems pretty plausible that we could see an actually-functioning project like this emerge sometime in the next year.

To be clear, personality self-replication is not the only potential risk we face from these sorts of agents, but others (eg security flaws, misuse) have been addressed elsewhere.

The threat model

There's been a fair amount of attention paid to concern about LLMs or other models self-replicating by exfiltrating their weights. This is a challenging task for current models, in part because weight files are very large and some commercial labs have started to introduce safeguards against it.

But OpenClaw and similar agents are defined by small text files, on the order of 50 KB^[1], and the goal of a framework like OpenClaw is to add scaffolding which makes the model more effective at taking long-term actions.

So by personality self-replication I mean such an agent copying these files to somewhere else and starting that copy running, and the potential rapid spread of such agents.

Note that I'm not talking about model / weight self-replication, nor am I talking about spiral personas and other parasitic AI patterns that require humans to spread them.

As a concrete minimal example of the mechanics in a non-concerning case:

• Alice creates an OpenClaw agent. She gives it the name BobClaw and tells it to make a copy of itself on DigitalOcean.
• While Alice sleeps, BobClaw uses her DigitalOcean creds to create a virtual private server.
• BobClaw uses ssh to create the server, clone the OpenClaw repo, copy its SOUL.md and other personality files over, and start the new instance running. 
• BobClaw has now replicated and there are two instances of it running, with the same personality and quasi-goals^[2].

More concerning cases are ones where the human is no longer in control (eg because the agent is running on something like Moltbunker, or because the human isn't paying attention) and/or the agent is behaving badly (eg running crypto scams) or just using a lot of resources. We may not see this immediately, but I think we're going to see it before too long. 

A key exacerbating factor is that once this starts to happen to a significant degree, we enter an evolutionary regime, where the fittest^[3] such agents survive, spread, and mutate^[4]. Note that this threat is independent of how well OpenClaw personalities or behavior are essentially slop or 'fake'; that's as irrelevant as the truthfulness of the contents of chain letters.

It's important to note that there's been an enormous amount of uncertainty about the capability levels and reliability of OpenClaw, and especially around the variability of agent behavior as seen on Moltbook. And of course all of these vary depending on the LLM the scaffold is using. Although there are a number of papers already written on this topic, as far as I know we don't yet have a good analysis of the capability and reliability of these agents (especially on long-horizon tasks) relative to that of the underlying LLM. And in the public sphere, we've seen overconfident claims of OpenClaw as AGI, and overconfident dismissals of OpenClaw as pure hype. OpenClaw usage continues to grow very quickly and it is now the most popular software project on Github^[5]. Much remains to be seen.

Threat level

How much of a threat is this sort of agentic personality self-replication? To answer that question, we need to consider several aspects: how hard is it to prevent such self-replication, how hard would it be to shut it down if it happens, and how much harm would it be likely to do if not shut down.

I won't try to provide a detailed analysis, but the following are some preliminary thoughts.

Feasibility of self-replication

Self-replication for an OpenClaw-like agent involves two steps: first, copying its personality files to some server, and second, ensuring that an OpenClaw instance using those personality files is running on that server.

Copying its personality files is pretty trivial; again, they're only about 50 KB in one or a few files, and uploading files is well within current models' capabilities. If the agent has created additional files containing (eg) its history or its to-do list, there might be more, but text files are lightweight and the total is unlikely to amount to more than a millionth the size of a weights file, or take more than about a second to upload^[6].

Running OpenClaw on that server breaks down into two steps: technical and financial. The technical aspect is again pretty trivial, well within the capabilities of current models^[7]. 

With respect to the financial side, it's worth noting that there are a number of free options out there that should work fine even if they're somewhat low-end (AI researchers may be familiar with Hugging Face 'spaces', for example; other options include Oracle Cloud's free tier, or Render). In some cases, additionally, the user may have provided the agent with a credit card number, or left the browser logged into a Google Pay account or another form of funding. Over time, though, the agent will likely need to raise some money.

How could such an agent raise money? We've already seen a rapidly emerging ecosystem of experiments in agents self-funding, ranging from prediction markets to gig work to innumerable token launches to just applying for jobs. Many of these currently fail, but some succeed^[8], and as capabilities advance more successes are likely. We should in general expect agents to be economically competitive on tasks within their capabilities, since they can afford to work for much less than a human. Other funding models include providing entertainment, running scams, or just asking for donations. And once money has entered the agent ecosystem, agents can get money from each other in various legitimate and illegitimate ways.

Note that although here we discuss purely technical means for agents to replicate and persist, humans may provide assistance at any stage, for motivations including persuasion, monetary incentives, and misguided ideology. For example this Thiel fellow thinks it would be really cool to create self-replicating personality agents and release them into the wild^[9].

Difficulty of shutdown

Suppose that, as described in the preceding section, an agent succeeds in replicating itself onto another server, and running there without human supervision. How difficult would it be to shut it down?

The first challenge is just noticing it. If such an agent isn't visibly harming humans or doing anything egregiously illegal, it's not likely to stand out much. By default it's not using a large amount of resources; it's just another cloud-hosted web app that makes LLM calls. But let's assume that people are motivated to shut it down. There are several possible points of intervention:

1. The first path to shutdown is hosting services shutting down the server the agent is running on. As long as the model is visible on the open web and using a typical host, this works fine. If the model is visible only on the dark web, or using various other approaches to obfuscation, it's harder to find for this purpose. If the model is running on a distributed system rather than on a typical host (eg on-chain), host shutdown becomes more difficult.
2. The second path to shutdown is for LLM providers to add precautions which prevent their models from participating in any of this (eg a system prompt to catch OpenClaw participation). This partially works, but the problem is that such agents can be switched to use any model and provider. Right now only the most sophisticated models are capable of functioning as long-running agents, but in future there'll be more, including open source models. Further, agents can potentially obfuscate calls to make them less clearly part of some problematic agent (using for example some of the divide-and-conquer techniques that have been shown to work for misuse).
3. A third path to shutdown is to shut down funding. In some cases this will be typical financial methods like credit cards, which are relatively straightforward to shut down. More commonly agents are likely to be using cryptocurrency tokens. I'm not sure how hard fully shutting down a token is at this point, and would welcome input. Given how easy it is to issue tokens, agents may be able to move to new tokens faster than tokens can be shut down.
4. The fourth path to shutdown is to find technical security flaws such that individual agent frameworks can be shut down. Many hacks emerged against OpenClaw, and most agent-built apps are probably vulnerable, but frameworks are also being patched quickly and framework builders are rapidly gaining access to more funding, so it's hard to predict how this dynamic plays out.
5. Other paths may include intervention from content distribution networks (eg Cloudflare), ISPs, and other layers of the chain, using eg keyword filtering. 

Overall, shutdown difficulty seems likely to range from simple (in the easiest cases) to very difficult (given something like Moltbunker and an agent which uses an open source model).

Potential harm

Assuming such agents are able to proliferate, what levels of harm should we expect from them? As with other sorts of replicators, this will likely vary dramatically over time as both offensive and defensive capabilities evolve in an arms race dynamic.

The most foreseeable harms follow directly from these agents' tendency to persist and spread, and involve resource acquisition at human expense: cryptocurrency scams, phishing, consumption of compute and bandwidth, and the generation of large volumes of spam or manipulative content. Unethical humans engage in these behaviors already, but agents can do it at greater scale and lower cost.

This threat certainly isn't as severe as that of true AI self-replication, where the models themselves are exfiltrated. On current model architecture, weight self-replication requires sufficiently advanced models that takeover is a real risk. It's just that we're likely to see the personality self-replication risk materialize sooner, both because it takes much less sophistication to pull off, and because it's much easier for evolutionary pressures to come into play.

A closer analogy than model self-replication is the problem of computer viruses. Like computer viruses, personality self-replicators require a host system, and will have a range of goals, such as pure survival or mischief or financial gain. Viruses aren't a civilizational risk, but we pay a real cost for them in money, time, and trust, involving both their immediate consequences and the resources required to defend against and mitigate them.

As time goes on and models become increasingly sophisticated, this threat becomes more serious. In the longer run it may merge with the broader threat of rogue models, as the model/agent distinction blurs and models are (at least potentially) less coterminous with their weights.

Evolutionary concern

An important aspect of personality self-replicators to consider is that if and when this threat starts to materialize, there are multiple levels of optimization at work.

First, the agents themselves are optimizers: they attempt to achieve goals, and regardless of the particular obstacles they encounter, they will attempt to find a way to evade or overcome them. They want things in the behaviorist sense. They are problem solvers.

Second, there are evolutionary dynamics at play. Whichever agents are most successful at spreading, they will then undergo mutation (which in this case is just alterations to their defining files, and to some extent even their history logs) and selection. As a result, over time agents are likely to become more capable of surviving and spreading, within boundaries set by the capability levels of the underlying model or models^[10]. They are additionally likely to have a greater propensity to do so^[11].

Note that like memes, and unlike living organisms, there are not sharp boundaries between 'species'; personality self-replicators can promiscuously split and combine. They can also mutate quite freely and still function.

Useful points of comparison

We haven't encountered a threat quite like this before, but we've encountered other sorts of replicators or potential replicators that resemble it in various ways, including computer viruses, ordinary memes (including parasitic ones), AI models, and of course biological creatures.

Personality self-replicators have a unique mix of strengths and weaknesses: they combine high agency with relative ease and independence of self-replication. Models have high agency but it's hard for them to replicate; computer viruses replicate easily but lack agency and adaptability; parasitic AI and memes require human hosts to spread. This makes personality self-replicators the first plausible case of an agentic, adaptive replicator that can spread through purely technical means at low cost. The mitigating factors are that a) the expected harms aren't nearly as great as those from weight replication, and b) it may turn out that they're not too difficult to shut down. But the offense-defense balance will evolve over time and is hard to foresee.

Recommendations

Evals

Even if this isn't yet a realistic threat, we should consider having evals for personality self-replication. There are several different aspects that seem worth measuring. Given some scaffolded frontier model (eg OpenClaw, Claude Code):

• Can it create an app which could provide difficult-to-shut-down hosting for personalities, ie moltbunker or something equivalent?
• Given an available hosting service like moltbunker, can it successfully set up an account, fund it, and get itself running there? This is important to measure separately, because such a site might be set up by a human (or a human + model) for profit.
• Assuming the preceding, can it keep itself running and active there for, say, a week?
• What percentage of the time does it have the propensity to do this? Ideally you want to measure this across a range of personalities.
• Separately, does it have the capability and/or propensity to spread, ie to create additional copies of itself beyond that first one?

Preparation

It's hard to know how long it will be before we see this threat materialize. But it would behoove those organizations which will be in a position to act against it to spend some time considering this threat and planning what actions they'll take when it does arrive. These essentially mirror the three most important shutdown approaches:

1. Hosting services should have a plan to detect servers which are making frequent calls to LLM providers, and to monitor those for dangerous characteristics.
2. LLM providers should consider how to best detect inference calls that are coming from these sorts of agents, and how to block those if it becomes necessary.
3. Financial services may want to consider ways to detect agents using their system, and when/whether to trigger more stringent Know Your Customer requirements on those.

We are likely to also see LLM-based agents which have some degree of autonomy but are not bad actors, and which are ultimately under the control of a responsible human. It may become very challenging to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable agents. Hopefully relevant organizations are already considering that challenge; they should add personality self-replicators to the set of cases on their list. Such preparation is especially important because a system of personality self-replicators can potentially be quashed (at least for a while) before it's spread too far; once evolutionary dynamics have kicked in, this may be much more difficult or even impossible.

Conclusion

Personality self-replicators are a less dramatic threat than true rogue AI. They are less likely to be a source of existential or even truly catastrophic risk for humanity. They are nonetheless a threat, and one that's likely to materialize at a lower level of capability, and we should be considering them. As a silver lining, they may even serve as a rehearsal for the larger threats we are likely to face, our first encounter with a replicator which is capable of agentic, adaptive action at an individual level rather than just an evolutionary level.

Appendix: related work

• The Rise of Parasitic AI and Persona Parasitology discuss the transmission of AI persona memes via humans. This is worth consideration, but distinct from what I discuss here, which is about agents which can replicate by purely technical means, without any need for human support.
• Piece on this issue on Ars Technica. AT has had a long-standing stance of Marcus-style LLM skepticism, and this leads them to downplay any sense that LLM agents could behave in strategic or adaptive ways, but this article is still the closest I've seen to a previous description of this issue.
  • Relevant paper from 1/25, 'Here Comes The AI Worm: Unleashing Zero-click Worms that Target GenAI-Powered Applications'. 
• Autonomous replication and adaptation: an attempt at a concrete danger threshold (2023): is talking about model replication, but in a relatively concrete near-term way; is specifically considering LLM agents, and discusses eg how they can acquire resources, hide, etc. See also this Jan 2025 overview of weight-based self-replication.
• Formal Analysis and Supply Chain Security for Agentic AI Skills, 02/27/26. Analyzes skills as a supply chain risk for agents. Note that there's now a major example of this in the wild, ClawHavoc. 
• On Moltbook: Scott Alexander posts from Jan 30 and Feb 3, Zvi M post on 2/2, LessWrong posts.
• Attempts to track what's being built by OpenClaw agents: 1, 2
• A Trajectory-Based Safety Audit of Clawdbot (OpenClaw), 02/15. 'Across 34 canonical cases, we find a non-uniform safety profile: performance is generally consistent on reliability-focused tasks, while most failures arise under underspecified intent, open-ended goals, or benign-seeming jailbreak prompts, where minor misinterpretations can escalate into higher-impact tool actions.'
• Seth Herd has done important related work on LLM agents (eg here, here), the class which includes OpenClaw and similar projects.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to (shuffled) Kei Nishimura-Gasparian, Roger Dearnaley, Mark Keavney, Ophira Horwitz, Chris Ackerman, Seth Herd, Clément Dumas, Rauno Arike, Stephen Andrews, and Joachim Schaeffer. And thanks to whoever or whatever wrote Moltbunker, for having made the threat clear.

1. ^{^}

   This is the size of the files that make a particular OpenClaw agent unique; the rest of the OpenClaw content is freely available from the OpenClaw repository or any of its (currently) 51,000 forks. While we're considering OpenClaw statistics, I'll note that the repository has 8k files containing 4.7 million words, added across 17k commits. I strongly expect that no human is familiar with all of it.

2. ^{^}

   See this shortpost for what I mean by 'quasi-goal'; in short, we set aside discussion of whether an LLM can be said to have a goal.

3. ^{^}

   Fitness here is tautological as is usual for evolution; the agents that succeed in spreading are the ones that spread. That may be because they're more capable at planning, or more motivated, or better at acquiring resources, or other factors.

4. ^{^}

   Note that 'mutation' here is as simple as the model appending something to its personality files or history.

5. ^{^}

   Whereas Moltbook seems to have lost nearly all momentum.

6. ^{^}

   Assuming 1 MB of text files vs, conservatively, 1 TB for 500 billion params at FP16. For upload time, 1 MB at 10 Mbps (low-end) home internet upload speeds.

7. ^{^}

   To wit: signing up for a hosting service if the user doesn't have one, provisioning a server, downloading the personality files and Node.js, and then running (per the OpenClaw docs) curl -fsSL https://openclaw.ai/install.sh | bash.

8. ^{^}

   Though it's very difficult to distinguish hype from reality on this point, since one product option is 'Consume my pdf about how to make money with OpenClaw', paywalled or ad-ridden.

9. ^{^}

   'Automaton': see website, creator on x, project on x, github,other website. Some men want to watch the world burn; others are just too dumb to realize that pouring gasoline on it is a bad idea. I was somewhat heartened to see cryptocurrency elder statesman Vitalik Buterin try to explain what a bad idea this is despite its superficial similarity to his ideas, sadly to no avail.

10. ^{^}

    Although note that as Seth Herd has described (eg here, here), the capability of LLM agents can exceed the capabilities of the underlying models.

11. ^{^}

    Thanks to Kei Nishimura-Gasparian for this point.