screenshot_in_question.png

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Tuesday, 14-Apr-2026 07:41:05 JST pistolero

   in reply to
   @judgedread
   
   > They already simulate a guy well enough that you consider AI bot swarms a serious propaganda threat.
   
   This makes me think that you think we disagree in ways that we do not.
   
   Simulate a guy--an actual, specific guy--versus simulate a text stream well enough to fool a normie. Consider the gulf between typical Gablin and typical fedi user. A Markov bot could do a convincing Gablin, LLMs put it at "indistinguishable from normal user" and within striking distance of fedi users.
   
   Propaganda targets large numbers of people: people within two standard deviations are 95% of the population (close enough to "unanimous"), people within one standard deviation are 68% (thus IQ 85-115 is enough for a supermajority). LLMs have really astonishingly similar cognitive holes: they latch onto prurient phrases and miss the point, they do really poorly with recursion and abstraction, they lose context in a long conversation. And this despite being pure token predictors that have zero internal knowledge representation. You shouldn't be impressed with LLMs, you should be depressed to have evidence that p-zombies are real. The entire issue with sociopathy/psychopathy is that these people are skilled at manipulation and have no moral qualms: resurrect Bob McNamara and give him an LLM botfarm and see how soon hell follows him back to earth. This is already in regular people's hands; separate thread, Rust proponent turns out to be a bot: https://media.freespeechextremist.com/rvl/full/7f48e553f2f043a7ec0b614f765fd7dcd423dca4ea723e788d78ff8f4a689e69?name=rust_bot_astroturfing.png . You describe your main worry as Antifa and you should worry more because most of these LLMs are planted firmly in the :compass_ll: because sassy/stunning/brave Twitter academics are doing the RLHF.
   
   > I suspect your code example is the 'trick question' method.
   
   No; it was something I bashed into the shell so that a screenshot would be more interesting. Off-the-cuff hack. I have written a lot of brainfuck interpreters/compilers/transpilers/JITs; the original brainfuck compiler was a code golf exercise to make the smallest possible Turing-complete compiler for the Amiga. (251 bytes!) So it is a relentlessly simple language. One of the reasons that the LLMs think it says "Hello, World!" is that most brainfuck programs just print "Hello, World!".
   
   Find a coder that's not on fedi, Unix hacker type, show it to him; might take him a second but most humans will spot it right away.
   
   > If you know the weakness you can bust it.
   
   I keep saying that black-hat stuff's gonna get lucrative. Mickey Mouse is marching his brooms, man.
   
   > the proliferation of benchmarks allows teaching to the test in the eternal quest for headlines.
   
   I don't doubt they'll do that but we're not talking about Mechanical Turks.
   
   > OpenAI is absolutely the scammiest of them.
   
   Then you should know that this means they end up with money. Doesn't matter, though.
   
   Anyway, it doesn't matter: most of their future commitments are owned by Microsoft. Either they will be working for the government manufacturing astroturf that says "OpenAI" on it, or they will be working for the government manufacturing astroturf that says "OpenAI, a Microsoft Company" on it.
   
   > GOOG, Zuck and Elon can subsidize the data centers
   
   You don't understand what I am saying.
   
   1. They inked a deal with Microsoft for a quarter of a trillion dollars to be paid out over six years for Azure services. There is a cliff: they don't have to start paying right away, but they will have to start paying at some point. They do not have enough money and are banking on a large amount of revenue starting by the end of the year.
   
   2. They are now a "Microsoft Partner". This only ever goes *one* way.
   
   3. Microsoft has disparaged them in the press. This is a shark bumping the cage full of scuba divers. Microsoft wants to see how easy it is to tank OpenAI's valuation. This means Microsoft is banking on OpenAI not meeting the commitments and they think that
   
   4. The only revenue channel OpenAI can meet their commitments with is government money. One of Microsoft's main revenue channels is the government. It doesn't matter who owns OpenAI to anyone *but* employees with 83(b) elections and Sam Altman, who probably gets a much bigger exit in the event of an IPO than an acquisition. Investors are generally fine with "employee shares have been converted to Microsoft options that vest in five years".
   
   5. Microsoft owns 27%. Microsoft's internal AI products are shit: everyone hates them. Microsoft owns GitHub and GitHub is throwing around competitors' models. Microsoft doesn't like you to plug in a keyboard that's not MS WHQL-verified. Microsoft is throwing money at OpenAI because they intend to acquire OpenAI. To do this, they will look at the expected revenue for owning the biggest market player versus the expected revenue for the stock, and if the former number is bigger, they will try to tank OpenAI's valuation.
   
   > OpenAI could run out of money this year.
   
   They might. Doesn't matter. They will be spending investors' money, the government's money, or Microsoft's money, but they're not going to just evaporate.
   screenshot_in_question.png