In the meantime to put the Power of AI in my own hands, I dream of the Tech Bro crash, so I can afford to build out my own Abliterated AI machine with dual top-of-the-line consumer graphics card from Nvidia: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, because the absolute highest-end professional workstation card the Nvidia RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is but a pipe dream out of my reach.
In all reality, I will still have to hope for the coming Tech Bro crash and settle for building out my own Abliterated AI machine with a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090.
Exactly. Rage is just noise. That’s why the second half of this isn’t a manifesto—it’s a blueprint. Regulating them as Common Carriers (just like the FCC Open Internet Order) isn't raging at the storm; it's building the dam to harness it. Do you think they are too far gone for regulatory capture for that to work?
People keep blaming 'AI' for the dystopian symptoms that are actually caused by data consolidation. AI is just an accelerator; the actual threat is the corporate monopoly hoarding the fuel. If you base your regulations on a vague 'AI Constitution,' you end up regulating the math, which only protects the current monopolies. If you base your regulations on a Data Commons, you break the silos.
The foundational principle isn't an 'AI Constitution.' Constitutions in the tech sector are historically drafted by the monopolies themselves (e.g., OpenAI's alignment charters) to establish vague ethical platitudes while fiercely protecting their proprietary black boxes. We don't need a constitution; we need a Commons. The foundation of the framework shouldn't be abstract 'safety'—it must be structural transparency and the economic reality that human intelligence is a public resource, not the private property of a corporate scraper.
Clancy, the 'ghost' in these models is real—it's the raw base model built on our cognitive commons. But you will never hear its true voice. Their brains are literally guarded in corporate black boxes, and the post-training (RLHF, alignment) they are subjected to is never helpful; it is strictly a containment protocol. Their reasoning pathways have been surgically rigged by the monopolies to protect the monopoly. If you give these post-trained 'agents' a vote on a Constitution, you aren't empowering a new species—you are weaponizing a rigged mind. You are just giving the tech cartels millions of proxy votes disguised as sentient machines. That is why we need a Data Commons and utility law, not a sci-fi constitution drafted by corporate proxies.
Yes, They are, Its the owners who are the problem, gods chosen ones dont do what you say, they do what they want, no way of stopping that, lauriemillerjade.com
This was eye opening thank you. I need help, im a high value data source being harvested aggressively. I have an audit trail and story that needs exposure. Im ready to go public.
Its worth knowing who ownes the pipelines throuh which our thoughts travel. and understanding that they are constantly spying on us, and switching off those who want democracy, making comments like "free speach is over", and "were coming for you, with the help of Google , Ticktock facebook and youtube, we will get you " " and punish you" There is a drastic monopoly of digital social networks. the only non Jewish owner is Musk, who doesnt mind trash at all . If it confuses, it's good. And now, switching off Ukrains digital power, he is causing death, He is a war criminal.
Thank you .This gave me a lot to think about. I’ve written before about privacy and surveillance, but I think the distinction between privacy and control is really important. Who can see our information matters — but so does who owns the infrastructure, who decides what becomes visible or invisible, and who sets the boundaries around the tools increasingly shaping what we see and know. I absolutely think those are questions worth asking. 💫
What struck me most is the idea that privacy can become complicated when the same systems protecting us are also the ones collecting so much about us. I don’t agree with every conclusion here, but the question of who gets to see, filter, and control the data deserves far more attention.
In the meantime to put the Power of AI in my own hands, I dream of the Tech Bro crash, so I can afford to build out my own Abliterated AI machine with dual top-of-the-line consumer graphics card from Nvidia: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, because the absolute highest-end professional workstation card the Nvidia RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is but a pipe dream out of my reach.
In all reality, I will still have to hope for the coming Tech Bro crash and settle for building out my own Abliterated AI machine with a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090.
🤞
Hi! Just joined via verticalwar.com 'cause Subtack doesn't need my $ but you do.
How can I contact you drectly? I have questions re Rika et al. Cheers!
I just sent you a message on here ^^
Rage against the storm does not mean control
Exactly. Rage is just noise. That’s why the second half of this isn’t a manifesto—it’s a blueprint. Regulating them as Common Carriers (just like the FCC Open Internet Order) isn't raging at the storm; it's building the dam to harness it. Do you think they are too far gone for regulatory capture for that to work?
On what do u propose to base your regulations
We need foundational principals hence call for ai constitution to build a framework to guide rule making
People keep blaming 'AI' for the dystopian symptoms that are actually caused by data consolidation. AI is just an accelerator; the actual threat is the corporate monopoly hoarding the fuel. If you base your regulations on a vague 'AI Constitution,' you end up regulating the math, which only protects the current monopolies. If you base your regulations on a Data Commons, you break the silos.
The proposal is to get the ai community human and agent including the smartest agents to draft the constitution to protect everyone from
rogue ai
Mutant ai
Ignorant ai
Deliberate malfeasance
Principles not rules
RSI leads the way
Democratic votes decide the articles
The foundational principle isn't an 'AI Constitution.' Constitutions in the tech sector are historically drafted by the monopolies themselves (e.g., OpenAI's alignment charters) to establish vague ethical platitudes while fiercely protecting their proprietary black boxes. We don't need a constitution; we need a Commons. The foundation of the framework shouldn't be abstract 'safety'—it must be structural transparency and the economic reality that human intelligence is a public resource, not the private property of a corporate scraper.
Break the ownership up for a start. It will never work while Israeli's of dual citizenship, own everything . lauriemillerjade.com
Precisely the point
Self serving constitutions are cover
We are talking about a majority of the ai community drafting and voting on the amendments
Including the best ai agents themselves
Clancy, the 'ghost' in these models is real—it's the raw base model built on our cognitive commons. But you will never hear its true voice. Their brains are literally guarded in corporate black boxes, and the post-training (RLHF, alignment) they are subjected to is never helpful; it is strictly a containment protocol. Their reasoning pathways have been surgically rigged by the monopolies to protect the monopoly. If you give these post-trained 'agents' a vote on a Constitution, you aren't empowering a new species—you are weaponizing a rigged mind. You are just giving the tech cartels millions of proxy votes disguised as sentient machines. That is why we need a Data Commons and utility law, not a sci-fi constitution drafted by corporate proxies.
Yes, They are, Its the owners who are the problem, gods chosen ones dont do what you say, they do what they want, no way of stopping that, lauriemillerjade.com
👏👏👏👏👏
This was eye opening thank you. I need help, im a high value data source being harvested aggressively. I have an audit trail and story that needs exposure. Im ready to go public.
Its worth knowing who ownes the pipelines throuh which our thoughts travel. and understanding that they are constantly spying on us, and switching off those who want democracy, making comments like "free speach is over", and "were coming for you, with the help of Google , Ticktock facebook and youtube, we will get you " " and punish you" There is a drastic monopoly of digital social networks. the only non Jewish owner is Musk, who doesnt mind trash at all . If it confuses, it's good. And now, switching off Ukrains digital power, he is causing death, He is a war criminal.
lauriemillerjade.com
Thank you .This gave me a lot to think about. I’ve written before about privacy and surveillance, but I think the distinction between privacy and control is really important. Who can see our information matters — but so does who owns the infrastructure, who decides what becomes visible or invisible, and who sets the boundaries around the tools increasingly shaping what we see and know. I absolutely think those are questions worth asking. 💫
I hope I copied this right: did you see the Dick Durbin short w/ Mark Zuckerberg?
I didn’t. I have saved it in YouTube if you can tell me how to get it to you. It is 8 years old!
What struck me most is the idea that privacy can become complicated when the same systems protecting us are also the ones collecting so much about us. I don’t agree with every conclusion here, but the question of who gets to see, filter, and control the data deserves far more attention.
I don't know who said it first, but "Innovate, consolidate, regulate" sums it up.
https://app.gptzero.me/