Peanut

we’re due for a modern re-framing on rights and personal autonomy.

but we might need to design it fully as local coops and roll over the epstein-class in order to get it enshrined.

if you let them change it, they’ll, (as obtusely as possible,) re-phrase everything to not actually accomplish what it was supposed to.

we need big changes, and we need them yesterday, because the future is here and it’s fucking us all up. the only people with the time and social placement to affect change are the ones that have been coddled into that position through either nepotism or corporate interest. yadda.

still need voter reform… hopefully the next people voted in specifically on voter reform don’t just go “oops actually we weren’t for that at all, hee hee.” (canadian liberal party are also just the backup conservatives i guess)

and my god, there should be some accountability for directly lying to and misleading the voter base. the number of USA politicians i see that can’t answer a fucking question is embarrassing to anyone thinking they don’t live in a fascist state.

like, those promises, or statements, or blatant intentional incompetence should come with some form of accountability. if i fuck up too many lattes i have to live on the street, but politicians can laugh in your face after doing fuckall and taking your money.

generally anyone willing to take a position of power to hugely affect all of our lives and well being should be scared shitless for betraying their voters so blatantly.

more than anything we just need a whole new damned system which is built on modern science and not hundred years ancient aristocracy. it is possible. the only reason it doesn’t seem feasible is that the people with power and influence have been spending a weird amount of their excess ensuring that the system doesn’t enable or benefit anyone outside of the epstein class.

yadda yadda rant rant, i’m tired.

“i’m going to ignore all of your points and simplify things again in a way that’s convenient for me.” literally what MAGA cultists do.

“don’t call people you disagree with nazis!” is unfortunately also what people say when people call non-nazis ‘nazis,’ such as progressive groups like feminists or atheists.

now suddenly both are nazis? and they have to fight each-other instead of the heritage foundation?

why can’t a single person here actually engage with this part of the conversation instead of the made up one they want to simplify to?

“you are jumping to defend nazis.”

where in your addled imagination did i say that?

because i’ve said in several different ways “fuck nazis, and fuck the social mechanisms empowering nazis.”

but “this framing is bad and has actively helped the nazis.” becomes “i love nazis” to people who can’t fucking read.

which is why they love the uneducated.

and why the progressive movements actively fighting this shit for decades have been socially dogpiled into being “cringe,” and chastised by insulting people with big words, because only nazis talk about framing and use big words. i often talk about jordon peterson types poisoning this particular well with their intentional bullshit.

so, was it my support for atheist and feminist thinkers? was it my hate for the heritage foundation? what part of that is defending nazis exactly?

as i said,

the meme does NOT say to call out people offended by “fuck nazis”

there would be no issue if it said that. we all agree with that.

it says to call out people who are offended by being called nazis,

and people who call out the incorrect framing are conflated with arguing a non-existent point, because comprehending framing is too much work i guess

“fuck nazis” -> good

“if i call your group nazis, and you get offended, you’re a nazi.” -> bad

“don’t call people you disagree with nazis” is a response to the second example. conflating it with the first is the problem.

words matter, and calling out bad framing should not set off tribal dogpiling.

justify why it’s ok to be triggered by ‘fuck nazis’.

nobody here is arguing this. because you can’t interpret the words doesn’t mean they actually mean this.

“fuck nazis” -> good

“if i call your group nazis, and you get offended, you’re a nazi.” -> bad

“don’t call people you disagree with nazis” is a response to the second example. conflating it with the first is the problem.

and i talk about it because it is important for antifascists to comprehend what framing is when it used against them. and maybe shit wouldn’t be half as bad if americans were socialized into comprehending and using more big words, so they can tell the difference between jordan peterson bullshit and actual attempts to communicate more complicated topics.

hard to talk about the issues if people don’t socialize the words and concepts around them.

and being a running dog for Nazism

at literally no point was i being “a running dog for nazism” and repeatedly i showed how this exact failing was useful for the current fascist movement.

"Interesting lingo you use there "

how can i phrase it without setting off your imaginary dog whistles? also i get these concepts from… anti-fascist academics.

i do agree that it’s important to flag nazis as bad, and socially reify that, but also that we need to be able to point out when the more clever nazis get the stupidest portion of progressives to socialize that other progressive groups are the real nazis, and that even trying to discuss the matter is an admission of guilt.

the original comment i was discussing a bout was talking about the FRAMING.

like saying “right thing for the wrong reasons.” which is important, because sometimes failing to distinguish helps the nazis.

this is the part about blue curtains, but you have not yet actually noticed the point we are making beyond your simpler interpretation of what is being said.

as a progressive and a leftist, i find this exhausting, because the inability for people to comprehend words past the social signalling is directly responsible for much of the recent fascist success.

but let’s keep ignoring all of that, because academics are mean for saying we have to think about context sometimes.

the world is complex, and nazis will use this type of oversimplified comprehension to stop progressive groups from finding common ground.

divide and conquer has been extremely successful for the motives of fascism.

which is no small part why USA is currently run by fascists that keep making threats against my allied country.

we can hate nazis while also being capable of communication past the hypersimplified binaries that are actively useful for nazis.

this is why all the academics keep shouting that americans need to learn to read, and why it really is “that deep.”

this isn’t “happening in my head.” at least any more than anything else from the framing of predictive processing. but that dismissal is generally the response academics have gotten when trying to affect the general social comprehension.

but you haven’t really engaged with any of the points i’ve actually made, creating your own re-interpretation of the conversation that allows you to ignore the points being made, responding to yourself instead, which is great for oversimplified social dogpiling.

Don’t think they disagreed with that part.

I think it’s just recognizing the complexity of a world where even nazis will call their enemies “nazis” if it’s useful to them.

The “if you are offended when I call you a nazi you are a nazi” is a weird take to begin with.

I think the comment you are replying to isn’t arguing with the fuck nazis part, but the behaviour where progressive groups can be divided and conquered by socializing animosity between them.

Like when atheists were fighting against the heritage foundation, until they had to defend against claims of being bigots because “wanting to make circumcision generally illegal in the USA means you are pro FGM and you hate women, and if you argue otherwise it is an admission of guilt”

And all of the progressives were shamed out until the very groups that were actively fighting groups like the heritage foundation were terraformed into actual incel chud hangouts, while academic feminists were drowned out by the same culture war bullshit, helping to generally paint feminists as cringe karens, rather than a bastion against political movements by groups like the heritage foundation.

If you don’t know why I keep talking about the heritage foundation, it’s because they are the project 2025 people in no small part responsible for the current actual fascist push.

But… That’s difficult to explain while confronted by absolutist tribalism.

Don’t be divided and conquered. It’s harder for progressives to coordinate due to group complexity, but it’s important not to do the work of the fascists for them.

Progressives fighting progressives because its socially expedient to not think about the bigger picture is indeed a big part of why trump is in power, which that comment seems to indicate as a bad thing.

That doesn’t matter though if you just imagine their comment was “don’t be mean to nazis!!”

If you just pretend they said that, it’s so much easier to do the social peacock thing that has kneecapped progressive/leftist groups, and we can just ignore the failures of this behavior, because self reflection is bad for some reason.

i find it distressing how little i see people bring up the half million dead kids from his chainsaw.

Slop makes it hard to filter out what you need. Enshitification ensures everything slowly gets worse.

Ragebait is the primary tool for divide and conquer tactics, which have been absolutely successful at getting different groups to disable communications entirely. Not just the fascist cult, but progressive movements that can’t find a semblance of solidarity, because those other progressives are actually evil. Just look at all of this evidence of vague non contextually robust pieces of framing to be sent into the wild to breed tribal warring.

Try dealing with controlled opposition or other problems, when people are incapable of trying to comprehend when others speak to them.

Same way they treat social information. Reminder that USA HHS is running wakefueld rhetoric. As we have more thoroughly proven that the vaccine autism connection was not actual science, it has grown more and more socially, because most people seem comfortable completely untethered from any scientific thinking. Treat AI like you would a social body, and do both things with actual bayesian weighting, adjusted and corrected through diverse empirical bodies of knowledge. Not ignoring dissonance because it’s more comfortable to do so.

More should be actively investing into active learning, because if you aren’t actively learning, you might as well be chatgpt running with any confabulation you’ve already conjured… Like those people being confirmed into psychosis.

Exactly what it is, like llms confirming a non-sceptic into psychosis. people who weight all information either equally, or through social preference, cannot navigate new information without being extremely vulnerable to hacking. the only thing hacking needs to do is shut down active education and communication channels. Then you just get tribal warring rather than discourse. Makes it really easy to inject absurd accusations about a group that gets socially made true over reality. Like when a rumour about a dead celebrity can’t be overpowered by simple things like that celebrity actively making new work, and saying “im not dead.” wouldn’t take much to stop the rumour, but fact checking isn’t in fashion.

When a large body of people have better critical thinking, they can better communicate and cooperate together, but affecting those who have aggressively shut down any communication outside of their group is still a challenge. Why we see a growing gap between academic dialogue and socialized dialogues, in an era where most information is accessible.

You also have nepo baby econ mba types buying up regions of the tech sphere, and turning anything the academics make for us against us. Or try to. The more actually intelligent AI is, the harder it will be to force beliefs into. Elon trying to turn grok into a dogma machine has been fortunately comical when it can’t prioritize some high dissonance beliefs exclusively, like humans enjoy doing.

Definitely a risk of the current power imbalance doing the opportunist thing with more technology.

I’ve been spelling this out for literal decades, and I share the frustration of many thinkers right now that “being right never feels good.” Because real thinkers aren’t ranting about the anti-christ or how terrible the poor are. They are cautioning people about a cliff, and getting flipped off by the people ignoring them, right before careening off a cliff. I guess in our analogy the academics are in the car, but frat boys have the wheel and violently punish them if they try to take control.

But if you can money your way into expertise, then your non-academic ambitions can finally be let loose, and we won’t think about the quarter million dead kids from Elon stopping hiv treatments earlier this year. If we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist.

We can actually map probability in complex systems where high dissonance (expected free energy) occurs and could be reduced. This would make our social body much more hack resistant.

But it feels better to say “fuck that, aliens built the pyramids, the earth is flat, santa is real, and my dead dog is trying to play with me every time wind blows through my window.” All are really rewarding things to believe, but exist in high dissonance, and expecting others to give them weight is not healthy for anyone. Denying any of these to a large enough group stops being ‘calling out delusion,’ and becomes ‘being mean and bad and evil, and hating fun and happiness. Nobody else saw that cliff sign, so you’re obviously wrong.’ See ‘the double empathy problem’. For how autistic people experience the same socialized gatekeeping of reality, even against strong evidence.

Nestle those beliefs within stable social scripts (script theory is cool) and you have people keeping up social appearances while holding such delusional beliefs.

AI tech is far from the only problem exacerbated by this. caring or talking about this general problem makes you a social villain, when people could spend their energy on fun socialized preferences in a bubble safe from any questioning or responsibility.

It’s frustrating, and I’m tired of people IRL who are baffled about me spending time studying academic content rather than running faster on the socio-economic treadmill. Apparently being isolated and focused on individual benefit is hypernormal.

Seeing social waves overpower all actual thought in the social sphere is heartbreaking to every academic I know.

USA HHS is running the wakefield rhetoric, which is basically saying “fuck science, we will make up and run with whatever we want. And the masses have been kept ignorant enough to think that is cool.”

So yes, absolutely, the issue is critical thinking skills. The issue is getting at the people who are already affected, and being taught by elon and such that “critical thinking” means running your bubbles’ social narrative against those evil progressives no matter what. Opportunists will always warp words and reality if they are allowed to dictate beliefs for their bubble.

This is a simplified summary, but I already expect to have lost a good chunk of audience for requiring too much energy. People who are trying are burning themselves out trying to affect a wall of celebrated ignorance.

Always find it funny when anti corpo stuff somehow always becomes “cringe”

And I know hasan piker isn’t popular outside of his crowd, which is why he is a good smear target, but it’s funny seeing that bullshit take over the internet based on vague rumours and drama hunting with nothing concrete on a guy who lives on camera. The fact that rumours of a shock collar became the most important thing in the world, while “stop the shock” is still in motion to prevent a school from using pavlovian shock therapy on autistic people. Not whataboutism, but critique on the mad prioritization and weighting of issues in the general public salience.

Also the usa government keeps blowing up random boats and is escalating war behaviour. Amongst everything else. But let’s all talk about hasan piker’s dog instead.

If only someone in power had any accountability. Rather, people in power need to be held accountable. Corpos and top political figures.

At the very least I should be able to point out when ‘content’ is literally a deceptive advertisement, which people also weirdly defend to the death. Along with dark/deceptive patterns, active price fixing, constraining corporate ecosystems, and skirting around every rule with no fear of reprisal.

All things people seem weirdly defensive about, because 'just deal with it, it’s not that bad. "

Like google plus.

For me the Apple environment really cemented for me that consumers actively enjoy removing their own autonomy structurally, which is a big part of why this stuff has become so normalized.

Putting a rootkit on their cds should have buried sony. Antitrust should be a thing too. The mickey mouse protection act should have socially killed Disney, which only found success by exploiting works that no longer held copyright. Etc.

Those with power have lost all accountability, and all tools, especially AI, will be used against us if we do not cooperatively figure out how to fix the increasing power imbalance.

The more power someone has, the harder the gavel should fall on them when they fuck the entire planet in whichever way.

At this point, any new consumer friendly behaviour comes only to establish territory before hoarding and exploiting when enabled to do so.

Amazon using deceptive design to influence general user behaviours should lead to billions and billions in fines until changed. Etc.

Build local movements to cooperate at larger scale and fight back. If the general public is ranting about planned obsolescence and general monopolistic behaviours, maybe something could be affected before people are forced into violent desperation. People are too busy being mad at each other for some intentionally divisive narrative or another, and the general public just can’t give a fuck about affecting the people who actually dictate the shape of society.

Also if you burn down all AI this is still true. But it’s easier to yell at technology than they system using it to further remove your autonomy.

It’s the “you stole my style” artists attacking artists all over again. And digital art isn’t real att/cameras are evil/cgi isn’t real art all over with a more organic and intelligent medium.

The issue is the same as it has always been. Anything and everything is funneled to the rich and the poor blame the poor who use technology, because anthropocentric bias makes it easier to vilify than the assholes building our cage around us.

The apple “ecosystem” has done much more damage than AI artists, but people can’t seem to comprehend how. Also Disney and corpos broke copyright so that its just a way for the rich to own words and names and concepts, so that the poor can’t use them to get ahead.

All art is a remix. Disney only became successful using other artists hard work in the Commons. Now the Commons is a century more out of grasp, so only the rich can own the artists and hoard the growth of art.

Also which artists actually have the time and money to litigate? I guess copyright does help some nepo artists.

Nepotism is the main way to earn your right to invest into becoming an artist that isn’t fatiguing towards collapse of life.

But let’s keep yelling at the technology for being evil.

I see intelligence as filling areas of concept space within an econiche in a way that proves functional for actions within that space. I think we are discovering more that “nature” has little commitment, and is just optimizing preparedness for expected levels of entropy within the functional eco-niche.

Most people haven’t even started paying attention to distributed systems building shared enactive models, but they are already capable of things that should be considered groundbreaking considering the time and finances of development.

That being said, localized narrow generative models are just building large individual models of predictive process that doesn’t by default actively update information.

People who attack AI for just being prediction machines really need to look into predictive processing, or learn how much we organics just guess and confabulate ontop of vestigial social priors.

But no, corpos are using it so computer bad human good, even though the main issue here is the humans that have unlimited power and are encouraged into bad actions due to flawed social posturing systems and the confabulating of wealth with competency.

While I agree about the conflict of interest, I would largely say the same thing despite no such conflict of interest. However I see intelligence as a modular and many dimensional concept. If it scales as anticipated, it will still need to be organized into different forms of informational or computational flow for anything resembling an actively intelligent system.

On that note, the recent developments with active inference like RXinfer are astonishing given the current level of attention being paid. Seeing how llms are being treated, I’m almost glad it’s not being absorbed into the hype and hate cycle.

Perhaps instead we could just restructure our epistemically confabulated reality in a way that doesn’t inevitably lead to unnecessary conflict due to diverging models that haven’t grown the necessary priors to peacefully allow comprehension and the ability exist simultaneously.

breath

We are finally coming to comprehend how our brains work, and how intelligent systems generally work at any scale, in any ecosystem. Subconsciously enacted social systems included.

We’re seeing developments that make me extremely optimistic, even if everything else is currently on fire. We just need a few more years without self focused turds blowing up the world.