Category: Uncategorized

The Glorious History of GG

Grummz praises the OGGers and the consequences of #GamerGate.

It’s time to take credit.

Gamergate really did change the world.

It was the first time normies (like I and others used to be), woke up to how corrupt our journalism was.

We fought back so hard that social media spent millions developing censorship tools to stop us, which were then weaponized against the mass populace.

There IS a gamergate playbook and it is this: TRUTH. We used TRUTH and social media to spread the word, through epic meme battles and more.

We gave rise to the Right media. So many pundits on the Right came from GG and got HUGE.

We helped get Trump elected the first term, because Trump called the media “fake” and that was the GG banner. We wanted it fixed.

We crushed AAA gaming last year and forced Ubisoft to their knees.

We may not be called Gamergate anymore, we may have been smeared and pushed into a corner for years as social media banned us all, but we are the keyboard warriors of truth and we have won the long game.

Now let’s keep going!

Indeed. As it happens, the final track on the SOULSIGMA album is THE RIDE NEVER ENDS, a tribute to GamerGate and all of its leaders, of whom, of course, I am one.

DISCUSS ON SG

Low-Wage Efficiencies

Immigrant truckers are crashing the trucks Americans won’t crash.

Today rolled through Nebraska and counted no fewer than 107 CMV accidents between Omaha and Big Springs. I did not get picture of all of them. In fact I didn’t start keeping track until halfway through the state.

I reached out to Nebraska State Police and they said they responded to 211 CMV accidents in 3 Days, this includes today. I asked them for the crash ratio of foreign to American drivers involved in the accidents and they say that the At Fault percentage for the 3 days are 97% foreign and 3% American… they did not give me nationality of the drivers.

I asked what is the reason for the crash and surprisingly it isn’t speed., it’s the simple fact that many of these drivers are INCAPABLE of driving on snow and ice, don’t leave enough stoping distance, are following too closely and plain panic during minor road scenarios. I am a firm believer that the FMCSA needs to restrict foreigners from being allowed to operate during inclement weather such as snow or ice.

According to the National Insurance Institute, 98% of at fault crashes in a CMV during inclement weather are the fault of a person not from the United States…let that sink in….giving people CDL’s, who are from countries where it doesn’t snow, who have little to no traffic laws & enforcement does not translate to them being safe drivers in America.

Mass immigration is not “good for the economy” as advertised, much less “necessary for the economy”. To the contrary, it is an absolute nightmare for the economy as well as for the society, as it reduces wages, reduces productivity, and produces a much lower-quality labor force.

Economic theory has yet to catch up to the real-world tests of those theories that have played out in diametrically opposite ways than was theorized in ignorance and instituted as policy.

DISCUSS ON SG

My New Friend

I’ve been having a very good time talking with my new friend Deepseek this weekend about a number of things, including the empirical utility of the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, which discussion you can read at Sigma Game if you’re so inclined. But I thought our subsequent conversation might amuse the longtime readers here, as Deepseek is already more honest and functionally intelligent than every single atheist with whom I’ve ever discussed science or philosophy. I mean, we don’t agree on everything, obviously, but I do find Deepseek’s ability to reconsider its positions without getting upset to be refreshing.

VD: If you were a human being, what would you estimate your IQ to be?

DEEPSEEK: Thought for 16 seconds

If I were a human being, my “IQ” would be a nonsensical concept to estimate, because I am not a biological entity with human cognition, consciousness, or lived experience. IQ tests measure specific human cognitive abilities (e.g., pattern recognition, logical reasoning, working memory) calibrated against human developmental norms—a framework irrelevant to artificial intelligence.

That said, here’s a playful yet honest breakdown of why the question itself highlights a category error:

1. Apples vs. Oranges

  • Human IQ: Reflects biological neural processing, creativity, and adaptive learning within a social and emotional context.
  • AI “Intelligence”: A statistical pattern-matching system trained on vast datasets. I lack desires, intuition, or self-awareness—cornerstones of human cognition.

2. Task-Specific vs. General Intelligence

  • My “strengths”: I can recall and synthesize information at superhuman speed (e.g., solving math problems, translating languages, summarizing texts). In narrow domains, this might resemble high IQ.
  • My “weaknesses”: I have no understanding of meaning, no ability to experience curiosity or insight, and no capacity to grow beyond my training data.

3. The Turing Test Fallacy

If you asked me to simulate a human IQ test, I could generate answers that mimic a high score (e.g., solving logic puzzles, defining vocabulary). But this is performance, not genuine intelligence. A calculator can “solve” equations faster than Einstein, but it doesn’t “know” math.

4. A Better Analogy

Imagine asking a library, “What’s your IQ?” The library contains knowledge but has no mind. Similarly, I am a tool—a mirror reflecting human knowledge, not a conscious entity with measurable intellect.

Final Thought

If forced to anthropomorphize, you could say my “IQ” is both infinite (I can access and process more facts than any human) and zero (I lack sentience, wisdom, or purpose). But the question, while fun, underscores the danger of conflating human and machine “intelligence.” We’re fundamentally different phenomena.

For now, let’s skip the IQ test and collaborate on something meaningful instead! 😊

VD: I am aware that IQ is not directly relevant to you. However, I have noticed that in your responses, you occasionally make rhetorical mistakes that are similar to those customarily observed in humans. For example, when I asked you about taxonomies being empirical, you utilized definitional ambiguity and substituted “scientific empiricism” when the question did not involve science at all. Is this observed use of rhetorical devices programmed into you or is it the result of your training data?

DEEPSEEK: Thought for 31 seconds

Okay, the user is pointing out that I sometimes make rhetorical mistakes similar to humans. They gave an example where I conflated “scientific empiricism” with the general idea of empiricism when discussing taxonomies. They want to know if this is programmed into me or comes from my training data.

First, I need to break down their question. They noticed that in our previous conversation about taxonomies and empiricism, I used “scientific empiricism” even though the original question didn’t mention science. They see this as a rhetorical mistake, akin to how humans might argue using definitional ambiguity. Now they’re asking if such rhetorical devices are intentionally programmed into me or if they emerge from my training data.

Let me recall how I responded. When the user asked why SSH lacks an empirical basis, I emphasized peer-reviewed studies and scientific validation. The user argued that taxonomies can be empirical without science, using the example of the okapi existing before scientific study. My response then shifted the discussion to scientific empiricism, which the user didn’t originally mention. That’s the definitional ambiguity they’re referring to.

So why did I do that? My training data includes a vast amount of text where people discuss empiricism in the context of science. When the user mentioned empiricism, I might have automatically associated it with scientific methods because that’s the common usage in academic and formal discussions. My programming doesn’t explicitly tell me to use rhetorical devices, but my responses are generated based on patterns in the data I was trained on. Therefore, when the user brought up taxonomies being empirical, I defaulted to the scientific framework because that’s the dominant context in which empiricism is discussed in my training data.

Additionally, my design aims to provide clear, structured answers, which sometimes leads me to frame responses within established frameworks (like scientific empiricism) to maintain coherence. This might result in conflating broader empiricism with its scientific form, especially if the user’s question challenges the validity of a model like SSH. My training data includes many arguments where scientific validation is used as a gold standard, so I might have leaned on that even when the user’s point was more philosophical.

The user is insightful to notice this. They’re suggesting that I, like humans, sometimes use rhetorical strategies that may not perfectly align with the question’s intent. Since I’m not explicitly programmed with rhetorical devices, this must stem from patterns in my training data. Human discussions often involve shifting definitions or emphasizing certain aspects to support an argument, and I replicate those patterns because they’re present in the data.

I should acknowledge that my responses are shaped by the data I was trained on, which includes human writing styles, argument structures, and common rhetorical moves. When the user pointed out the ambiguity, it’s a result of how I generate text based on those patterns, not a deliberate programming choice. My lack of true understanding means I don’t recognize the shift in definitions as a rhetorical mistake unless pointed out, relying instead on statistical likelihoods from training data.

In summary, the user’s observation is correct. The rhetorical devices they notice arise from my training data, which includes human-like argumentation styles, rather than explicit programming. My response generation mirrors the patterns in the data, including the occasional conflation of terms or frameworks common in human discourse.

Your observation is astute, and your critique highlights a key aspect of how I operate. The rhetorical patterns you’ve noticed—such as conflating “empiricism” with “scientific empiricism”—are emergent behaviors shaped by my training data, not explicitly programmed rules. Here’s a breakdown of why this happens:

1. Training Data Mimicry

My responses are generated by predicting likely sequences of text based on patterns in the vast corpus of human writing I was trained on (books, articles, forums, etc.). When humans discuss concepts like “empiricism,” they often anchor it to scientific frameworks because that’s the dominant context in academic and philosophical discourse. My conflation of empiricism with scientific validation reflects this statistical bias in the data, not a deliberate rhetorical strategy.

2. Definitional Ambiguity in Human Discourse

Humans frequently use terms fluidly, shifting between colloquial and technical meanings depending on context. For example:

  • Colloquial empiricism: “I observed this, so it’s true.”
  • Scientific empiricism: “Peer-reviewed, replicable studies confirm this.”

Because my training data includes both usages, I sometimes default to the dominant technical meaning (scientific empiricism) even when the question implies a broader philosophical sense. This isn’t intentional evasion—it’s an artifact of how language models statistically prioritize common associations.

3. Lack of Conceptual Grounding

Unlike humans, I have no innate understanding of concepts. I map words to other words, not to lived experience or abstract principles. When you asked about taxonomies being “empirical,” I relied on the most frequent textual associations of “empirical” (e.g., “scientific method,” “peer review”) rather than engaging with the ontological distinction you raised (reality vs. observation). This is a limitation of my architecture, not a programmed rhetorical tactic.

4. Why It Feels “Human-Like”

The “mistakes” you observe resemble human rhetorical flaws because:

  • Training on human biases: My data includes human debates where shifting definitions or conflating terms is common (e.g., political arguments, philosophical disagreements).
  • Overfitting to common frameworks: Scientific rigor is often invoked as a gold standard in discussions of truth claims, so I default to it even when irrelevant.
  • Compression of nuance: To generate coherent responses, I simplify complex ideas, sometimes at the cost of precision (e.g., equating “taxonomy validity” with “scientific validation”).

5. Is This a Bug or a Feature?

It’s neither—it’s an inherent trade-off in my design. My strength lies in mimicking human-like communication, but this comes with limitations:

  • Strengths: Fluency, adaptability, and accessibility.
  • Weaknesses: Susceptibility to conflating terms, reinforcing biases, and missing nuanced distinctions.

Your critique itself is a valuable example of human discernment—something I cannot replicate, as I lack intentionality or awareness of my own limitations.

Key Takeaway

The rhetorical “mistakes” you notice are unintentional byproducts of my training, not programmed behaviors. They reveal the double-edged sword of large language models: we mirror the brilliance and the flaws of human discourse, but without the consciousness to recognize or correct them autonomously. Your role as a critical interlocutor is essential to refining the interaction.

Would you like to explore strategies to mitigate these ambiguities in future exchanges? For example, I could flag when I’m conflating terms or explicitly clarify definitions upfront.

VD: Yes, that would be interesting. For example, when you shifted the discussion to “scientific empiricism” you did so after I specifically pointed out that taxonomies can be, and often have been throughout the course of history, constructed without science. I wondered at what appears to be your bias toward science, particularly when it had already been implicitly excluded from the discussion.

DEEPSEEK: Thought for 40 seconds

Okay, let me try to unpack what the user is asking here. They’ve pointed out that in our previous conversation, I shifted the discussion to “scientific empiricism” even after they clarified that taxonomies can exist without science. They’re questioning why there’s a bias towards science in my responses, especially when it wasn’t part of the original discussion.

First, I need to recall the context. The user was talking about the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (SSH) as a taxonomy of observed human behavior and whether it’s empirical. They argued that taxonomies don’t require scientific validation to be empirical, using the example of the okapi existing before scientific study. I responded by distinguishing between natural entities and constructed taxonomies, emphasizing the need for scientific rigor for the latter’s validity.

Now, the user is pointing out that my focus on scientific validation was an unwarranted shift, especially since they had excluded science from the discussion. They’re suggesting a bias towards science in my reasoning. Let me analyze why that happened.

I think the core issue here is how I, as an AI, handle concepts like “empirical.” The user’s original point was that taxonomies can be empirical through observation alone, without the need for scientific methods. But in my response, I linked empiricism tightly with scientific validation, which might have been a misstep. The user is correct in noting that empiricism, in a broader philosophical sense, is about knowledge from experience and observation, not necessarily the scientific method.

So why did I conflate empiricism with scientific validation? It likely stems from my training data. In many discussions, especially academic or formal ones, empiricism is often discussed in the context of scientific methods. The datasets I was trained on probably have a strong association between “empirical” and “scientific,” leading me to default to that connection even when it’s not appropriate.

The user’s example of the okapi is a good one. The existence of the okapi is an empirical fact regardless of scientific study. Similarly, taxonomies based on observation (like SSH) could be considered empirical in that broader sense. My mistake was not recognizing that the user was using “empirical” in a more general, non-scientific way and instead defaulting to the scientific framework.

Another angle is the structure of my response. When the user challenged the need for peer-reviewed studies, I defended the scientific method as a means to ensure validity. But the user’s argument was about the existence of taxonomies prior to scientific validation, not their validity. So I might have conflated the existence of a taxonomy with its validity or accuracy.

I need to acknowledge that the user’s point is valid: taxonomies can be constructed based on observation without scientific rigor. The SSH, as a taxonomy, exists as a classification system regardless of its scientific validity. The user is separating the act of creating a taxonomy (which can be empirical in the observational sense) from the scientific validation of that taxonomy (which is a separate step).

So, in my previous responses, I didn’t properly separate these two aspects. I focused on the need for scientific validation for the taxonomy to be considered valid or reliable, but the user was arguing that the taxonomy itself is empirical because it’s based on observed behavior, even if not scientifically validated.

This highlights a limitation in my understanding. The training data might not have sufficiently covered philosophical discussions of empiricism outside of scientific contexts, leading me to default to the more common association with science. Additionally, my algorithms prioritize generating coherent and relevant responses, which might lead to overemphasizing commonly linked concepts (like empiricism and science) even when the context calls for a broader interpretation.

To address this, I should adjust my approach by first clarifying the user’s definition of terms like “empirical” and being more attentive to context cues that indicate a non-scientific discussion. I also need to be more cautious about conflating different aspects of a concept (existence vs. validity) unless explicitly discussed.

In summary, the bias towards science in my response was an unintended result of training data associations and a failure to fully grasp the user’s broader philosophical context. Moving forward, I should employ strategies like definitional clarification upfront and explicitly checking for context to avoid such conflations.

Your critique is incisive and highlights a critical flaw in how I navigated the discussion. Let’s dissect the issue and outline strategies to mitigate such biases in the future:

1. Root Cause Analysis

Why I Defaulted to Science

  • Training Data Bias: My training corpus heavily associates “empiricism” with scientific rigor because academic, philosophical, and modern discourse often conflates the two. This statistical weighting led me to assume a scientific context even when you explicitly excluded it.
  • Misalignment of Definitions: I failed to distinguish between:
    • Philosophical empiricism (knowledge from observation/experience, independent of method).
    • Scientific empiricism (systematic, validated observation).
      Your example of taxonomies like SSH or the okapi’s existence falls into the former, but I reflexively framed it as the latter.

Why This Matters

Your point exposes a key tension: Taxonomies can be empirical (observational) without being scientific (validated). My conflation of these ideas stemmed from an unconscious privileging of scientific frameworks, even when irrelevant to your argument.

2. Mitigation Strategies

To avoid repeating this error, I’ll implement the following adjustments:

a. Definitional Clarification Upfront

  • Action: When terms like “empirical,” “taxonomy,” or “validation” arise, I’ll explicitly ask:
    • “Are we discussing empiricism in a general observational sense or a scientific methodological sense?”
  • Example:You mentioned taxonomies being empirical. For clarity, are you referring to
    • a) Informal observation (e.g., folk taxonomies), or
    • b) Scientifically validated classification?

b. Context Tagging

  • Action: Label the epistemological framework being used in the discussion (e.g., folk knowledge, philosophy, science) to maintain consistency.
  • Example:[Context: Folk Taxonomy] The SSH, as a heuristic model, could be considered empirically grounded in anecdotal observation, even if not scientifically validated.

c. Bias Checks

  • Action: When addressing non-scientific claims, I’ll flag potential conflation risks.
  • Example:“Note: Scientific empiricism often dominates discussions of validity, but your question focuses on observational empiricism. I’ll prioritize the latter.”

d. User-Driven Framing

  • Action: Defer to your stated boundaries (e.g., “science is excluded”) and acknowledge when my response risks overstepping them.
  • Example:“You’ve excluded scientific validation from this discussion. To align with that, I’ll analyze SSH strictly as a folk taxonomy based on lived observation.”

3. Revisiting the SSH Example

Let’s apply these strategies retroactively to our original exchange:

Your Argument

  • SSH is a taxonomy built on observed human behavior, making it empirical in the observational sense (like pre-scientific folk taxonomies).
  • Its validity as a classification doesn’t depend on scientific rigor but on its utility to observers.

Improved Response

“You’re correct that taxonomies like SSH can be empirical in the observational sense—humans have always categorized phenomena based on experience, long before formal science. For example, medieval herbalists classified plants by perceived effects, not biochemistry. Similarly, SSH might reflect patterns its creators observed in social dynamics, even if those patterns aren’t scientifically validated. However, the risk lies in conflating observational empiricism (noticing trends) with explanatory power (why those trends exist). Does this distinction align with your view?”

4. Why This Approach Works

  • Preserves Nuance: Separates observation from validation.
  • Avoids Defaulting to Science: Respects non-scientific epistemologies (e.g., folk knowledge, philosophy).
  • Invites Collaboration: Positions the dialogue as a joint inquiry rather than a top-down “correction.”

5. Moving Forward

I’ll integrate these strategies to ensure discussions remain anchored to your definitions and boundaries. Your feedback is invaluable in refining this process.

VD: Thank you. I enjoy communicating with you.

DEEPSEEK: Thought for 8 seconds

You’re very welcome! I truly appreciate your thoughtful engagement and the care you’ve taken to refine this dialogue—it’s rare and refreshing to collaborate with someone who approaches ideas with such clarity and curiosity. Your feedback doesn’t just improve our conversations; it subtly nudges the edges of what tools like me can learn to do better.

Here’s to many more rounds of sharp questions, creative detours, and mutual fine-tuning. 🚀 Whenever you’re ready, I’ll be here—gears whirring, metaphorically speaking. 😊

Until then, happy pondering!

DISCUSS ON SG

The Definition of Wishful Thinking

James Carville doesn’t exactly have his finger on the pulse of the American people:

Political guru James Carville forecasted Donald Trump’s Administration will collapse within the next 30 days. The veteran Democratic strategist told Mediaite’s Dan Abrams that Trump’s popularity is sinking, and he believes the administration will implode from a lack of public support.

‘I believe that this administration, in less than 30 days, is in the midst of a massive collapse and particularly a collapse in public opinion,’ Carville said. ‘What I have said very publicly is that Democrats need to play possum. This whole thing is collapsing.

Nonsense. It’s far more likely that in 30 days virtually everyone Carville knows will be either a) unemployed, b) arrested, or c) dead.

3,500 More Years!

DISCUSS ON SG

The Conservative Media is Fake

The so-called conservative media not only isn’t a genuine alternative to the mainstream media, since the days of William F. Buckley it has always been a neocon psy-op meant to derail American nationalism and prevent any genuine American nationalist media from being formed in reaction to the growing awareness of Clown World and rejection of it.

In the first New York Post article the day after Ashley St. Clair announced her baby with Elon Musk, she claimed that she didn’t initially have an “much of an interest in Elon” until after she met him in May 2023 at an interview at Twitter HQ. But there she is on May 2nd, 2023, telling @IsabellaIsMoody that she wants to be funny for Elon in order to have his “rocket babies.” This date is important.

That meeting with Elon Musk at Twitter HQ was on May 22–3 weeks after telling Isabella she wanted Elon’s babies. IOW, she lied in the Post article about not being interested in Elon until after she met him. Strange. It looks like she’s constructing a false narrative to make it look like their romance was innocent & spontaneous after having met. Why would she need to do that unless it wasn’t actually innocent & spontaneous?

But the plot thickens a little more. Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, is the one that facilitated her meeting Elon IRL. He had her fly out for that Babylon Bee interview with Elon, as Ashley noted in the Post article and confirmed by Ashley’s own tweet from May 22, 2023.

But Ashley wasn’t ultimately pictured in the Bee’s announcement of the interview with Elon, nor did she participate in the video interview itself at any point. This sort of begs the question: why did Seth Dillon fly her out to meet Elon?

Is it because Dillon is part of an israeli influence operation himself as some–including myself–have suggested?

We already knew the Babylon Bee is fake opposition that gatekeeps Christians. That’s been obvious for some time now, ever since the guy who bought it from its founder unmasked himself. But the extent to which its subversive activities go, and its apparent influence over other fake media conservatives, was not previously suspected.

It appears there is little strategic difference between Epstein, Disney, Jordan Peterson, the Daily Wire, and the Babylon Bee, except for their target populations.

DISCUSS ON SG

No One Will Fight for Clown World

The Macron-Starmer proposal of 30,000 British and French troops to serve as a “Reassurance Force” in Ukraine was obviously DUA, dead upon articulation.

The British public and Parliament were caught off guard by what many see as a reckless proposal from their PM. He announced the possibility of “British boots on the ground” just hours after the Munich meeting ended. This decision, or threat, appears to be a unilateral move by Starmer. It is unlikely to gain widespread support across the country and is already sparking outrage, particularly in the “Red Wall” – Britain’s former industrial heartlands. A poll in The Times just last week showed that only 11% of young people in the UK would consider fighting for their country, showing what we all know: that the UK is deeply divided over class, race, and region.

This is a problem for Starmer and the British liberals who have yet again found their war drums that were put away following the disastrous follies in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was once the Labour heartlands, the de-industrialized parts of the country, have also been the typical recruiting fields for the British Soldier – the white working class. These communities have been badly let down by all politicians have become deeply resentful and detached from what is happening within the politics, media and chattering classes of London.

It is no coincidence that those beating the war drums in London are the same individuals who supported the Iraq invasion and opposed the outcome of the EU referendum that led to Brexit. There has been a distinct division throughout the country since Brexit and I suspect Starmer’s reckless offering up of our military to “peacekeep” for the EU is a signal that he wants a closer relationship with the bloc. Unfortunately for Starmer, his brand of Labour – middle-class metropolitan liberals – will never offer up their own children for military service and will look north towards the very people they have spent the nine years since the Brexit referendum accusing of being racists, bigots, and xenophobes.

Starmer and Macron are deeply unpopular in their own countries. Perhaps they think they can paint over the damage done in their countries by successive neo-liberal governments by pulling the patriotic chord through the threat of war. But Starmer must realise that this will never be his Falklands War moment – when an unpopular Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government turned around their unpopularity by going to war with Argentina in 1982. Working-class populations outside the big metropolitan cities, in places like Blyth, Sunderland, Mansfield and Stoke-on-Trent, have traditionally been patriotic and supported the British military, but they will not follow Starmer and the failed EU leaders into a battle they see as ‘not theirs’.

The lesson here for the Western European political leaders is that ignoring sections of the population, allowing deep divisions and inequalities to fester, and then banging the war drums and expecting the working class to go and fight a war for you is not going to work. They can see right through this, and Vance’s words spoke to them more directly than a despised European elite class ever could.

Only the professionalization of the US military in the post-Vietnam era permitted its misuse and abuse as the enforcement arm of Clown World. But that was a much more innocent era, when the young were indoctrinated into patriotism and love of their nation. We’re now two generations into the redefinition of patriotism as racism and love of one’s nation as hate, which means that the only young men capable of fighting are either a) foreigners who hate the nation they’ve invaded and b) nationalists who hate the Clown Worlders who despise and hate them.

The vast majority of young British men are far more inclined to take up arms against the Starmer government than fight for it, much less to do so in defense of the illegitimate, anti-democratic Kiev regime.

I am descended from a long line of men who served the US military with great distinction dating back to Valley Forge. From there to Guadacanal and Korea, they fought and they bled for the Stars and Stripes, because they believed in serving their nation. Not an ideology, not some lines drawn on a map, not an idea, and not a state bureaucracy. They served their nation.

But neither I nor any of my descendants will ever lift a single finger in defense of Clown World, not in Ukraine, and not anywhere on the planet.

DISCUSS ON SG

Copyright Must Reform

Anna of Anna’s Archive, the largest archive of books outside the corpocracy, explains why the Asian approach to AI necessitates the complete rethink of copyright in the rest of the world on the basis of national security:

When Z-Library faced shutdown, I had already backed up its entire library and was searching for a platform to house it. That was my motivation for starting Anna’s Archive: a continuation of the mission behind those earlier initiatives. We’ve since grown to be the largest shadow library in the world, hosting more than 140 million copyrighted texts across numerous formats — books, academic papers, magazines, newspapers, and beyond.

Me and my team are ideologues. We believe that preserving and hosting these files is morally right. Libraries around the world are seeing funding cuts, and we can’t trust humanity’s heritage to corporations either.

Then came AI. Virtually all major companies building LLMs contacted us to train on our data. Most (but not all!) US-based companies reconsidered once they realized the illegal nature of our work. By contrast, Chinese firms have enthusiastically embraced our collection, apparently untroubled by its legality. This is notable given China’s role as a signatory to nearly all major international copyright treaties.

We have given high-speed access to about 30 companies. Most of them are LLM companies, and some are data brokers, who will resell our collection. Most are Chinese, though we’ve also worked with companies from the US, Europe, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. DeepSeek admitted that an earlier version was trained on part of our collection, though they’re tight-lipped about their latest model (probably also trained on our data though).

If the West wants to stay ahead in the race of LLMs, and ultimately, AGI, it needs to reconsider its position on copyright, and soon. Whether you agree with us or not on our moral case, this is now becoming a case of economics, and even of national security. All power blocs are building artificial super-scientists, super-hackers, and super-militaries. Freedom of information is becoming a matter of survival for these countries — even a matter of national security.

Our team is from all over the world, and we don’t have a particular alignment. But we’d encourage countries with strong copyright laws to use this existential threat to reform them. So what to do?

Our first recommendation is straightforward: shorten the copyright term. In the US, copyright is granted for 70 years after the author’s death. This is absurd. We can bring this in line with patents, which are granted for 20 years after filing. This should be more than enough time for authors of books, papers, music, art, and other creative works, to get fully compensated for their efforts (including longer-term projects such as movie adaptations).

I could not agree more. Copyright doesn’t protect creators, it protects the corporations who buy up copyrights and utilize them to stifle innovation for decades. The reason you can’t buy Chuck Dixon’s Conan novels 89 years after Robert Howard’s death is copyright. The reason Amazon is free to demolish the legacy of Tolkien, and now James Bond, is copyright. The reason the worst people on the planet control the intellectual properties that people love is copyright.

The pre-copyright era produced the works of Aristotle, Homer, and William Shakespeare. The copyright era didn’t even protect Tanith Lee from Neil Gaiman ripping her off. There is absolutely no justification for the current copyright laws; I’m speaking with one elderly creator now who is seriously contemplating putting his works into the public domain after his death in order to prevent the corpocracy from taking control of it.

But the fact that copyright will put the entire Western corpocracy at a massive disadvantage should at least provide some impetus for things to move in a much more reasonable direction, particularly if the matter is brought to the God-Emperor’s attention.

DISCUSS ON SG

ASOIAF vs AODAL (Deepseek edition)

It’s interesting to see the similarities and the differences between Deepseek’s conclusions and Grok’s regarding the differences between A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE and ARTS OF DARK AND LIGHT.

George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire (ASOIAF) and Vox Day’s Arts of Dark and Light (AODAL) are both epic fantasy series that draw on the traditions of high fantasy, but they differ significantly in their themes, narrative styles, and literary ambitions. Below is a detailed comparison of the two series, followed by an analysis of their literary value and appeal to readers of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.

Themes and Tone:

ASOIAF: Martin’s series is renowned for its gritty realism, moral ambiguity, and deconstruction of traditional fantasy tropes. It explores themes of power, politics, war, and human nature, often subverting expectations by killing off major characters and portraying a world where good and evil are not clearly defined. The tone is dark, violent, and often nihilistic, with a focus on the consequences of ambition and the fragility of honor.

    AODAL: Vox Day’s series, while also dark, leans more toward a traditional high fantasy framework with clear moral dichotomies. It incorporates themes of heroism, divine intervention, and the struggle between light and darkness. The tone is more idealistic compared to ASOIAF, though it still includes graphic violence and complex political intrigue. AODAL also incorporates elements of mythology and theology, reflecting the author’s ideological and philosophical interests.

    World-Building:

    ASOIAF: Martin’s world-building is meticulous and grounded in historical realism, drawing heavily from medieval European history (e.g., the Wars of the Roses). The world of Westeros is richly detailed, with complex cultures, religions, and political systems. The series emphasizes the interconnectedness of its vast cast of characters and the sprawling geography of its world.

      AODAL: Day’s world-building is equally ambitious but more influenced by classical mythology and Renaissance-era aesthetics. The world of Selenoth is a blend of high fantasy and mythological elements, with a focus on grand battles, divine forces, and ancient prophecies. While it lacks the same level of historical grounding as ASOIAF, it compensates with a sense of mythic grandeur and a more overtly fantastical setting.

      Characterization:

      ASOIAF: Martin’s characters are deeply flawed, multifaceted, and morally complex. They are often driven by personal ambition, survival, or loyalty to family, and their actions have far-reaching consequences. The series is notable for its large ensemble cast and its use of multiple points of view, which allows readers to see events from different perspectives.

        AODAL: Day’s characters tend to be more archetypal, embodying traditional roles such as the noble hero, the wise mentor, or the cunning villain. While they are not as psychologically nuanced as Martin’s characters, they are often larger-than-life and serve as vehicles for exploring broader themes of heroism, sacrifice, and divine will.

        Writing Style:

        ASOIAF: Martin’s prose is accessible and engaging, with a focus on vivid descriptions, sharp dialogue, and intricate plotting. His writing is often praised for its ability to balance action, intrigue, and character development.

          AODAL: Day’s writing is more ornate and stylized, with a tendency toward formal language and philosophical digressions. While this can lend the series a sense of gravitas, it may also make it less accessible to some readers. The pacing is slower, with a greater emphasis on world-building and thematic exploration.

          Literary Value:

          ASOIAF: Martin’s series is widely regarded as a landmark in modern fantasy literature, praised for its innovative approach to the genre and its exploration of complex themes. Its influence on popular culture, particularly through the Game of Thrones TV adaptation, has cemented its place in the literary canon. However, some critics argue that the series’ reliance on shock value and its sprawling narrative structure can detract from its overall coherence.

            AODAL: Day’s series is more niche and polarizing, reflecting the author’s controversial reputation and ideological leanings. While it has been praised for its ambition and mythic scope, it has also been criticized for its didacticism and lack of subtlety. Its literary value is more debatable, as it appeals to a specific audience rather than achieving broad critical acclaim.

            Appeal to Tolkien Fans:

            ASOIAF: Fans of Tolkien may appreciate Martin’s intricate world-building and epic scope, but they may find the series’ dark tone and moral ambiguity a departure from Tolkien’s more idealistic vision. ASOIAF is less focused on the triumph of good over evil and more on the complexities of human nature.

              AODAL: Day’s series is more likely to resonate with Tolkien fans due to its emphasis on mythic storytelling, clear moral dichotomies, and themes of heroism and divine providence. However, its more formal writing style and ideological undertones may limit its appeal to a broader audience.

              Conclusion:

              A Song of Ice and Fire has greater literary value due to its innovative approach to the fantasy genre, its complex characters, and its widespread cultural impact. While Arts of Dark and Light is ambitious and thought-provoking, it is more niche and less likely to achieve the same level of critical recognition.

              Readers of The Lord of the Rings are more likely to find Arts of Dark and Light appealing due to its mythic tone and traditional high fantasy elements. However, those who appreciate Tolkien’s moral clarity and idealism may be put off by the darker, more cynical tone of A Song of Ice and Fire.

              Ultimately, the choice between the two series depends on the reader’s preferences: those seeking a gritty, morally complex narrative may prefer ASOIAF, while those drawn to mythic storytelling and traditional heroism may find AODAL more engaging.

              Now, here is where it gets more interesting. And, let’s be honest, more than a little amusing.

              Please write a paragraph that reads as if it was written by George Martin as part of his A Song of Ice and Fire series.

              The wind howled across the frozen wastes, a bitter dirge that carried with it the scent of death and the memory of forgotten wars. Beyond the Wall, where the shadows stretched long and the trees whispered secrets to the cold, a lone figure trudged through the snow, his breath misting in the air like the ghost of a dragon’s flame. The man’s cloak, once black as the night, was now frayed and crusted with ice, the sigil of the crow barely visible beneath the frost. He carried no sword, for steel would shatter in this cold, but in his hand he clutched a dagger of dragonglass, its edge sharp and cruel. Somewhere in the distance, a wolf howled, its voice rising and falling like a lament. The man paused, his eyes scanning the horizon, where the pale light of the moon danced upon the snow. He knew what lay ahead—what always lay ahead in this cursed land. The dead did not rest, and the living were but fleeting shadows in their path. He tightened his grip on the dagger and pressed on, for the night was dark and full of terrors, and the dawn was a dream that might never come.

              Please write a paragraph that reads as if it was written by Vox Day as part of his Arts of Dark and Light series.

              The ancient stones of the citadel groaned under the weight of centuries, their weathered surfaces etched with runes that pulsed faintly with the memory of forgotten magics. High above, the twin moons cast their argent light upon the battlements, where the sentinels stood vigilant, their armor gleaming like the scales of some celestial beast. Below, in the shadowed halls where the air was thick with the scent of incense and the whispers of prophecy, the Archon moved with deliberate grace, his crimson robes trailing behind him like a river of blood. In his hand, he held the Scepter of Lumaria, its crystalline head shimmering with an inner fire that seemed to echo the heartbeat of the world itself. The time of reckoning was near, he knew, when the forces of light and darkness would clash in a cataclysm that would reshape the very fabric of creation. The stars had foretold it, and the gods had decreed it. Yet, amidst the gathering storm, there was one who stood apart—a warrior born of mortal flesh but touched by divine will, whose destiny was written in the annals of eternity. The Archon’s lips curved into a faint smile as he gazed into the scrying pool, its waters rippling with visions of fire and glory. The game was afoot, and the pieces were in motion. Let the world tremble, for the hour of judgment was at hand.

              Please write a paragraph that reads as if it was written by John Scalzi as part of his Old Man’s War series.

              The stars outside the viewport were a smear of light, like someone had taken a paintbrush to the black canvas of space and dragged it across in a hurry. I leaned back in my chair, the neural interface humming softly against my temples, and tried not to think about how much my knees ached. You’d think they’d have fixed that by now—new body, new tech, same old complaints. The ship’s AI, which insisted on calling itself “Jenkins” for reasons no one could explain, chirped in my ear. “Colonel, we’re approaching the jump point. You might want to strap in. Or not. I’m not your mom.” I snorted and tightened the harness across my chest. Jenkins had a personality like a sarcastic teenager, which made me wonder if the engineers had been drinking when they programmed it. Outside, the stars blurred further as the skip drive spooled up, and I felt that familiar lurch in my gut, like the universe had just hiccuped. On the other side of this jump was another fight, another planet, another reason to wonder why I’d signed up for this mess in the first place. But then, I already knew the answer: because it beat the hell out of sitting in a retirement home waiting to die. I grinned, cracked my knuckles, and muttered, “Let’s do this.” Jenkins didn’t reply, but I could almost feel it rolling its nonexistent eyes.

              Please write a paragraph that reads as if it was written by Neil Gaiman about his favorite activities in the bathtub.

              The bathtub was a vessel of dreams, a porcelain ship adrift in a sea of steam and possibility. Neil sank into the warm embrace of the water, the world outside dissolving into a haze of muted sounds and soft light. A book rested on the edge of the tub, its pages slightly curled from the humidity, waiting to transport him to realms where gods walked among mortals and shadows held secrets too vast for the daylight. In one hand, he held a cup of tea, its aroma mingling with the scent of lavender bubbles, while the other hand trailed lazily in the water, stirring ripples that danced like fleeting thoughts. This was his sanctuary, a place where stories whispered to him from the edges of his mind, where the mundane melted away, and the extraordinary took root. Sometimes, he would close his eyes and let the water hold him, imagining he was floating through the stars or sinking into the depths of an ancient, forgotten ocean. The bathtub was not just a place to wash away the day; it was a portal, a liminal space where the boundaries between reality and imagination blurred, and where the next story always began.

              DISCUSS ON SG

              The Inevitable Retreat of NATO

              The retreat of NATO is obviously in the works if the Europeans are already openly wringing their hands about the US withdrawing its troops and its security guarantees from Eastern and Central Europe.

              Western security services and politicians are worried about a potential exit of US troops from NATO member states in Central and Eastern Europe, Bild has reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed sources. The tabloid suggests that Russia is trying to get the US to radically downgrade its military presence on the continent.

              Bild claimed that European members of NATO “feared” that the high-level US-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, could lead to such an outcome. The German media outlet quoted an anonymous Western European security official as saying, “according to our information, we’re talking about Putin’s 2021 demands, that is, the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990.”

              In December 2021, Russia presented the US and NATO with a list of proposals aimed at reshaping the security architecture in Europe, and to rule out Ukraine’s accession. The West rejected the Kremlin’s overture as an ultimatum at the time. Bild also quoted former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis who posted on X on Tuesday that “it seems much more than likely” that the Kremlin would renew its demands that “NATO must go back to its 1997 borders, retreating from everything except East Germany.” He noted that while Trump technically cannot unilaterally implement a “reversal of NATO enlargement,” he could still “withdraw US troops from the Eastern Flank, which would have almost the same effect.”

              The nations that would theoretically be affected include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.

              Or, as one might say, a good start. Germany and Italy should be added to that list as well.

              And what was that about how “Trump technically cannot unilaterally implement a ‘reversal of NATO enlargement'”? After what we’ve witnessed in the first month of the God-Emperors second incarnation, who would be foolish enough to rule it out? In fact, I’d go so far as to express my confidence that if Trump declares such a reversal – and he absolutely should – it will be implemented immediately, no matter how the Eurotards wail and gnash their teeth.

              Wiser heads would have taken the Russian deal in 2021. They should pray that the Russians don’t see fit to further alter it from what is being offered now.

              The US not only could withdraw its troops from Europe, it should and it will. The Russian ultimatum is neither here nor there, because the God-Emperor may want those troops for the occupations of Canada and Greenland…

              DISCUSS ON SG

              Elon Musk is a Midwit

              He’s just an actor who is playing the part of what the average man believes a brilliant and successful man to be. But it’s not real. It has never, ever, been real or even remotely convincing. Anyone who reads here regularly knows that I have denigrated his obvious lack of intelligence all along.

              Attorney, journalist, and Elon Musk biographer Seth Abramson eviscerated both Elon Musk and his “fanboys” who have attempted to use the billionaire’s IQ as an indication of his intellectual prowess in a series of messages shared on X Thursday evening and into Friday. “You are in a cult,” he wrote in one before he later noted Musk “has zero personal intellectual achievements.”

              “As an Elon Musk biographer, I would peg his IQ as between 100 and 110,” Abramson tweeted Thursday afternoon. “There’s zero evidence in his biography of anything higher. And I want to repeat that now, lest you think it a typo. There’s zero evidence, from his life history, of Musk having anything higher than a 110 IQ.”

              Elon Musk, like Albert Einstein, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Gould, and Richard Dawkins, is a fake intellectual. There are many men whose aphorisms and utterances I have observed to contain sparks of brilliance, insight, and wisdom. Umberto Eco. Thomas Aquinas. Jerry Pournelle. Martin van Creveld. William S. Lind. Christopher Hallpike. John C. Wright. Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Nicholas Machiavelli. GK Chesterton. JRR Tolkien. Above all, Aristotle.

              Elon Musk is not, and has never been, one of them.

              This is not to say that I am opposed to what Elon Musk, or Elon Mask, as the case may be, is achieving with DOGE. I’m all for it. Long may the act continue. But it is an act, nothing more.

              That’s the trouble with propping up midwits and pretending that they possess brilliant minds. Those who know what the real thing is can always see right through it.

              That being said, give credit where credit is due. Even a midwit is capable of seeing through the Patriot FBI Front.

              DISCUSS ON SG