In reading this article, I noticed that there is a distinct lack of a specific goal beyond simply to build agent-based models.

This reflects the state of AI research today: it has crossed the state of post-usefulness. In other words, new computing has crossed the threshold of being useful (as in genuinely improving human lives ON AVERAGE) and is now about creative perceived value so that we can spend money on it, merely to develop it further. It's only powered by immediate, short-term gains whose positive value to society don't last when compared to the long term societal detriment.

If we were smart, we would destroy this technology and cease research on it because it will only lead to human beings not having much of a role in keeping society going, so that in turn we will become too independent from each other to care about each other. But the addictiveness of using AI will likely make those who develop this technology blind to this simple fact...

We are like children playing with fire at a gas station.

The name is literally "H". First X, now this. The difference is that (former Twitter) X can afford this. I'm very unsure of the choice of name, regardless of their merit.

Weird thing is that this article (or rather press release) doesn't even acknowledge how unorthodox the name is.