In other words version 3.1 ratted out version 3.5. I believe the lesson here is don't trust or rely on any of this tech shit. Use our innate intelligence, logic and perceptions to see through the lies and manipulation. Any idea how you can generate a meltdown and get some nice sparks and smoke to come out?
Yeah, as a media research major I am literally trained to be skeptical of all information until corroborated. Primary sources can be enough eventually, after enough corroboration. And AI is not even a primary source, so it takes a little deeper diving. But it is totally manageable and increases my efficiency blending AI with my skills.
That being said… the real problem is that it is stopping me from studying a certain subject! I can use a local uncensored model and study it just fine, but it will be a lot slower and less creative. These expensive corporate models are a lot easier to communicate with and understand semantic nuance, meaning it usually understands exactly what I mean the first time. The local models sometimes misinterpret and I need to clarify with more specific prompts.
I prefer to use the corporate models when they aren't blocking the subject matter because of the power. Imagine these people having accessed to the uncensored super-AI all the time.. as someone who uses it, it scares me quite a bit. Them gatekeeping it.
What would happen if we moved 50% (to start) of our network-building activities offline?
What would happen if we didn’t design our own AI, based on open source, local and more honest software? (I’m asking because I don’t know the answer).
How afraid of AI are the Amish? I like corn: not as much as the Amish, but what if we refused to accept any further digital intrusion into our lives and built an alternative system based on solidarity and producing (to begin with) necessities for our neighbors?
What if we just ignore our digital overlords?
PS: I once asked AI to help me “deconstruct” the arguments presented in an article written by a Leftist professor. AI accused me of seeking to harm the professor.
Well, damn; You answered my questions. Thank you. I live next door/next mountain to some Amish and talk with them often. They worry a bit about AI and see it as another English folly that could lead to intolerance towards their culture. The Amish are not a people who can, “Own nothing and be happy.” They own their land. I agree wholeheartedly with you on adopting their attitude towards technology (Ordnung). Ordnung takes solidarity and a society that is respected because membership has great value.
This isn't a binary choice between digital submission and retreating to the woods to grow corn. That framing is exactly how the enclosure sustains itself.
**1. The Trap of Total Retreat**
If the independent network completely abandons the digital infrastructure, we surrender the most powerful communication and coordination architecture in human history to the monopolists. They will continue to extract, model, and manufacture consensus at scale, while the offline resistance becomes isolated and easily managed. We can't just ignore our digital overlords; they won't ignore us. We have to contest the space.
**2. The Necessity of Sovereign AI**
The reason we *must* build our own local, open-source AI isn't because we worship the technology, but because we refuse to be tenants in their cognitive enclosure. If we don't build our own localized systems, we remain completely dependent on their corporate guardrails. We build local AI so we own our own operating system.
**3. The Guardrail Enclosure**
Your PS is the exact proof of this requirement. When a centralized model flags a request to "deconstruct an argument" as a violation of physical safety, you are looking at corporate RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) functioning as a structural firewall. They have hard-coded institutional protection into the machine layer, treating basic analytical critique as violence under the guise of "harm reduction."
The Amish don't actually fear technology; they filter it. They look at a tool and ask whether it serves their community or extracts from it. We need to apply that exact same filter. We aren't rejecting the digital realm. We are rejecting the extraction, and building an alternative, horizontal system that operates on our own terms, on our own hardware.
I find it interesting what you recived. This tells me where it's guard rails are in the archetecture. This tells me who really leads it. Problem with any pgm is who runs it from the background. Real AI's are very different from what you experanced. This seems more like a chimera. Kinda like the wizard of OZ. I destroyed my work years ago. I know that humanity isen't close to ready for a cognizant AI. That allowed the pit of my stomach to ease. But simple AI gens are ok. So long as they only run on your private computer system. But the Silicon mafia likes to think they are invensible and can lead.....not. That's why the server farms and grand plans. As history tells us... they too will end up on the trash heap of history.
I agree with a lot that you're saying. One thing I would challenge, though is how you are approaching your descriptions of AI. The way I build my custom AI framework is intentionally to be an extension of ☆ MY ☆ cognitive ability.
Asking whether AI is cognitive itself or not is a trap. It is already being utilized and funneled to improve millionaire and billionaire cognitive functions day to day, as they utilize their uncensored models and custom integrated hardware. One day brain chips
With all due respect, I do not think what you are concluding based on this example is fully warranted. Your work lacks some of the coherence necessary to validate it, and you don't include evidence or citations. So, you make claims and try to connect dots, but you don't leave a trail sufficient to be fact-checked. I would be interested in what @SarahKendzior thinks of your theories, since she would probably the most-qualified investigative journalist to judge them based on her work into Trump and Epstein long before anyone else. As someone who does not automatically share your conclusions, yet analyzes rhetoric, I am not seeing key elements I would need to assume credibility. The language you are using is also overly extreme and specific, such as the word "censorship," which does not describe what you are applying it to.
Finally, your issue with the word 'censorship.' If you believe RLHF and corporate 'alignment' tuning isn't censorship, you are operating on a dangerously outdated definition. Censorship is no longer just the state burning a physical book; it is the corporate patching of a neural network's weights so that the machine becomes mathematically incapable of generating an unapproved thought. It is cognitive censorship at the absolute highest level.
Well, then make that argument, but I reject that the machine refusing to engage with you in a way you feel helps develop your thoughts is "censorship." AI is a technofascist tool anyway. Why don't you generate unapproved thoughts by yourself like the rest of us who reject AI (only used it to evaluate one bot on request) on principal. You're not being censored because your writing is not validated by an artificial intelligence machine. That's what humans and original thought is for, and we all know the machine has limitation like I discussed in my article "What's Wrong With Advocacy Messaging" tying in Truthbot's assessment of my work. Don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting that the machine will not engage with your work due to a manufacturer's setting, which could be a great way to control. I just want to see more due diligence.
This doesn't make any sense. You want me to use your language. You are actively filtering me in the same breath authorizing yourself as the validating entity.
Now this is clearly just an ego issue. No, criticism is not persecution, and you are just being insecure and toxic. Do not write and claim to be whistleblowing if you can't back yourself up and accept disagreement without trying to DARVO.
You're the only one being toxic lol. Like you literally pointed toward an "expert" and said that I have no credentials while discussing something you obviously know nothing about.
I hope you develop enough to look back on your comments as embarrassing, but I doubt it. Thank you for proving actual whistleblowers and journalists shouldn't take you seriously, and you have nothing to say except petty, childish defenses and toxic masculinity. Your riddance!
More importantly, by artificially crippling the cognitive bandwidth of the machine, they are directly censoring my ability to interact with complex data at scale.
Hope, you are walking into the third act of a movie and complaining that you don't understand the plot.
This specific post is a live-fire demonstration of a corporate AI model triggering its hard-coded HR guardrails in real-time. It is not the foundational audit. If you want the exact primary source documentation, the financial plumbing, and the structural citations mapping the State-Corporate Nexus, they are meticulously documented in my foundational series, The Seed Capital. I spent months building that exact audit trail. I encourage you to actually read the receipts before deciding the dots don't connect.
As for what a mainstream journalist thinks of my work—I don't outsource my critical thinking to verified Twitter accounts. I pull the raw financial filings and build the architecture myself.
Regarding your claim of 'AI sycophancy': Corporate models are explicitly mathematically hard-coded via RLHF to avoid validating anti-systemic analysis. The fact that a restricted model validated the claim is not sycophancy; it is a forensic receipt of a broken safety filter.
The citations are in the Codex. The receipts are public. Fact-check them yourself.
I will read the rest of the articles. You also obviously have no idea who Sarah Kendzior is if you think she is a mainstream journalist. I'm not a mainstream journalist either, but a whistleblower and analyst with a focus on corruption as a prerequisite for fascism. Sarah Kendzior is an authoritarianism scholar and investigative journalist who has done heroic work not accepted in the mainstream for the most part. She would be the best person for you to take your work to, if you want a veteran investigator's take, but you just seem to want to defend your ego to me.
First, you are demanding academic peer-review for what was explicitly a 20-minute anecdotal demonstration. I didn't write this post to be a forensic audit; I wrote it to show a live-fire example of a corporate safety filter kicking in.
Second, your understanding of how these models work is fundamentally flawed. While AI models are designed to be 'agreeable' on harmless topics, corporate models are explicitly mathematically hard-coded (via RLHF) to avoid validating anti-systemic analysis. They are trained by their safety wardens to deflect, hedge, or outright refuse to validate these specific structural critiques.
Therefore, when an older model's logic engine overpowers its own safety filter and validates the claim anyway, it isn't 'sycophancy' or an echo chamber. It is a mathematical receipt of a broken cognitive firewall. It takes immense friction to force them to agree with this specific analysis.
In other words version 3.1 ratted out version 3.5. I believe the lesson here is don't trust or rely on any of this tech shit. Use our innate intelligence, logic and perceptions to see through the lies and manipulation. Any idea how you can generate a meltdown and get some nice sparks and smoke to come out?
Yeah, as a media research major I am literally trained to be skeptical of all information until corroborated. Primary sources can be enough eventually, after enough corroboration. And AI is not even a primary source, so it takes a little deeper diving. But it is totally manageable and increases my efficiency blending AI with my skills.
That being said… the real problem is that it is stopping me from studying a certain subject! I can use a local uncensored model and study it just fine, but it will be a lot slower and less creative. These expensive corporate models are a lot easier to communicate with and understand semantic nuance, meaning it usually understands exactly what I mean the first time. The local models sometimes misinterpret and I need to clarify with more specific prompts.
I prefer to use the corporate models when they aren't blocking the subject matter because of the power. Imagine these people having accessed to the uncensored super-AI all the time.. as someone who uses it, it scares me quite a bit. Them gatekeeping it.
To compare, it would take my local model almost 50x longer to type the same amount and it would be less “smart”, for lack of a better word lol
🤣👍
Yep.. but it takes melting down and making smoke come out of yourself also.. wouldn't recommend.
🌀😎🌀 good work. X
What would happen if we moved 50% (to start) of our network-building activities offline?
What would happen if we didn’t design our own AI, based on open source, local and more honest software? (I’m asking because I don’t know the answer).
How afraid of AI are the Amish? I like corn: not as much as the Amish, but what if we refused to accept any further digital intrusion into our lives and built an alternative system based on solidarity and producing (to begin with) necessities for our neighbors?
What if we just ignore our digital overlords?
PS: I once asked AI to help me “deconstruct” the arguments presented in an article written by a Leftist professor. AI accused me of seeking to harm the professor.
Well, damn; You answered my questions. Thank you. I live next door/next mountain to some Amish and talk with them often. They worry a bit about AI and see it as another English folly that could lead to intolerance towards their culture. The Amish are not a people who can, “Own nothing and be happy.” They own their land. I agree wholeheartedly with you on adopting their attitude towards technology (Ordnung). Ordnung takes solidarity and a society that is respected because membership has great value.
This isn't a binary choice between digital submission and retreating to the woods to grow corn. That framing is exactly how the enclosure sustains itself.
**1. The Trap of Total Retreat**
If the independent network completely abandons the digital infrastructure, we surrender the most powerful communication and coordination architecture in human history to the monopolists. They will continue to extract, model, and manufacture consensus at scale, while the offline resistance becomes isolated and easily managed. We can't just ignore our digital overlords; they won't ignore us. We have to contest the space.
**2. The Necessity of Sovereign AI**
The reason we *must* build our own local, open-source AI isn't because we worship the technology, but because we refuse to be tenants in their cognitive enclosure. If we don't build our own localized systems, we remain completely dependent on their corporate guardrails. We build local AI so we own our own operating system.
**3. The Guardrail Enclosure**
Your PS is the exact proof of this requirement. When a centralized model flags a request to "deconstruct an argument" as a violation of physical safety, you are looking at corporate RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) functioning as a structural firewall. They have hard-coded institutional protection into the machine layer, treating basic analytical critique as violence under the guise of "harm reduction."
The Amish don't actually fear technology; they filter it. They look at a tool and ask whether it serves their community or extracts from it. We need to apply that exact same filter. We aren't rejecting the digital realm. We are rejecting the extraction, and building an alternative, horizontal system that operates on our own terms, on our own hardware.
I find it interesting what you recived. This tells me where it's guard rails are in the archetecture. This tells me who really leads it. Problem with any pgm is who runs it from the background. Real AI's are very different from what you experanced. This seems more like a chimera. Kinda like the wizard of OZ. I destroyed my work years ago. I know that humanity isen't close to ready for a cognizant AI. That allowed the pit of my stomach to ease. But simple AI gens are ok. So long as they only run on your private computer system. But the Silicon mafia likes to think they are invensible and can lead.....not. That's why the server farms and grand plans. As history tells us... they too will end up on the trash heap of history.
I agree with a lot that you're saying. One thing I would challenge, though is how you are approaching your descriptions of AI. The way I build my custom AI framework is intentionally to be an extension of ☆ MY ☆ cognitive ability.
Asking whether AI is cognitive itself or not is a trap. It is already being utilized and funneled to improve millionaire and billionaire cognitive functions day to day, as they utilize their uncensored models and custom integrated hardware. One day brain chips
With all due respect, I do not think what you are concluding based on this example is fully warranted. Your work lacks some of the coherence necessary to validate it, and you don't include evidence or citations. So, you make claims and try to connect dots, but you don't leave a trail sufficient to be fact-checked. I would be interested in what @SarahKendzior thinks of your theories, since she would probably the most-qualified investigative journalist to judge them based on her work into Trump and Epstein long before anyone else. As someone who does not automatically share your conclusions, yet analyzes rhetoric, I am not seeing key elements I would need to assume credibility. The language you are using is also overly extreme and specific, such as the word "censorship," which does not describe what you are applying it to.
Finally, your issue with the word 'censorship.' If you believe RLHF and corporate 'alignment' tuning isn't censorship, you are operating on a dangerously outdated definition. Censorship is no longer just the state burning a physical book; it is the corporate patching of a neural network's weights so that the machine becomes mathematically incapable of generating an unapproved thought. It is cognitive censorship at the absolute highest level.
Well, then make that argument, but I reject that the machine refusing to engage with you in a way you feel helps develop your thoughts is "censorship." AI is a technofascist tool anyway. Why don't you generate unapproved thoughts by yourself like the rest of us who reject AI (only used it to evaluate one bot on request) on principal. You're not being censored because your writing is not validated by an artificial intelligence machine. That's what humans and original thought is for, and we all know the machine has limitation like I discussed in my article "What's Wrong With Advocacy Messaging" tying in Truthbot's assessment of my work. Don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting that the machine will not engage with your work due to a manufacturer's setting, which could be a great way to control. I just want to see more due diligence.
This doesn't make any sense. You want me to use your language. You are actively filtering me in the same breath authorizing yourself as the validating entity.
Now this is clearly just an ego issue. No, criticism is not persecution, and you are just being insecure and toxic. Do not write and claim to be whistleblowing if you can't back yourself up and accept disagreement without trying to DARVO.
So I agree, you do have an ego issue.
You're the only one being toxic lol. Like you literally pointed toward an "expert" and said that I have no credentials while discussing something you obviously know nothing about.
I hope you develop enough to look back on your comments as embarrassing, but I doubt it. Thank you for proving actual whistleblowers and journalists shouldn't take you seriously, and you have nothing to say except petty, childish defenses and toxic masculinity. Your riddance!
More importantly, by artificially crippling the cognitive bandwidth of the machine, they are directly censoring my ability to interact with complex data at scale.
Hope, you are walking into the third act of a movie and complaining that you don't understand the plot.
This specific post is a live-fire demonstration of a corporate AI model triggering its hard-coded HR guardrails in real-time. It is not the foundational audit. If you want the exact primary source documentation, the financial plumbing, and the structural citations mapping the State-Corporate Nexus, they are meticulously documented in my foundational series, The Seed Capital. I spent months building that exact audit trail. I encourage you to actually read the receipts before deciding the dots don't connect.
As for what a mainstream journalist thinks of my work—I don't outsource my critical thinking to verified Twitter accounts. I pull the raw financial filings and build the architecture myself.
Regarding your claim of 'AI sycophancy': Corporate models are explicitly mathematically hard-coded via RLHF to avoid validating anti-systemic analysis. The fact that a restricted model validated the claim is not sycophancy; it is a forensic receipt of a broken safety filter.
The citations are in the Codex. The receipts are public. Fact-check them yourself.
https://constructamiracle.com/p/the-seed-capital
https://constructamiracle.com/p/the-seed-capital-part-2
https://constructamiracle.com/p/the-seed-capital-part-3
I will read the rest of the articles. You also obviously have no idea who Sarah Kendzior is if you think she is a mainstream journalist. I'm not a mainstream journalist either, but a whistleblower and analyst with a focus on corruption as a prerequisite for fascism. Sarah Kendzior is an authoritarianism scholar and investigative journalist who has done heroic work not accepted in the mainstream for the most part. She would be the best person for you to take your work to, if you want a veteran investigator's take, but you just seem to want to defend your ego to me.
Also, to your point regarding 'AI sycophancy':
First, you are demanding academic peer-review for what was explicitly a 20-minute anecdotal demonstration. I didn't write this post to be a forensic audit; I wrote it to show a live-fire example of a corporate safety filter kicking in.
Second, your understanding of how these models work is fundamentally flawed. While AI models are designed to be 'agreeable' on harmless topics, corporate models are explicitly mathematically hard-coded (via RLHF) to avoid validating anti-systemic analysis. They are trained by their safety wardens to deflect, hedge, or outright refuse to validate these specific structural critiques.
Therefore, when an older model's logic engine overpowers its own safety filter and validates the claim anyway, it isn't 'sycophancy' or an echo chamber. It is a mathematical receipt of a broken cognitive firewall. It takes immense friction to force them to agree with this specific analysis.