and this is not me 'using AI as a source' or however the claim goes. i wrote three densely sourced essays on this topic.

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/stranded-assets
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-biosphere
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-waddesdon-papers

Sayer Ji’s hyper boosted posts really do not fill me with confidence. Every single tweet I ever posted was kneecapped before it was allowed to gain that much traction.

He’s rubber stamped by the hard left elite, and works with Michael Shillenberger to sell dead ends as solutions.

there's no way that's real - a former Bank of England and IMF employee just followed me on substack

perhaps i ought to ping him my review of 'in tandem'

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/in-tandem?utm_source=publication-search

... what the f-!

um, yeah, i suspect i know where this is going.

'rules as code' is about stripping out the evaluative and behavioural aspects of language, leaving only logic.

because that serves as a perfect bridge between machine and man, served through AI

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2020/10/dechiffrer-le-code_d56cab77.html

the reason why AI training goes through self-attention is because most of human language is either emotional or behavioural, which is almost impossible to teach a computer which runs on logic.

hence, they 'hold up a mirror' via attention algorithms, and the words gradually find their place in embedding space

if, however, you strip everything but logic, then AI suddenly becomes super-adept.

and that's what OECD (and UNESCO) work to achieve.

holy moly.

they are quite literally preparing to transfer the legislative (and the ethical via 'computational ethics') to be machine administered.

looks like today was a terrible day to stop sniffing glue

the really f'ed up thing is that this just slotted in SkillsBuilder and 'One School Global'... this is just so messed up. general systems theory applied to education, to prepare the pupils of tomorrow for a future of, well, Julian Huxley's vision.

transhumanism logically follows with BCIs, regulated through UNESCO neuroethics.

it's 'ethics', all the way down. what 'ought' as opposed to what 'is'.

the perfect steering mechanism because no-one saw it coming.

don't be unethical!

perhaps i should just make this clarification over here as well :)

i see im now only allowed to use the marxist chatbot, grok, 15 times every 20 hours.

oh noes.

of all the AIs i probably hate Grok the most, because it pretends to be libertarian and in support of free speech. in actual reality, it's the most establishment narrative aligned chatbot of the lot, bar chatgpt.

something's brewing. three people who'd appear highly wedded to the agenda (and thus, not exactly agree with me) all subscribing within days.

i'm good at pattern recognition. this is unexpected.

3.4M views. that's elon musk numbers.

when AlzHacker posted a japanese summary of my Epstein essay, it reached 1,100 retweets - and then died. just like that. the impression counts kept increasing, but RTs, comments, everything died.

yet, he gains 3.4M impressions and 7.1K RTs with a competing analysis, which is blind to the architecture?

500 impressions per retweet? i typically received around 30 when i was on twitter. AlzHacked got 1,100 RTs from around 130k impressions, which is, what, around 120 impressions/RT.

this doesnt add up. he's boosted as hell.

he appears to cover many of the same documents as i, but after i've covered them. he arrives at conclusions which, essentially, are dead ends. he doesn't point or attempt to decipher the architecture, and dances around rothschild consistently. he hasnt spoken of bendell, summers, branson's "social good currency", or the importance of the 'social good' in the 'impact investing' email.

is he following me around, trying to close the gates i open?

his conclusion is that rich people are bad, but he doesnt seek to understand why, or how come they even cooperate.

he details billionaire deals, but doesnt draw the institutional connections to central banks and adjacent institutions.

"no i won't trace the architecture, i'll trace who censored me and claim that's the root... while ignoring that every other nation does the same"

going through my essays and his (Sayer Ji) next to one another, quick notes:

- his solution is that exposure of the rich crooks alone settles it, and don't actually investigate what he left behind.
• he claims 'social good' is hypocrisy, never seeks to investigate the scam hidden behind it, nor why the term keeps reappearing.
• he frames the impact investing email around cashing in on pandemics, while i expose the larger strategy ,and pin it to Hillary Clinton and Rockefeller
• he also appears to be quasi-lining up the royal family as the scapegoat, and i really do not believe they're top tier.
• he hardly even touched ehud barak who's squarely at the centre of my third essay.
• he asks who the bad people are and what they did, i look into how they could even do what they did, and who facilitated it.

he doesn't look for a deeper pattern. in fact, it looks like he attempts to ring fence the issues which might take you there.