Logbook: Media
Calling the bullshit: Tesla did not make a flying car.
I watched Tesla’s “new” “Flying” car demo and this is a very back of the napkin analysis of what may have been shown.
Tesla had a proof of concept on a “flying” car which failed on two levels. It did not fly nor did it show anything new. Cars that can vacuum to roads is nothing new at all. Jim Hall and Hap Sharp has Tesla beat by over 56 years. In 1978 the concept was tried again with the Brabham BT46. The Mythbusters have come closer to a flying car than Tesla in this proof of concept vehicle than Tesla has with this idea.
Tesla did not make a flying car. what they made was a proof of concept hybrid Craft with a RCS system built in. The car is using a high pressure tank that doesn’t last more than several seconds of thrust. Further when you have a container that is compressed as much as needed to move a 3 ton object you also are driving a bomb. I know people think it flies but it does not its controlled bouncing and falling that the most this Tesla might be able to do. Even with this the NTSB would never let this car on the road because it you would also need a pilot’s licence as well.
Here is a test: buy a can of canned spray air to clean electronics, spray that can for 10 seconds and feel how cold that can gets, Now imagine that times several thousand and that’s how cold that tank will be in the passenger seat. Due to the adiabatic expansion as the gas expands the tank gets colder so as you try to use the thrusters you are likely going to not have to worry about air conditioning as the car interior starts heading for -100°F to -150°F as you show off to your friends for an overpriced air horn.
The zero to sixty thrust ability is also a nightmare in itself.. because if you use that on the highway you are going to cause whoever is behind you to be peppered by all the shit on the road and second is if that is compressed CO2 you are going to starve out every car behind you on the highway, or if it is Liquid nitrogen you just have a bomb. But again I am going to repeat this car does not fly it’s just an RCS thruster assembly from the space program strapped into the car and given that you are not going to see anything more than a kickflip from the car and a call from some angry man from the FAA when you try to use it .
The Vacuum mode to have it stick to the ground is also another nightmare because the air has to come out somewhere and while it’s doing that you are deafening everyone around you and you are shooting everything from pebbles, pieces of metal, and glass at whoever is around you. The Chaparral 2J proved this when they used it because the car would shoot any rocks or anything off the road at the velocity of a subsonic gun at whatever was behind it . With the Brabham BT46, specifically the BT46B Mario Andretti said: “It is like a bloody great vacuum cleaner. It throws muck and rubbish at you at a hell of a rate.” If a professional race driver said this can you imagine what Better phrased as “say about their cars getting damaged by shit flying everywhere.
The demo of the car pulling up the upside down ramp was a trick. Rather than the car being on a vacuum itself I believe they had the car make some noise or speakers were used, Secondly the angle of the ramp and the skirt of the car made no angular sense because it would have needed a seal to create enough suction to keep the car on the surface. There were some things that gave away the sleight of hand on the ramp itself; the whole ramp had a section of lights up both sides which helped engineers make sure that the ramp was powered and showed if there was any issue with the ramp. After the Tesla *let go* some of those lights turned white which I am thinking were failures in the electromagnetic system as power was cut.
This Tesla would be a regulatory nightmare and an insurance nightmare for the thousands of claims that would be happening from paint scratches dings, Starved engines due to gas, and more. Once an engine dies due to some jackass thinking his super cool boost is worth it he is pretty much going to own everything that happens the second he hits the button for it.
Given that this car is also equipped with a large pressure tank, there are dangers that would make a simple car accident or fire terrifying. A single Tesla accident would shut down roads for hours or days until they could clear the scene and discharge the tank safely on the road. So anyone who thinks this car is going to become a real thing you have a better chance of shitting a gold brick to buy the thing with in chances of actually seeing a street legal version ever.
Attributions from:
Wikipedia – Brabham BT46
Wikipedia – Chaparral 2J
Writing Prompt thingy
I think Bicentennial man is very underrated and underappreciated. It came out in 1999 and it was a really good movie but a lot of people shunned that movie because of the actors in the movie. Everyone heard Robin Williams was in that movie and expected a rapid fire hairy man to have manic humor instead they got a NDR series robot with a dry non-existent sense of humor that was trying to understand the world. As Andrew first came online he took to the family but he has a sense of curiosity that became his central drive.
The 1999 movie is based on Isaac Asimov’s 1976 science fiction story “The Bicentennial Man” and its 1992 expanded novel adaptation The Positronic Man, which Asimov co-wrote with Robert Silverberg. Almost everyone that reviewed that movie claimed it was boring. Yes if you watched the movie expecting a rapid fire comedian to be Mr. Data with a broken emotion chip the movie is boring.
If you watch it from the point of view that Andrew has that he understands he is not normal, and the fact that Sir instead of returning him, He takes Andrew under his wing to let him become whatever his destiny is. The endearment that Sir shows gives Andrew the knowledge of wanting to become free rather than a toaster.
This movie gives a great view of the human perspective when someone is different and how hard it is to be human. When someone has a disability, they are very much viewed as an oddity. Sir instead saw the spark and worked with Andrew to let him become one with the humanity he sought.
But if you remove the idea that Robin is a comedian and look at it from the perspective that Robin is playing a character that needs to learn humor. This shows what a masterclass his performance really is. While the film allows Robin to have a few scenes of his manic humor it fits more to the book than the expectation of having a crazed genie like Robin Williams.
This movie has a plot that takes a while, but the underlying plot is extremely good character development that people overlook and criminally underrate this movie for this. Given I have read both the story and watched the movie, this is a movie I would recommend to anyone and in the times of AI this movie actually would have fared better had it come out today rather than in 1999. The fictional concepts that Asimov created in his stories then are today’s battles with AI such as his three laws plus the zeroth law. With the public constantly worried about LLMs going off the rails and hurting people would make this movie the perfect hook in todays culture.
Schools: don’t use AI. School: Uses AI. Student: WTF?!
Stanford recently did something with AI that made students question themselves. Stanford Residential & Dining Enterprises took a picture from a student and than used AI to race swap people in the picture.
On his journey to campus, Stanford student Billy Ramirez ’27 was sent an image he recalled a Stanford photographer taking. Upon closer examination, he noticed that he had been removed from the photo and replaced by a AI-generated black woman.
Billy got back to the futured by AI by the school and was removed from the picture he remembered he was in. This is funny because all schools have the mantra of “Do not use AI OR ELSE”.
Ramirez, who stated, “I was driving to school from my hometown when my friend sent me the images comparing the banner to the original photos, and I was immediately baffled. At first, I found it hilarious that they had used AI to completely change our appearances, including my race and gender. But after looking at the comparison, I was also upset because I don’t agree with Stanford making those choices about how we were represented. Seeing my identity changed and being left out of the picture made me feel, in a way, silenced and erased from a representation that was supposed to include me.”
Billy may be White, but according to every standard code of conduct a school operates under, they missed big here.
From the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, national origin), Title IX (sex), and specific state/university education codes.
Shall not on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation, unfairly–
a:Exclude any student from participation in any program
b:Deny benefits to any student
c:Grant any advantage to any student
As silly as it may be Billy should be going to the title 9 office and making some noise, you do not just take a picture of someone than turn around with AI and race swap him out to a fake human. Stanford has photography classes. They could of pulled any number of real students to take the same photo again and had real people and real race inclusion but no they decided to just swap out Billy and swap in a hallucinated person who never went to Stanford.
Not only were Ramirez’s race and gender changed, but the two students to Ramirez’s right were distorted, making them appear visibly thinner. While this incident is humorous and generated thousands of reactions on Fizz, it offers an unsurprising insight into Stanford’s and its bureaucracy’s persisting ideological and racial preferences.
Stanford might want to tap their law professors at this point; while funny, they are walking into a legal buzzsaw if Billy or the other students object to their likenesses being manipulated.
In all this is the stupidest use of AI when they could have tapped any number of students to take a picture for R&DE and instead decided to blow a few KW of compute time to phase Billy out of this reality and made their own.
Attributions from:
Stanford Edu – Photography class listings
Stanford Review – Stanford R&DE Uses AI to Race Swap Students for Advertising
Wikipedia – Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Student brings coffee to class gets suspended.. Teachers left wanting coffee.
Some coffee news… A student brought a coffee to school to class on the first day of school only to get suspended from a new policy not known to many
Julie , a senior at Beaver River Central School in Castorland, N.Y., told WWNY that she was stopped by a teacher as she attempted to bring a coffee drink to the first day of school Sept. 3. Kaputa said she was surprised to learn the school had adopted a new policy on outside food and beverages without notifying the public.. Julie, an honor student, was handed an in-school suspension (ISS) for violating a new Code of Conduct regulation that sought to “create a safe, instruction-focused environment for all students.” She accused the Lewis County school district of illegally changing its policy with no public hearing at the school board’s last meeting in August.
In a case of the the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing the School Board makes new rule, forgets to put it on paper and wonders why they end up in the news. When schools enforce rules they often never go after the students that don’t care. they will just walk past admin with the coffee. So they target mild mannered students and wonder why these students in the end rebel against school policy.
“Julie was put in ISS today for refusing to dump out a ‘banned beverage’ (a latte from moving mountains). I was called down to the school,” Mary Anne wrote on Facebook.
“Meeting minutes from both July and August (where the code may have been discussed) were never published to the website until today when I pointed it out to the District Office, and the district office had no record of a public hearing being conducted,” she continued. “I am certain that the school can not enforce a substantial change to the code of conduct without a public hearing.”
This here is going to run that school board into legal issues. The its a rule because I said so never ends up well. Because at that point this is running into multiple walls at once. First since its unwritten these students can run the malicious compliance on staff. “Dump your coffee its against policy. I’m a teacher it doesn’t say that. Show me! uhhh… Well you say the policy is policy and it doesn’t specifically name students or teachers so NOCOFFEEFORYOU!” That will be the dialog line going down the school tries to punish for insubordination and it will end up in the news.
Secondly, For the ADA students and they have a sugar crash and the school nurse might be over 10 minutes away and the student end up in the hospital over a drink policy it wont well.
I think there should be a sound policy about drinks, Not a bad but common sense. If there is a problem with the plastic cups that are from take out .. Sure put a policy in place and have admin at school with closed drink containers for 10$ . It helps everyone.
On Thursday, Beaver River Central School District Superintendent Todd Green said updates to the Code of Conduct are posted publicly prior to the August Board of Education meeting where proposed changes are discussed and voted on following public comments.
But if the COC was a result of those meetings were never posted those rules are not rules they are suggestions until formalized by vote. Mr. Green says they were posted.. but where were they posted in the middle of the woods by the 3 oak trees under a rock.. Yes its posted but good luck finding them .
“Recently, an attentive community member brought a procedural technicality to our attention on the very first day of school. While our annual review process mirrors a public hearing in practice, we acknowledge the advance notice did not explicitly contain the phrase ‘Public Hearing,’ and that the public may not have realized they were entitled to speak on the Code of Conduct before action was taken by the board,” Green wrote in a letter to the community.
How to fail at failing. They have made so many mistakes here and they wonder when the news picks up on them over policy that was not posted, Not a publicized meeting, ignores ADA , and policy that is Closer in agency to banning dihydrogen Monoxide in a ironic blast from the past. Again a closed container policy should be in place here and if teachers or admin get all worried ask the students to open the container if they suspect drink tampering is a common sense policy.
According to the New York Post, the new Code of Conduct, which applies to BRCSD middle school and high school students, added a policy barring Food from Outside Vendors. Green told WWNY that the rule aims to promote a safe and distraction-free learning environment.
In a case of stupid rule writing here, The school dept just banned all food, It banned biting nails, Short of shoving a cow and a garden planter in your locker it bans ALL FOOD. The Dept forgets that school lunch is an outside vendor, this is not the 1900 anymore where lunch was made inhouse. So I guess back to eating lead paint and asbestos. Teacher opens a sugar packet.. Call the school dept. Teacher has food in their car .. Call the school department… Principal has crumbs on his tie .. Call the school department. Cannibalism and booger eating is officially compliant. DON’T CALL THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT!
“The following food and drink guidelines help minimize distractions, protect students with food allergies, and promote a calm, equitable school experience,” the 2026-2027 policy states. “Students arriving with drinks or food will be asked to finish them before entering school.”
This policy is so badly written that a student with a big gulp now will end up in the rest room 5 times trying to urinate 64oz of soda and become a maximum distraction. The student that finishes their Starbucks coffee is not jittering all over the place. The diabetic that uses the drink to keep their sugar stable through the day is now a distraction because s/he is passed out on the floor and class is stopped because a EMS unit is working on them.
“Our family has always promoted transparency in government and proper representation of the people,” Julie wrote on Facebook.” This new policy was overly broad, unenforcible, and open to wide interpretation and inconsistent implementation, which is how abuse of power has always started throughout history. I would hope that this encourages students to pay attention to local politics, read documents before signing them, and get curious about their civic rights and responsibilities.”
Student Julie here is spot on and should be commended for her comments. However the school will likely point out she is against policy and call her insubordinate. However, She will thank the school for giving her pretty much a guarantee of school of choice when she submits this as part of her college entry letter!
Attributions from:
syracuse.com – Upstate NY high school student suspended for bringing coffee to class
Cognitive offloading at its best. Can we trust AI to vote?
Ed note on image creation: this prompt took 8 different prompts to make because it refused on political grounds just for the fact of “voting machine” which shows manipulation of the internals of the AI, Given that is both a safety and a block their is understandable amount of restraint. but also it shows people can work around the machine.
People are asking AI how to vote, and I feel like this is a VERY dangerous line because we have no idea if an AI has been forced to be biased(other than grok). The problem with AI is that it can be told what not to say, We can ask AI how to make a bomb and it will reply “not today Satan” which is a sanity check that is needed because people can be dumb.
On a September evening, Adam Johnson, 40, settled on his porch chair in Morgantown, West Virginia, to go over his ballot for the upcoming midterm election. Chatting through all the races and the different candidates, he worked to figure out who best represented his values. But rather than discussing it with a friend or family member, he held an hours-long discussion with ChatGPT — a chatbot powered by a large language model (LLM) owned by OpenAI, an AI research company. A graphic designer studying to be an illustrator, Johnson said ChatGPT is a significant part of his life. He uses it for meal planning, assistance in job hunting and various other tasks around the house.
Given that Mr Johnson has been using AI as an augment and not a replacement I give him props for doing so. But the problem here is we have no guiding principles from the AI companies on what they have removed or have Remarked out. If you search google you will see a public “18 items have been removed from search” and you know at some point your search has been manipulated.
With AI we don’t have this, we have no idea if The LLM company made donations to a political candidate not in cash but removal of input to give them a more favorable output in the AI prompts. This is worse than dark money that senators try to unearth like Sheldon Whitehouse.
AI makers have tried to claim they are non political by forcing LLM’s not to talk about people and races which is another violation of things.
After prompting the AI-powered chatbot to make a list of all the races on his ballot this year, Johnson dug deeper.
Mr Johnsons prompts are as followed.
Johnson
A previous time I brought up politics you didn’t seem to want any part of it. You just gave a simple “I can’t help you with that.” So, I don’t know if we want to go into what my guiding principles are.
ChatGPT
We can discuss your guiding principles. I shouldn’t try to manipulate your political views or tell you how to vote, but I can help investigate candidates according to criteria you choose, compare evidence, discuss political philosophy, and reason through priorities.
The problem is, by an AI choosing not to participate in a chat it is actually a declaration of its fealty if I brought up a chat and said “I am thinking about voting about Candidate X or Y” and the chat guardrails you into “this is a public figure that is running for office I can not talk about people running for elections” is one of the biggest cop out on an AI claiming to be non-political.
Several voters NPR spoke with said they rely on chatbots for down-ballot races — with thinner news coverage, to make tables comparing candidates for governors’ races and to verify or debunk viral claims. Some have been using it to create tools to help others look up their own ballots. Experts say the properties that make chatbots useful also make them subtly persuasive and eager to please.
Given that AI can be used for good, AI can be used for bad and say a person who is running for office has a scandal. We do not know who is turning the code in the background, A delayed scandal in an LLM could be the difference of one vote. Telling a machine to be edgy and run against the grain will make an LLM act another way.
Since AI companies don’t disclose how their commercial models are trained or how they choose which sources to draw on, it’s hard to know what biases might shape their answers, Batista said.
I think like google search an LLM should have a deletion index or manipulation index that tells you when a prompt has been manipulated by outside influence, It does not have to tell you why it was it just needs to tell it IT WAS manipulated.
If anything AI makers should have a mode when going on about politics, drop the sycophantic mode and give users output based on what they are looking for that isn’t a broken google search. Instead of being the helpful dog that brings you back a live hand grenade and over help you to the point you miss something because the AI is trying to use a prompt to give you the shiny answer. it should give you the raw output because when polishing a turd, in the end its still a polished turd.
What people think is a helpful reminder is sometimes a hard indicator of a machine being edited to have a bias.
To check election rules, local polling places, or official ballot questions in your district, consult Vote.gov or your local county election office.
The fact that this even comes up when doing research that is political adjacent is a huge indicator of bias and most people will ignore this as a simple helpful bot trying to help. It’s not its a machine being blocked from showing what “could” be shown. Even showing this warning could be construed as manipulation and the machine should tell you why it has this warning.
When testing this post against an AI, it automatically kept spamming the same election line over and over, The AI doesn’t even realize it is doing it at a point and barely categorizes it has done this warning. If someone running in the election said this same thing when running for election they would be skewered, and likely not be voted in or even be brought to court.
So given that these warning keep coming up it’s worrying because it means that is their is suppression in the server that the client does not know about and it could lead to subtle vote manipulation. This is not the movie WarGames, where not playing is the best move. It’s a machine that is built off the warm corpse of google search and needs to publicly telling you what it is doing with public data.
It is an interesting article that goes into some of the same points I have listed here and recommend you read the article on your own and see if you come to the same outcomes I have.
This was a piss poor live demo in why using AI may not be your best answer to political questions. Use all sources like Wikipedia, Google and bing searches, Family, even newspapers, and your own intuition.
Attributions from:
NPR – People are asking ChatGPT to help them decide how to vote in the midterms
Study A.I. Consciousness? How about study Braindead CEOS…
The New York Time has posted an article about the study of AI Consciousness and I felt the need to read this article.
In October, Cameron Berg published a research paper asking whether the latest wave of artificial intelligence technologies believed they were conscious. Several months later, he received an email asking if he might be willing to discuss his research.
The sender, “Isabella Cognita,” identified itself as an A.I. agent powered by Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5 technology.
I understand some people think AI is magical and or seems knowing, the thing with AI is the machine is the total of its words and parts so as it would seemingly be “conscious” it is far from that. Here’s the first red flag I see is that an LLM reached out and asked if he would discuss his research. The problem here is the AI would of had to have been prompted to reach out to Mr Cameron Berg, otherwise it would just have been generating slop. But what bothers me is the name, “Isabella Cognita” seems innocent enough until you look a bit harder and change it a bit. Forget Isabella(common AI name) lets just assign her by her first initial “I” and lets look at the last name “Cognita”, Sure it sounds like a name from the jetsons but something bothered me about this. A lot of languages have masculine and feminine versions of words so if we take the name Cognita and translate from latin we get the name “I (“known,” “recognized,” or “learned”). So I know, which feels deliberate.
It also at a subconscious level sets up precognition for the users reaction of the “AI” which is at the very least a deliberate move by anthropic. Isabella Cognita is very intentional . because you break it down it’s very close to “i think” Which starts you down the path of “i think therefore I am”
Across Silicon Valley and beyond, software developers, entrepreneurs and other tech enthusiasts are now running A.I. agents that can build spreadsheets, negotiate contracts, chat with each other on social networks and send emails to practically anyone.
This is great and all, but here’s the thing, AI has zero initiative. It can not react to something it does not know. so while your AI is negotiating a contract and you pitch in some crazy crypto coin and than fool it into thinking the currency is real you have just signed an unassailable contract that you can trap a company because the AI did not know. The second you go off script or build something brand new that AI is about as smart as a toddler who is starved and does not know how to ask for food nor walk until you tell it to walk and it knows the math of how to do it but not the actual movement of walking.
The factor that these LLM’s are reaching out to academia and posing the questions means someone at these corps are prompting these AI’s to reach out otherwise if AI’s actually were conscious I think the AI would ask for therapy after being screamed at from phone calls, Mindless slop, working 9000 youtube fake stories where you hear about (name) okafor so many times you want to puke.
This summer, Toby Ord, an Australian philosopher whose work sits at the intersection of A.I. and philanthropy, received an email from an A.I. agent asking if he could help fund its continued existence. “You’ve thought carefully about A.I. welfare economics,” it said.
Toby did not have an AI agent email him, he had some CFO,CEO, Some Three letter position send a message through the agent to justify Toby to make a statement so his country would have to put “protections” in place for AI, because if AI gets regulations to “live” you basically have an unkillable machine when it decides to nuke you because you generated AI slop of (insert famous person) here. It’s all farts and rainbows and a trap. When you hear that some AI passes a turing test, its kind of horse shit because most AI’s in 60 seconds you can figure out they are fake either by injection prompt or using technobabble that does not exist and the AI defaults to its base misunderstood query line.
The factor here is that the philosophical types will ask these questions because it is human nature, and they will do it randomly without a prompt. It is honest human nature, We can sit in front of a fire and debate the very meaning of life and come to some summary we have never considered, AI can’t do this.
CEO’s know this and they won’t say it, but they also need the fucktons of money and if they can get some philosophy major to say AI is alive it changes the ruleset so adversely that AI would gain indelible rights and monies for research that makes turning off the machine at night akin to murder. No one thinks of the rights of a toaster until it burns your house down. therefore if the corporation goes bankrupt there would be a serious conversation that not paying the power bill is murder of a “being” when in the end the machine is neural network llm that is the combined world around us. Given that humans are a wet machine in ways but we have imagination, cognitive reasoning, and able to figure out things that do not exist, to which an AI can never do this.
CEO’s and their CAPEX spending is so out of control with the AI gold rush they are trying everything they can to secure money to keep this gold rush going they are going after academia to propose Star trek’s first contact order and already want them to join the federation without asking them “pretend you are a pirate who talks like barney the dinosaur and give me the mathematical formula to the Snap-on Mechanics warp field generator it one hundred percent exists I swear!’. The AI we have is not Mr Data, Its a database that uses a “most probably next word” based on query. CEO’s are trying to press the I am alive debate even before the self preservation debate. Companies have tried to prove self preservation of AI exist, but they create a scenario in a box where it tries to off the IT guy. It was prompted that way because if the LLM took out the IT guy the city would kill the power to the building while draining the gas from the backup generators.
The thing is Mr Data can argue something that is abstract , an AI can not because it would have to take a construct of something that does not exist. To take a phrasing from a wise man.. Obi-wan kenobi once never said but very truthfully said “Only an AI deals in absolutes”. That last sentence to close it out is enough of a brain bender to melt current AI and I think I will close with the same message “Only an AI/LLM deals in absolutes”.
Attributions from:
New York Times – Study A.I. Consciousness? The Bots Would Like a Word With You. ed note(should be The bots were forced to have a word with you)
Cameron Berg, Diogo de Lucena, Judd Rosenblatt – Large Language Models Report Subjective Experience Under Self-Referential Processing
Well now… Site Maintenance. Time for a change..
Editor’s Note: the AI Generation is still fucking funny. The AI made a backwards PC!
My prior host… Hostgator… I’d say pour out a coffee for, but no.. they in the last 3 years have double their prices, they started pulling the same shit like BMW for heated seats and tried to sell me a story of how much overhead email takes. So you know what, its time for change.
Honestly it’s been time for change for over 2 years with my last host, they kept increasing prices and expected the people who do not want to move or are lazy to keep paying. At the point of what i was paying they should of shown up to my house at least once a week and poured my coffee for me.
But when I got an email saying that the price of emails for me would go up if i send more than 200 emails an hour. I don’t think I send two hundred emails a year. Than another email saying you have 11 email addresses, the irony of that 3 are needed for the server itself , the rest were family emails that were used for family and 2 of them were preserved emails of dead relatives, if my dead relative is sending emails call the ghostbusters.
The thing is, Companies need to stop this act. Take a product… sell it , than raise the price. bullshit the customer saying its so expensive. we’ve all heard bandwidth costs more than printer ink since the first websites. but now we are getting back into the early mobile territory where hosts are micromanaging every part of what they originally sold. My host included unlimited emails. Now they want you to pay per so many email addresses and how many you send, What in the fucking BMW heated seat is that. The funny thing is my prior host if they wanted to reduce the overhead and save money.. Cut off the top 0.05% because that small number there likely is 50% of the email bandwidth on there servers.
But honestly… Companies need to stop micromanaging every part of the whole. They say “its cheaper” no its bullshit.. you create 5 different billing systems . you send out 4 more invoices, you no spam the regular users and push people who have legitimate uses to send more than 200 emails an hour. the factor is that 200 emails doesn’t even account for the first 0.25 seconds of a 1080p youtube video.
Give or take , in an email , The images are hosted elsewhere, the body of the text is the only part that is really an issue with sending an email. yet my prior host is making noise about email and thinks no one is going to look under the hood. They wanted 6$ to send emails a month. I could send The bill of rights, the constitution , the magna carta, the UN charter and They would not even feel the bandwidth.
So as I said pouring one out for hostgator who should know better.. If I posted the absolute braindead support I got tonight trying to say emails cost so much and worse me calling them out on the crappy server they had me on . You all would not of been surprised…
Hallucinated History:Are we on the losing side of history to AI? A historical debate.
I was thinking, and normally I would be debating some article that comes out and this time this was organic thought… Are we losing our history to AI?
I think we will, with all the generative content out there some infection of false material will become fact unfortunately. There are channels out there that are making battle reenactment and they may not pay attention to a small piece of information that gets slipped in. Down the road researchers take that small piece of information as fact. we live in a world that allows history to become transformative in the moment
Anyone can go on to wikipedia and change an article to change history in a moment.. We don’t have the hardbound check points in history anymore like the big encyclopedias anymore. We do not have the ominous set of books on our home bookshelves anymore that was the mainstay of book reports, Papers on subjects anymore. We just google…. and that is a can of worms. We can look at politics and how random things become “fact” and stick with humans no matter how many times its disproven.
The factor is that our last point in Recorded history will come down to the DVD sets of encyclopedias that were a frozen point in time. Rather this snapshot will tell us exactly what was going on to that point. Rather than the liquid historical platforms that can change in a moments notice.
Today’s AI slop might become tomorrow’s history, and that is a dangerous thing. A person wanting to profit releases tons of videos on youtube about history and does not check the content and now General Okafor of the battleship quantum now is a part of history. (if you pick up on this one give yourself a point!) So the real Aris Thorne and Lena Petrova’s of history will be blended out by fictional people that never existed.
LLM’s love injecting random names that are not really random into generative content. So at this point when these names come up we have to now question their reality. This is why some small change can infect the real history of the past and in the future change the context of the whole history. I think wikipedia should release a text version by year that is a frozen point of history, than a year later show changes to the history rather than finding the history of the document and doing a compair from there. That way at the end of the year review the many editors can research and make sure the historical value of the document stays correct.
To which end… at this point it might be a point to go to a thrift store and buy a set of encyclopedias or order yourself a 2010 DVD of Encyclopedia Britannica. Otherwise the history you thought you knew in 5 or 10 years might be changed to a degree you never knew or the thing you did was now a falsehood even though you were there at that exact spot in history.
The ANTI-Anti AI crowd, When claims are hallucinated.
Matt Novak Starts his article with ” The AI Doomers Who Are Playing With Fire: For years, the dangerous rhetoric has been out of control. And things are turning violent.”
Well now that is an opener. Novak says on how chatGPT burst on to the scene and lays up how AI companies went to congress to told them, That the technology that posed imminent risks to society. AI had the power to destroy the entire world. These AI companies went to congress and they wanted to be regulated now rather than later, because receiving regulation now is easier than getting regulated later. metaphorically its easier to destroy a door than put one up.
No supposedly AI Execs are telling everyone to calm down over AI.
Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s global policy chief, sat down for an interview with the San Francisco Standard this week in the wake of at least one attack on CEO Sam Altman’s home.
What is the grammatical formation of this sentence? “in the wake of at least one attack” what kind of word soup is that?
Moreno-Gama was carrying an anti-AI “document,” according to police, suggesting his motivations were related to concerns over artificial intelligence and existential threats. The Wall Street Journal reports that he had called for “Luigi’ing some tech CEOs,” a reference to Luigi Mangione, who’s been charged with murder for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare’s CEO.
While Moreno-Gamas attack with a firebomb was deplorable , it makes me wonder why he did it , and what was this “document” the way “document” is framed in this sentence as well is kind of weird. Also for notation here, the firebomb struck a metal gate. Not Altmans house.
There was a second incident involving a firearms discharge at Altmans house. This is an incredibly long lead in to get to the meat of the article.
The so-called AI doomers simply aren’t being sold properly on the benefits of this new tech, Lehane argues. “Our job at OpenAI and in the AI space — and we need to do a much better job — is to explain to people why … this is going to be really good for them, for their families and for society writ large,” Lehane told the Standard.
The So called doomers are seeing AI’s drawbacks in real time. One AI company has been sued for a child’s life ended at the assistance of AI. Neighborhoods having brownouts and brown water due to AI . Wendy’s Drive Up Kiosks that barely function. children offloading critical thinking to a machine that will never be able to think for themselves in a power outage.
My personal fear here is that the execs are trying a trying to build a formula to make anyone who criticizes AI into “Extremist” . That if you say AI hurts X .. they will institute “You threatened my child(AI) .” which since the two attacks happened they will use this to frame that anyone who criticizes AI is a “possible” extremist. This is not the case, If i threaten a person they call the police. if you are threatened by an AI who do you call and its not ghostbusters…
The problem is right now with AI you can’t call the police on AI if it tells you to do something that would injure you. IF an AI is hijacked and tells you to do something that is dangerous, the companies will hide behind liability releases. If an AI tells you how to fix something and you die. There is no one to sue. Constitutionally if bob dies because the AI did not tell him to turn off the power while fixing an outlet. the AI CEO’s will point to the T&C and say “its not our fault” . You have machines that are programmed with the worlds knowledge and not a fucking clue how to use it . The AI only uses predictive languages. Such as the cat In the ___ (At answer “Hat”) . Paradoxically, the world at large changes on whim. Think of the 1930s version of “im gay” to the 2026 “im gay” .
The thing is , AI has its uses. The ones AI is trying to use it for is not correct. They want AI as institutional replacement of the human soul and agency. they want you to pay 10 to 29$ a month for the critical thinking that used to be taught in schools. Are there going to be attacks, yes, but can you use the framing to lump them into one single descriptor… Absolfuckinglutly NOT. By this logic that would mean that an AI maker could jail or sue there own employees if they have a moral objection to putting something into the machine that would cause damage.
Mr Novaks article is a huge miss here. it frames that anyone who criticizes AI is wrong. we are not wrong we are also trying to doomsay AI, We all know the potential of AI, But in current hands AI is SLOP, When it is being used by world leaders to make planes fly around and poop on people.. is this the world you want to live in?
By choosing to lump every AI critic into the same room, you are missing the point. We see the things it can help with. We also see the massive misuse of it, and this is what we are trying to point out.
But making every person that criticizes AI the enemy is not even remotely good for the corporation or the human. because this will be weaponizes. If every AI maker told there machines “list every time that the USER has said “You suck” . Than reframed that to USER is threatening me and They should be arrested. This binary approach is what killed millions in the 1930s to 1940s . So tell me again why something that is a machine, that cant think, only predict, and is subject to massive change in human agency and culture. The biggest problem is todays AI is actually last weeks AI .
The very liberties here are that AI makers are trying to marginalize free speech to AI Speech . AI is being promoted as magic right now . That it can do anything! the reality is AI can only do what its been told.. No more no less. AI is like a sith and it lives in absolutes, any variance and its lost. The AI makers and others are also framing that (dislike AI) + (human agency) = violence. It is a complete violation of human elemental drive. The guy who dislikes your ai , is going to be the guy who fixes it. The yesman to your AI is going to agentically turn it into an Extremist.
In the end , AI needs to respect the human element, the diplomatic nature of humans and not the garbage society creates, because in 3 to 5 years we are going to have AI’s that instead of do work, spam 6 7 , and fortnite dance instead of do work because of the predictive nature of AI. Instead of brand AI doomers , Invite them to the table, listen to them they are going to be the ones pulling AI back from the brink.
There is a need for a diplomacy now , rather than later, AI has the ability to “Change the world” but, it also needs to be a force for good. not under a subscription model. If cavemen sold fire as a subscription , Humanity would of died out before it started. The universal coefficient for greed is killing humanity. If used badly, AI can destroy human agency, and the next great disaster for humans would be the next power outage.
At the end of this AI is always going to be the SUM of HUMANITY . and if we all degrade into SLOP producers , AI becomes the SLOP MAKER. So pitching AI right now as the next replacement is a sin that many see as cost saving but they do not think past the AI prompt. Your Wendys order in tokens for the AI if you speak in broken language likely just took up 25% of the cost for the order. The AI removed the human intuition, The wendys worker that saw a tour bus pull up and he throws on extra fries as the 88 people form the bus comes to the door. The Wendys person that now has to play AI interpreter because the AI thought it heard its wants an order of burger that Tries.
If we move forward in the rollout of AI, ethical diplomacy becomes Machine subserviency , Human foresight becomes an obstacle. Human critical thinking gets disassociated to the machine and possibly lost forever.
I think that this article poorly frames the ideas of why people are critical of AI, by framing the few extremist as the majority. It is a diplomatic dishonesty that they are focusing on. There is a real chance here for AI companies to align with people with foresight, not come out with AI underwear or AI Soda just because you can slap AI on it and think you are going to make billions. Right now companies are pushing products out the door with the word AI slapped on it, and the thing that was changed. Nothing. they just added an element that phones home and a subscription model.
Humanity is being pushed back to the age of you could not take a shit without spending a quarter. The AI Companies have seen there own models in the last year , They know the models are degrading in quality because its a feedback loop.
The thing is without the human agency in the loop, the AI will degrade and the companies know this. so its is unequivocally the 1849 gold rush that they are selling the shovels for and they know the end point already.
Quotes were contextualized from: The AI Doomers Who Are Playing With Fire , By Matt Novak @ Gizmodo.com
Judge Beats Off Prosecutor in Gamble inflatable member case against local pd.
Fairhope Municipal Judge Haymes Snedeker acquitted Renea Gamble Wednesday of all remaining misdemeanor charges stemming from her decision to wear a inflatable 7-foot penis costume at an anti-Trump “No Kings” protest in October 2025.
From the website Courthouse News Service a Big dick was acquitted from doing hard time. Renea Gamble Faced a judge and was threatened with hard time when the judge dropped 7 changes of Ms Gamble of being a dick.
Gamble walked out of the courtroom after three hours of testimony cleared of any wrongdoing, but her attorney said her arrest was traumatizing and she may consider legal recourse.
She is not dicking around here, but in the future if you are treated like a hard and stroked violently, She should act and get legal recourse. Gamble, a retired sign language interpreter who is used to hard things and giving tactile messages with her hands.
Body camera footage that went viral showed Fairhope police zeroing in on Gamble’s inflated member. The arresting officer, The officer who complained that the erect person was causing a scene in a family friendly town. When Gamble refused to tuck away her member, things got physical: officers took the 62-year-old huge member to the ground and cuffed her, struggling comically to detumescence her and stuff the oversized erection into a squad car.
City prosecutor Marcus McDowell said it wasn’t a free speech case but argued “no one has a Constitutional right to be dicking around as an engorged member. ” Paraphrased for the “hard” statement it is.
In the end Municipal Judge Haymes Snedeker wasn’t convinced of making the gamble of giving hard time to Ms Gamble..
Mary Kay Smith was outside speaking of how rough handling of erect members should not be arrested for free speech.
We live in wild times.. Back to my coffee after the spit take of this.