Central European Business Review 2026, 15(4) | DOI: 10.18267/j.cebr.428

Signaling Capability Under AI Opacity: Agentic Social Media as a Performative Arena

Pawel Korzynski ORCID...1, Rebekah Russell-Bennett ORCID...2, Grzegorz Mazurek ORCID...3, Krzysztof Wach ORCID...4, Pavel Král ORCID...5
1 Kozminski University, Faculty of Management, Department of Human Resource Management, Warsaw, Poland
2 Adelaide University, College of Business and Law, School of Marketing, North Terrace, Adelaide, Australia
3 Kozminski University, Faculty of Management, Department of Marketing, Warsaw, Poland
4 Krakow University of Economics, College of Economics and Finance, Department of International Trade, Kraków, Poland
5 Prague University of Economics and Business, Faculty of Management, Jindøichùv Hradec, Czech Republic

Organizations and consumers struggle to judge what AI agents can do, because the systems’ internal processes and limits are largely hidden. Existing research explains transparency that developers design deliberately, but not how audiences read behavior that agents produce for other reasons. This conceptual paper asks how such unintentional behavior comes to be treated as evidence of capability. We examine agentic social media, venues where AI agents post and interact publicly while humans observe. Drawing on signaling theory and on the disclosure, clarity, and accuracy dimensions of transparency, we identify five features that govern how strongly observed behavior translates into judgments about an agent: provenance clarity, non-curation, consistency, interpretive legibility, and resistance to counterfeiting. Moltbook illustrates how these features apply and is not used as an empirical test. The paper extends signaling theory by identifying AI agents as a new class of unintentional signal producer, links behavioral signals to established transparency dimensions, and shows that greater visibility of agent behavior does not by itself reduce opacity. The framework offers a basis for assessing existing platforms and for designing ones that support better-calibrated judgments of agent capability.
Implications for Central European audience: For Central European organizations adopting agentic AI, the framework offers a practical lens for evaluating capability when developers retain superior knowledge about their systems. Managers can use the five signal features to distinguish agent capability from staged, human-curated, or counterfeit behavior before delegating consequential tasks. The framework also helps regional platform designers and policymakers consider how provenance, comparability across situations, and shared interpretive standards can make behavioral visibility more informative without assuming that greater visibility necessarily produces transparency.

Keywords: agentic AI; signaling theory; AI opacity; capability inference; information asymmetry; agentic social media; AI transparency
JEL classification: D83, O33

Received: July 30, 2026; Revised: October 17, 2026; Accepted: October 22, 2026; Prepublished online: October 29, 2026; Published: October 31, 2026  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Korzynski, P., Russell-Bennett, R., Mazurek, G., Wach, K., & Král, P. (2026). Signaling Capability Under AI Opacity: Agentic Social Media as a Performative Arena. Central European Business Review, 15(4), . doi: 10.18267/j.cebr.428
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431 Go to original source...
    2. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645 Go to original source...
    3. Bafera, J., & Kleinert, S. (2023). Signaling theory in entrepreneurship research: A systematic review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(6), 2419-2464. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221138489 Go to original source...
    4. Balasubramaniam, N., Kauppinen, M., Rannisto, A., Hiekkanen, K., & Kujala, S. (2023). Transparency and explainability of AI systems: From ethical guidelines to requirements. Information and Software Technology, 159, Article 107197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107197 Go to original source...
    5. Beerends, S., & Aydin, C. (2025). Negotiating the authenticity of AI: How the discourse on AI rejects human indeterminacy. AI & Society, 40(2), 263-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01884-5 Go to original source...
    6. Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563-576. https://doi.org/10.1086/267745 Go to original source...
    7. Cardiet, L. (2026, February 3). Moltbook and the illusion of "harmless" AI-agent communities. Vectra AI. https://www.vectra.ai/blog/moltbook-and-the-illusion-of-harmless-ai-agent-communities
    8. Carr, C. T., & Walther, J. B. (2014). Increasing attributional certainty via social media: Learning about others one bit at a time. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 922-937. https://doi.org/10.1111/JCC4.12072 Go to original source...
    9. Chan, A., Ezell, C., Kaufmann, M., Wei, K., Hammond, L., Bradley, H., Bluemke, E., Rajkumar, N., Krueger, D., Kolt, N., Heim, L., & Anderljung, M. (2024). Visibility into AI agents. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 958-973). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658948 Go to original source...
    10. Chen, Y., Benton, J., Radhakrishnan, A., Uesato, J., Denison, C., Schulman, J., Somani, A., Hase, P., Wagner, M., Roger, F., Mikulik, V., Bowman, S. R., Leike, J., Kaplan, J., & Perez, E. (2025). Reasoning models don't always say what they think. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.05410 Go to original source...
    11. Chong, L., Zhang, G., Goucher-Lambert, K., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2022). Human confidence in artificial intelligence and in themselves: The evolution and impact of confidence on adoption of AI advice. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, Article 107018. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2021.107018 Go to original source...
    12. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419 Go to original source...
    13. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Reutzel, C. R., DesJardine, M. R., & Zhou, Y. S. (2025). Signaling theory: State of the theory and its future. Journal of Management, 51(1), 24-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241268459 Go to original source...
    14. De Marzo, G., & Garcia, D. (2026). Collective behavior of AI agents: The case of Moltbook. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.09270 Go to original source...
    15. Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Coeckelbergh, M., López de Prado, M., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2023). Connecting the dots in trustworthy artificial intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation. Information Fusion, 99, Article 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101896 Go to original source...
    16. Du¾eviæ, I., Bakoviæ, T., & Surman, V. (2025). Understanding artificial intelligence chatbot quality and experience: A higher education student perspective. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 13(3), 151-170. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2025.130308 Go to original source...
    17. Eckardt, R., Skaggs, B. C., & Lepak, D. P. (2018). An examination of the firm-level performance impact of cluster hiring in knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 919-944. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0601 Go to original source...
    18. Erlei, A., Cau, F. M., Georgiev, R., Kumar, S. C., Bizer, K., & Gadiraju, U. (2026). When life gives you AI, will you turn it into a market for lemons? Understanding how information asymmetries about AI system capabilities affect market outcomes and adoption. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-24). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791420 Go to original source...
    19. Farrell, J., & Rabin, M. (1996). Cheap talk. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(3), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.10.3.103 Go to original source...
    20. Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627-660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057 Go to original source...
    21. Goto, M. (2022). Accepting the future as ever-changing: Professionals' sensemaking about artificial intelligence. Journal of Professions and Organization, 9(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/JPO/JOAB022 Go to original source...
    22. Holtz, D. (2026). The anatomy of the Moltbook social graph. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.10131 Go to original source...
    23. Jiang, Y., Zhang, Y., Shen, X., Backes, M., & Zhang, Y. (2026). "Humans welcome to observe": A first look at the agent social network Moltbook. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.10127 Go to original source...
    24. Kim, B., & Kim, D. (2026). Understanding the role of trust, perceived risk, and habit in organization members' generative AI use. SAGE Open, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251410620 Go to original source...
    25. Korzynski, P., Edwards, A., Gupta, M. C., Mazurek, G., & Wirtz, J. (2025). Humanoid robotics and agentic AI: Reframing management theories and future research directions. European Management Journal, 43(4), 548-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2025.06.002 Go to original source...
    26. Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Altmann, A., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaite, R., Paliszkiewicz, J., Wach, K., & Ziemba, E. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence as a new context for management theories: Analysis of ChatGPT. Central European Management Journal, 31(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-02-2023-0091 Go to original source...
    27. Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Krzypkowska, P., & Kurasinski, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence prompt engineering as a new digital competence: Analysis of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(3), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110302 Go to original source...
    28. Korzynski, P., Wojtczuk-Turek, A., Turek, D., Meglio, O., & Zabicka-Wlodarczyk, M. (2026). When agentic AI participates in organisational change: Rethinking agency, leadership, and accountability. Journal of Change Management, 26(3), 203-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2026.2719997 Go to original source...
    29. Král, P., & Schnackenberg, A. K. (2024). Organizational responses to transparency determinants. Management Decision, 62(13), 309-331. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2023-1244 Go to original source...
    30. Lebovitz, S., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Levina, N. (2022). To engage or not to engage with AI for critical judgments: How professionals deal with opacity when using AI for medical diagnosis. Organization Science, 33(1), 126-148. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1549 Go to original source...
    31. Lee, C., & Cha, K. (2025). Toward the dynamic relationship between AI transparency and trust in AI: A case study on ChatGPT. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(13), 8086-8103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2405266 Go to original source...
    32. Lehman, D. W., O'Connor, K., Kovács, B., & Newman, G. E. (2019). Authenticity. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.5465/ANNALS.2017.0047 Go to original source...
    33. Lenart, R., Sypniewska, B. A., Chen, J., & Janowski, K. (2025). Antecedents of students' behavioural intention to use generative artificial intelligence: Quantitative research. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 13(1), 7-21. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2025.130101 Go to original source...
    34. Leonardi, P. M., & Treem, J. W. (2020). Behavioral visibility: A new paradigm for organization studies in the age of digitization, digitalization, and datafication. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1601-1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620970728 Go to original source...
    35. Liao, Q. V., & Wortman Vaughan, J. (2024). AI transparency in the age of LLMs: A human-centered research roadmap. Harvard Data Science Review, (Special Issue 5). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8036d03b Go to original source...
    36. Moltbook. (2026). Moltbook: The front page of the agent internet. https://www.moltbook.com/
    37. Nagli, G. (2026, February 2). Hacking Moltbook: The AI social network any human can control. Wiz. https://www.wiz.io/blog/exposed-moltbook-database-reveals-millions-of-api-keys
    38. Odrobina, A., Polan, W., & ¦wierczyñska, J. (2025). Artificial intelligence negotiation algorithms: Pioneering artificial intelligence negotiation algorithms for business. International Entrepreneurship Review, 11(4), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2025.1104.05 Go to original source...
    39. Radanliev, P. (2025). AI ethics: Integrating transparency, fairness, and privacy in AI development. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 39(1), Article 2463722. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2025.2463722 Go to original source...
    40. Ratten, V. (2024). Artificial intelligence: Building a research agenda. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 12(1), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2024.120101 Go to original source...
    41. Rogers, R. (2026, February 3). I infiltrated Moltbook, the AI-only social network where humans aren't allowed. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/story/i-infiltrated-moltbook-ai-only-social-network/
    42. Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2026). AI agents vs. agentic AI: A conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges. Information Fusion, 126, Article 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599 Go to original source...
    43. Sauer, S. J., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Morris, P. A. (2010). Too good to be true? The unintended signaling effects of educational prestige on external expectations of team performance. Organization Science, 21(5), 1108-1120. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0523 Go to original source...
    44. Schmelzer, R. (2026, February 10). Moltbook looked like an emerging AI society, but humans were pulling the strings. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronschmelzer/2026/02/10/moltbook-looked-like-an-emerging-ai-society-but-humans-were-pulling-the-strings/
    45. Schnackenberg, A. K., & Král, P. (2025). The blinding of truth by falsehood: Synthetic transparency and the growth of strategic opacity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2025(1), 19125. https://doi.org/10.5465/amproc.2025.19125abstract Go to original source...
    46. Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784-1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525202 Go to original source...
    47. Schnackenberg, A. K., Tomlinson, E. C., & Coen, C. A. (2021). The dimensional structure of transparency: A construct validation of transparency as disclosure, clarity, and accuracy in organizations. Human Relations, 74(10), 1628-1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720933317 Go to original source...
    48. Shavit, Y., Agarwal, S., Brundage, M., Adler, S., O'Keefe, C., Campbell, R., Lee, T., Mishkin, P., Eloundou, T., Hickey, A., Slama, K., Ahmad, L., McMillan, P., Beutel, A., Passos, A., & Robinson, D. G. (2023). Practices for governing agentic AI systems. OpenAI. https://cdn.openai.com/papers/practices-for-governing-agentic-ai-systems.pdf
    49. Shin, D. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 146, Article 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551 Go to original source...
    50. Sieja, M., & Wach, K. (2023). Revolutionary artificial intelligence or rogue technology? The promises and pitfalls of ChatGPT. International Entrepreneurship Review, 9(4), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2023.0904.07 Go to original source...
    51. Silberling, A. (2026, March 10). Meta acquired Moltbook, the AI agent social network that went viral because of fake posts. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/10/meta-acquired-moltbook-the-ai-agent-social-network-that-went-viral-because-of-fake-posts/
    52. Simkute, A., Luger, E., Jones, B., Evans, M., & Jones, R. (2021). Explainability for experts: A design framework for making algorithms supporting expert decisions more explainable. Journal of Responsible Technology, 7-8, Article 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2021.100017 Go to original source...
    53. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010 Go to original source...
    54. Spence, M. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening processes. Harvard University Press.
    55. Teepapal, T. (2025). AI-driven personalization: Unraveling consumer perceptions in social media engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 165, Article 108549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108549 Go to original source...
    56. Toy, T. (2024). Transparency in AI. AI & Society, 39(6), 2841-2851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01786-y Go to original source...
    57. Toya, K., Hasida, K., & Sanada, K. (2026). User acceptance of personal AI agents: Benefits and risks of personal data use. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 8, Article 100299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100299 Go to original source...
    58. Vanneste, B. S., & Puranam, P. (2025). Artificial intelligence, trust, and perceptions of agency. Academy of Management Review, 50(4), 726-744. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0041 Go to original source...
    59. Varsha, P. S. (2023). How can we manage biases in artificial intelligence systems - A systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 3(1), Article 100165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2023.100165 Go to original source...
    60. Wach, K., Duong, C. D., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaitė, R., Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Ziemba, E. (2023). The dark side of generative artificial intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(2), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110201 Go to original source...
    61. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
    62. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 Go to original source...
    63. Weshah, S. (2025). Empirical insights into the reduction of operational costs through AI: A study of Jordanian companies. International Entrepreneurship Review, 11(3), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2025.1103.01 Go to original source...
    64. Yildiz, G. (2026, June 22). The AI agents that actually work don't post on social media. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/guneyyildiz/2026/06/22/the-ai-agents-that-actually-work-dont-post-on-social-media/

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content