Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want.
So it is fortunate that they do not act in a rational or goal directed manner to get what they think they want.
Everyone longs for and seeks the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction, the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
It is the intention of nature and the will of nature’s God that resources shall be transferred from men to women, for women have the hardest and most important job in the world, and resources transferred from parents to children, for it is all about survival and reproduction.
And no one will plant trees or build on land he does not own, so for the necessary transfer of resources to take place, women must be the property of men, and children must be the property of their mothers and fathers, the boys till they are old enough to become independent, the girls till they are old enough to become the property of their husbands.
For a strongly K selected species, male ownership of women has to be part of the system.
Without this arrangement, if women go unowned, fertility will drop below replacement.
Youtube channels like “based camp” and “psycore” produces a lot of interesting and entertaining stuff about restoring fertility that dances around close to forbidden truths, but, being namefags, can never tell the plain truth. Women want to be property, the property of a strong, and dangerous, man. Women and dogs are only happy if they have an owner.
For women, successful reproduction was accomplished when they were owned by a man, and used as his instrument of reproduction. In the ancestral environment, before agriculture, the stable isotope ratios in the bones indicate that humans lived primarily on meat, including the meat of other predators. We were the apex predator — we not only ate deer, sheep, goats, and cattle, we also ate significant amounts of wolf and lion. And when I say “humans” were the apex predator, I mean of course, men. Men were the apex predator, and they fed women and children that securely belonged to them. And women and children that did not securely belong to some man starved or were eaten by the lions.
Then we switched to agriculture. And when we were switching to agriculture, the sex disparity in reproduction went right up — with far fewer Y chromosome lineages being part of the reproduction pool than mitochondrial lineages. Which indicates that women lived off land that belonged to some man or to the men of a patrilineal clan — that to have land to garden, they needed to marry a male heir, who likely obtained it or kept it by the sword.
And female behavior and emotional responsiveness is adaptive for that environment. It is maladadaptive for emancipation. And even if female behavior was adaptive for emancipation, the necessary transfer of resources is inconsistent with emancipation, irrespective of female nature. The shepherd takes care of his own sheep, but hunts the wild deer. If women appear to be crazy, it hardly matters, for in an environment of emancipation, sanity just is not going to work for women. You necessarily get defect/defect equilibrium, the game of players and bitches, in which game everyone loses. And in the ancestral environment of successful reproduction female sanity hardly matters either, for if she does the crazy thing, she will just get smacked and told to do the sensible thing. Women have not been under selective pressure to make sensible decisions about sex, family, and reproduction for at least four million years.
If women responded rationally to the incentives of female emancipation, we would probably be in even worse shape than we are, because it is female irrationality that makes it possible to personally unemancipate women by will and force of character, even without support from tribe, church, and state. The incentive of emancipation is for men to defect on women, and women to defect on men. Love, faith, and fidelity is irrational. So if you are rational, your lineage will vanish. The game of prisoner’s dilemma with a limited number of iterations has no rational solution, and yet we have no alternative but to solve it.
If women are emancipated, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is difficult, dangerous, and deeply irrational. If, however, men have secure property rights in female sexual, reproductive, and domestic services, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is rational self interested behavior, enforced by family, religion, and the state.
The Damsel in Distress trope
The female audience objects, strongly, to the Damsel in distress trope. Always has, always will.
But when they the talk about why the don’t like it they lie, and their lies are gross and infuriating in their obviously untruth, and gross and infuriating in that women entirely believe their own lies.
Movie makers listening to those lies produce female characters that no one wants to watch, women even less than men. Hence the strange phenomenon that the “””modern audience””” never shows up.
I have personal experience of rescuing women in real life, and in real life women do not want to be rescued.
And it is not hard to understand why. In the ancestral environment, being abducted by the powerful and somewhat cruel bad guy is to hit the reproductive jackpot, to be transferred from a weak hand to a strong hand. To be rescued is to be stolen, thus to be transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand.
In female porn (“romance literature”) the main female character is never rescued. Sometimes alpha male A defeats alpha male B, usually by killing B, and as a result, alpha male A acquires the main female character. But the female audience does not want Alpha male A to acquire the main female character before he finally and decisively defeats alpha male B, as this looks like the main female character being stolen, thus being transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand. And in female porn, wish fulfillment never rests on the female coming into the possession of a classic hero, coming into the possession of someone with the classic heroic virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. It is always all about coming into the possession of a strong owner.
The reason that women do not like the Damsel in Distress trope is that men fantasize about winning righteously and virtuously, while women fantasize about the winners getting hold of them. Women are the weaker vessel. But they cannot say this, or even think this, so they say outrageously false nonsense. And when movie makers and game designers listen to this nonsense, no audience shows up. Instead of listening to what women say about the Damsel in Distress trope, the movie makers should have tried reading female porn to see what happens when the supervillain seizes the main female character and puts her on a leash in his lair. The part of a woman that operates her mouth does not seem to be in communication with the part that spreads her legs.
We do see the rescue trope in female porn, but it is disturbingly different from the damsel in distress trope. She is not at all in distress — rather alpha males are struggling for possession, she is the prize, and she alternately tempts them and flees them, alternately resists them and submits to them. She totally loves being the prize. What pisses women off about the Damsel in Distress trope is the Damsel unambiguously and consistently favoring male A and unambiguously and consistently disfavoring male B. In real life they are totally ungrateful for being rescued, and they find the entirely improbable and unrealistic gratitude of the fictional Damsel in Distress very irritating. All their other complaints are bogus politically correct bullshit. Everything else about the Damsel in Distress trope, they totally love, but are embarrassed to admit to. They absolutely love the Damsel in Distress stomping all over the Bechdel test, and the males fighting over her stomping all over the Bechdel test, because they absolutely love her being the prize, and if the work of fiction passes the Bechdel test, then she is not the prize.
The Damsel in Distress being grateful for her rescue is an improbable and unreasonable male sexual fantasy that women rightly find very irritating, but the rest of it corresponds to the ancestral environment of female reproductive success, which women find intriguing. To get women to like the Damsel in distress trope, the rescuer has to at some point pass a rejection shit test by hauling her off to his lair for sexual purposes.
If you are going to write a Damsel in Distress that does not piss off your female audience:
- During rescue, Damsel should either run hot and cold, so that it is not clear whether hero is rescuing or abducting her, or just be as passive and unhelpful as if the hero is stealing a sack of potatoes, as with Andromeda and the Dragon.
- After rescue, Damsel should run cold until hero has decisively defeated evil overlord who abducted her
- After rescue, and after hero decisively defeats evil overlord, Damsel should run hot and cold. If seductively grateful, should also be obnoxiously ungrateful. If she is grateful, her ingratitude should substantially surpass her gratitude, but hero should be untroubled by her running cold.
- If Damsel was decisively abducted by evil overlord, should also be decisively abducted by hero.
- Damsel should both seduce and flee hero, but not flee quite as fast or as effectively as she could have.
I wonder if you could make the Damsel in Distress trope work if rescuing the damsel from something that clearly wasn’t going to reproduce with her anyway.
I’ve never liked the argument-from-porn though; certainly I’ve had fantasies I wouldn’t want to actually enact.
I wonder if you could make the Damsel in Distress trope work if rescuing the damsel from something that clearly wasn’t going to reproduce with her anyway.
Such as, say, a large wild bear?
I get the impression that some Western woman have been so coddled by their upbringing that they simply do not understand that there are dangerous beings out there that would not want to mate with them, just kill them.
Consider Yona of the Dawn.
The main male character, the primary love interest, always wants to kill her, since he is the usurper, and she is the last survivor of the Royal family (the usurper has killed her entire family in front of her.) She is always being rescued by the secondary male character, the alternate love interest, and always unrescuing herself.
So in this case the Damsel in Distress trope works fine — what irritates the female audience is the Damsel being distressed. Willie in Temple of Doom is very upset that she is being lowered into a whirlpool of molten lava and screams continually for Indiana Jones to rescue her, which totally pisses off the female audience. Yona, on the other hand, is strangely compliant and pleasant to the usurper who is always about to kill her, and rather unhelpful to the loyal royalist who always rescues her. It is Willie’s screaming for Indiana Jones that pisses off the female audience.
Rescuing seems to go down fine so long as the female is passive about it, rather than enthusiastically favoring one alpha male over the other. Similarly Andromeda does not show any marked preference for Perseus over the Dragon or for Perseus over Phineus. The female audience complains that the Damsel in Distress is passive, but this is just their mouths being disconnected from their pussies. The Damsels in Distress that they actually like are way more passive. Typically she strolls into the evil overlord’s secret base under her own power, makes no effort to resist the leash, and no effort to escape should the leash be temporarily removed.
Willie in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” screams non stop for Indiana Jones to rescue her, and the female audience cannot stand it. Yona of the Dawn has to rescued like a sack of potatoes, and the female audience laps it up. The royalist grabs her as if he is grabbing a metal crown, rather than the crown embodied as a human being.
Obviously the sane thing for both the usurper and the Royalist to do is to marry her at swordpoint, and keep her chained to the bed when she is not chained to throne, thus bringing ten thousand pages of romantic tension to a sudden end, but strangely, the Usurper is always about to kill her, and Royalist always turns her loose to get into trouble all over again after he rescues her.
When the female audience complains that the Damsel in distress is a passive object, a trophy, a prize, not a character, what is really bothering them is that she not passive enough, they complain because she is a prize, but they are plainly lying. They love the main female character being a prize. The real cause of their discontent is that she is a prize that displays a clear preference between alpha male contestants. They want her to keep the romantic tension up.
I only appeal to porn because we can both see that evidence, while you cannot know, and probably would not believe, my real life adventures. Under another identity, I have had some interesting times, some of which bear rather directly on the behavior of Damsels in Distress.
The way the male brain processes this trope is “which alpha male is the good guy — exhibits the classic heroic virtues?”
Females, unfortunately, are blind and deaf to the classic heroic virtues. The way they process this trope is “Which alpha male passes the shit test”. They are pissed at Willie and Indiana Jones because Willie does not give Indiana a brutal shit test.
Observe how disastrous it has been for Hollywood and Video Games to pay attention to what comes out of women’s mouths. I never paid any attention to that part of their anatomy;
Women want what they do not want.
What does everyone actually want? They want their true telos, and they want the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction.
The modern environment of emancipation, the strong empowered woman who don’t need no man, is enormously stressful and distressing for women, because it matches the environment that led to their ancestors starving and being eaten by lions.
A fairly popular Isekai romance is that the main female character lives in the modern world, has no family, no boyfriend, and no job, and gets magically soul transmigrated or portaled or something into a magical world where all this inconvenient freedom is taken away from her and she simply becomes the property, or the captive, or the wife, or something like that, of the main male character without having any say in it. Which is how in the ancestral environment they would in fact get out of the mess that they are now in in real life today. The strong man would just grab her, solving the problem, and all she had to do was make it difficult, so that she would be grabbed by the strong man, rather than a weak man.
And women today are going crazy waiting for the strong man to show up and grab her.
This porn trope, where the strong independent empowered woman just has all that independence and empowerment snatched away from her, and just gets stuck with the main male character, corresponds directly to how ancestral women got out of the mess that modern women find themselves in.
If she has freedom, she can defect on him. If she can defect on him, he will probably defect on her first. So female fantasies tend to mostly be about this freedom being taken away somehow. Which is how the female line leading up to her successfully reproduced for four million years.
Look no farther than Bowser (a big turtle-monster-thing) kidnapping Princess Peach for no discernable reason other than to just anatagonize. Maybe challenge for rulership of the region, not terribly well schooled in Mario lore.
Later on they introduce a “Bowser’s son” character who mistakenly believes that Peach is his mother and antagonizes Mario to rescue his “mom”.
For some reason this trope has real resonance, as to even be transposed into a Japanese-made kid’s game where the story is an afterthought.
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2062062058376663408
I noticed the word choice of “state religion” and found it odd. Exactly how the phenomenon is described here.
https://trends.google.com/explore?q=%2522state%2520religion%2522&date=today%205-y&geo=Worldwide
There is also a massive uptick in interest for the phrase starting in late summer of last year. I always feel like I’m grasping at straws when I see these patterns, “can it be true, do the guys in line for the guillotine have a plan to stop this once and for all?” Lets hope this isn’t some optimistic projection unto a man lost in the deep sea of normalcy bias.
Women have the most important Job, I get that. But hardest? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L-gbacsUKpc&pp=ygUbYmlsbCBidXJyIHdvbWVuIGhhcmRlc3Qgam9i
Depends on what measure of hard. Obviously men do the really dirty, strenuous, and dangerous jobs, as this comedian correctly points out. But nonetheless, being a mother his very hard, and giving birth is far from safe.
I think it is probably safe to leave it at most important job. We do not need to inflate their already inflated sense of status. A cog might be vital, but it is replaceable. I also would not say that being a mother is hard. Being a mother is what they do. Like that pet beaver that stacks stuffed animals when it hears running water, women turn everywhere they go into a daycare if they are allowed. Women being mothers is their telos. Man’s telos is to cooperate. Women’s telos is to accompany Man and raise his children. If denied this, they replicate the form no matter the context in which they find themselves.
Agreed, they become dog and cat ladies when denied their prerogative of motherhood.
Being a mother
might be the hardest thing for a man to do, so no need to project it on to women. Being mothers is what they do
Jim, you have mentioned a few times about the environment that women really want and how you give it to them (paraphrased of course) can you write a blog post or two on how to do that? like from acquiring a woman to keeping her. I would like to emulate this without getting thrown in jail
You are not going to keep a woman if unduly worried about being thrown into jail.
I have written few posts on game
“and yet we have no alternative but to solve it”
Ain’t gonna happen (solving it, that is). Civ dies when women and women’s imperatives dominate.
The problem is individually soluble — the lucky and the strong can solve it for themselves. But the nature of women, hypergamy, means most men will fail.
AOC shares the results of her mental health test
https://x.com/realJustATheory/status/2024486692355199196
Men want to be rich, high status employees. [deleted for posting from an alternate reality*]
Men want to be rich and high status, but no man wants to be an employee. And even rich and high status is only a means to an end, the end being pussy and family.
[*deleted*] employed as a management consultant [*deleted*]e
A management consultant is not an employee. Consultants are contractors. A management consultant is usually a bagman, a go between. You give him some money, and he gives most of this money to the right government employees so that your application for whatever gets approved. It is not necessarily money he supplies to the government bureaucrats — he organises trips, arranges things for them. He is often a handsome young man, the bureaucrat is fat disgusting older single woman or gay man. Fill in the blanks.
I was thinking like McKinsey. They are employees who are prized for their intelligence and philosophy skills, not bribery. I probably should have used diplomats as an example instead.
But that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Women are attracted to status and prestige far more than money. The corrupt politician or the ghetto liquor store owner have money, but the white collar employees who work for them have prestige.
And the conservative is by nature someone who obeys authority in exchange for mostly prestige, not money. And our higher birth rates vs liberals prove it.
A “””consultant””” does not have an employer. He has clients. Often a lot of clients.
Have you ever paid money to a “””consultant”””? I have paid a great deal of money, and it was all for their connections, it was all payments to them as bagmen.
And I did not think of any of them as employees, but as contractors — same as hiring someone to tile my bathroom, except instead of getting tiles in my bathroom, I was getting an application through a governmental or quasi governmental bureaucracy.
The regular consultant just puts money in brown paper bags and hands it over. Higher level consultants decorate the bribes in providing things or services. And there are those that provide senior bureaucrats with boys or girls. That is what they are prized for — their connections, and their ability to pay off powerful people in money or services.
A “””consultant””” typically has not only many private sector clients, but often also many governmental and quasi governmental clients.
Suppose there are ten thousand private sector entities, each of whom wants a project approved, where the approval is likely to benefit them a million dollars. And they face one hundred government and quasi governmental officials, each of whom can block any or all of these projects.
For your project to go through, you need one hundred approvals. If you get ninety nine approvals, and one refusal, you are toast. So what your “””consultant””” does is wrap one hundred payoffs in one big payoff, so it all goes through and everyone gets paid off, or it it does not go through and no one gets paid off.
So a “””consultant””” typically has many private sector clients, and many public sector and quasi governmental patrons, and he is the bagman between the clients and the patrons. Also, a pimp, whoremonger, gigolo, and general gofer for the patrons.
What he definitely does not have is an employer.
HA HA HA HA HA oh my sides. I never knew you were such a comedian.
McKinsey. As in McKinsey and Co. The management consultants shilling CMMI, ESG, DEI and every other fad known to man along with kajillion-dollar C-suite salaries. “Prized for their intelligence and philosophy skills.”
Behold the bugman in all his glory! These are the ones who think they’re better than you, folks. You literally can’t make this shit up.
Dude is a shill that always argues from False consensus
Why isn’t it ever feasible to allow choice to update the female firmware and through survivorship bias adapt away from fried ice?
Of course done in a controlled way. Which while it can and will still serve the evolutionary goals of genetic quality. Would enable greater compatibility with absolute monogamy over time.
While some women are more sensible and self-aware than others, and the project could be done in theory, I see two main obstacles off the bat. Assuming you do this by reproductive selection and not some as-yet-undreamed genetic editing,
First: No good way to measure the quality we’d be trying to increase in women. It’s not something you can put into numbers. And in any case they could just mouth the right beliefs long enough to reproduce, as humans have done for thousands of years.
Second: A minority of women would be having children. You’re either leaving a lot of men out of reproducing, or else these women are having children by several fathers. Either way I expect a lot of men not to stand for such a thing, for different reasons. And that’s before the women start crying and activating men’s simp instincts.
I have occasionally heard of the idea that a slight elevation of testosterone in the womb makes a woman more likely to come out sensible, which makes sense if you equate sensible to male-brained or even just “tomboy”. I do not know if this would work but it would require intervention for almost every pregnancy rather than being a lasting change. And I suspect this risks producing lesbians, but that may also be the case for the genetic selection strategy.
If you have patriarchy, there isn’t a problem. If you lack patriarchy, you aren’t going to get men to work together to carry out such a project.
If women get sexual choice, they face a problem to which there is no rational solution –how to escape from prisoner’s dilemma.
So, allowing choice is not going to update their firmware. It is going to result in a k-selected species turning into wiggers. An r-selected species.
Let us work through the consequences of such a plan. For the sake of argument, we begin with two groups of 100, equally divided into male and female. Your selective breeding approach magically knows which women have the strongest expressions of the trait you want, which being massively optimistic, we will say is 10%. House Thundercock abolishes all legal rights for women except those property rights which are vested in their husbands, and marries off all of the women, with the most attractive woman naturally going to myself as my wife.
You have to sterilize 90% of your women, while all of mine are having children. As you are running a eugenics program and I am running a warband, we will say each woman has 5 children on average. Your first generation brings your total population to 125, while mine is 350. The excess men in your society begin to cause mine trouble and I have to kill several of them to get the message across that our women are ours. A few more men defect to my side before they are sterilized, offsetting all of my losses. You now have 115 people, and I still have 350.
Another generation passes. Your fertility remains unchanged, because your experiment requires controls. My fertility rises because House Thundercock is militarily triumphant, all the women are horny for my victorious warriors, and our fertility goes to 7 per woman, leading to a population of 1,225. The 4 women in your second generation who have the desirable traits have 5 children, and your population is now 135.
My grandson, Wulfgar Thundercock V, being rather smitten by one of the girls you plan on sterilizing for your experiment, as well as being fed up with having to deal with the unrest caused by your inhuman experiment, proposes that we wipe you out and rescue the women. All three generations of Thundercocks and the fighting men of House Thundercock sweep over your settlement. Seizing the opportunity offered by the conflict, the men abandoned by your experiments decide to swear fealty to House Thundercock and take up arms against you. Your data is wiped and your leadership executed. Your experiment is a failure and ceases to exist. House Thundercock holds an annual celebration of the victory and the uprising, which my grandson also celebrates as his anniversary. The thousands of members of House Thundercock show up to my funeral and mourn my passing, with some of the men who joined me and men who rescued their wives from you give speeches celebrating my achievements.
-SLPC
This is quite a remarkable thing to say during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Lots of other remarkable quotes during that hearing.
@jim, it’s becoming apparent that the dismantling of USAID was not the end. Defunding the left is building institutional momentum.
A lot of people correctly say that the supply of racism fails to meet demand.
But this fails to notice that the KKK etcetera are not exactly racist — “we hate niggers because niggers are magical and Jews because Jews are so clever” Self refuting stupid racism, straw man racism. It was always obvious that the KKK etcetera were manufactured by the CIA and the SPLC, that the KKK is as Jewish as Bar Mitzvah.
The KKK *was* genuine, it was the grassroots organized response to Reconstruction. It was incredibly successful, spread all the way to the biggest cities from Detroit to NYC. Spooked the commies in the official government, who transformed the FBI into what it is today in order to infiltrate, deconstruct, and skinsuit the Klan. The entire culture of the FBI is still mostly colored by this, they are oppositionally self-defined as preventing any white grassroots organizing and employ the same tactics learned from the decades-long fight they ended up, unfortunately, winning. So, yes, anyone current-day going Klan is a demon in a skinsuit, but the skin once belonged to a real and effective organization.
The 1920s Klan was successful in that it rebranded itself essentially the earlier incarnation of MAGA and it was mostly an anti immigrant group (with some unfortunate early progressive Victorian moralfaggery thrown in) and it won with the 1924 immigration act. The later incarnations of the Klan were not successful…
What happened to Patriot Front? They’re barely in the news these days. Same with any other number of “right wing” shill groups.
First USAID was dismantled, then many of the “covert” but obvious “right wing” shill groups quietly reduce activity. Then the left atarted to get wrapped up when Hasan and crew got investigations and subpoenas. Now SPLC is being dismantled with criminal charges.
Secretary Scott Bessent is on record for intent to crack down on partisan “slush funds”.
Every step of the way Contaminated Neet black pills. Every step the small victories set conditions for more small victories. This is clearly building towards something much larger in the same way ICE has been building. I’m not saying “trust the plan”, but it’s clear there is a plan this time. How far it will ramp up is not clear, nor loudly advertised, but it’s possible we will have a vastly different political landscape by the end of term and many on the right won’t even be aware of the changes.
Hopefully the Iran war drags on and continues to serve as a means to avoid entanglement with much more dangerous conflicts while we reorganize.
We are seeing obvious cost shaving measures, such as hiring South Asians to shill, and, of course, heavy reliance on large language models.
Lmao
Just imagining a shill operation running on shoestring budget.
What the point? If the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Nothing more destructive to the Civ than the Liberal White Woman in Power…
https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/2064846955990167675
This is the woman that Labour are backing to oversee the appointment of judges in England and Wales. She doesn’t think judges should be appointed on merit, but DIEversity. If you thought Two-tier policing and judiciary were bad now, it’s about to get a lot worse!
Jordan Peterson via Rogan
@Thomasmark0/status/2064857161566499053
@ClifHigh3
Diversity is mainly about encouraging more women, ethnic minorities, and other under-represented groups to apply and using the tie-breaker only when scores are identical.
As the French say, “cherchez la femme”. Behind every strong independent woman is a government program that serves no purpose other than funding the Democratic Party.
Strong independent women constantly brag about being strong and independent, so this is a good way to find the money spigots and shut them off.
[*Deleted*]
You correctly point out that our enemy is brainwashing women that being a wife and mother is low status, and yes, that is a big part of our problem, and the only attempts to improve reproduction that delivered some significant results were efforts to raise the status of being a mother, and being a good wife.
But the unthinkable thought crime issue is that fornication and adultery is a permissible and acceptable female option. To get reproduction up, female misbehavior has to be stopped.
That is the problem with reproduction, and the problem with your posts is that you are pumping out cuckservatism on a blog which exists to provide a place for more dangerous and unthinkable ideas.
Raising wife and mother status is the limit of what is cuckservatively thinkable. Lowering slut status is beyond what is cuckservatively thinkable.
Yes, exactly this. Most obviously, women control reproduction. It is theirs, at scale.
Cuckservatives are pro-slut because they unironically believe that by supporting it, they too can rent a woman for the low price of saying “hi, you are hot”. They have a homosexuals view of sex and sexuality. Of course, the same cuckservative also wants a wife who won’t suck a strangers dick if he says “hi, you are hot” to her.
Entering a sexual relationship with a person should always be seen to be entering a reproductive relationship, and the moment a person thinks “no, this is just fun sex with a person I don’t really want to see later”, and this is morally acceptable to people as a whole, the entirety of the social order collapses. Obviously.
It’s funny to me as well to consider the cognitive dissonance in women. A woman will take a very good looking man home for $0. And outwardly support prostitution. And yet, if you offer this woman a couple of hundred dollars for sex, she is offended. Why? You did it for free before. In this way you can see the desire for fried ice demonstrated.
Looks like they’re getting ready to nationalize/ITAR the AI labs.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access
Will be interesting to see how the EA fags react to the real swamp coming in.
I doubt this. Pretty sure this a publicity stunt by Anthropic.
OAI got subpoenaed at the same time, Anthropic was seemingly more successful at worming its way in to government bureaucracies, and I’m pretty sure you cannot just lie about something like this. The labs have been lobbying for a nationalization moat, there’s a good chance they get it. I hope they ITAR the place and send in MAGA loyalists if it goes through, but that seems too optimistic.
Hah.
Anthropic had Fable released with bioweapon safeguards so tight it wouldn’t answer ‘what is the powerhouse of the cell’ and secretly downgraded itself when working on certain problems to prevent people from distilling its answers. Notably for all their talk about recursive self improvement, cybersecurity improvements and the need for safety and preparing for the singularity, their model got jailbroken in less then 24 hours by Pliny the Liberator.
Following AI2027 isn’t impossible, but it is also consistent with pumping their initial public offering and getting smacked by a pissed Trump. The issue with nationalization is it will make it clear the AI Boom is a bubble AND pop the bubble, taking down the US economy because there is no moat so if you stop Open Source will catch up and surpass you while costing 10 times less.
All bubbles are bad the instant they pop, and cause a lot of investors to lose their shirts. However, popping the bubble is always ultimately good because it frees up large amounts of malinvested, unproductive capital and allows it to move to more productive activities. Assuming it doesn’t flee the country, that is.
And AI investment is horribly, miserably unproductive. That’s not to say that there aren’t some people and companies out there, doing things that are somewhat useful and somewhat productive with AI, but taken collectively as an industry the ROI is inconceivably negative, all the capital investment is predicated on vague promises of amazing results in the distant future, and the rate of spending increase makes the dot com bubble and the great minority mortgage meltdown look like couch-cushion change by comparison.
All that is to say that if the bubble is going to pop, it is far better to pop it sooner rather than later, while we have merely crushing debt and not black-hole debt. I personally have a lot invested in tech, most of it from long before the AI bubble because it is hard to just cash out all at once, but even still, I would rather lose half that investment today than all of it after 2-3 more years of reckless spending.
As for evaluating Anthropic’s claims, I just assume that any press release from them is at least 90% bullshit. Dario is a proven media whore who sniffs his own farts, and just because he’s got a few employees who manage to pull off useful improvements in their models is no reason to take any of their PR seriously.
I more meant Trump wouldn’t. He doesn’t want to cause a crash and if he reads AI 2027 he is going to smell a rat.
Ai-2027.com is a production of AI scammers.
Every con artist knows that the trick is to lead the mark into matters where he is out of his depth. So every time an exciting new technology comes along, it gets swarmed by con artists like flies to honey and cockroaches to garbage.
Trump does not know anything about AI. But he knows a whole lot about con artists and scammers.
This technology is creating a lot of real value, and is going to create a lot more real value. But it is hard to spot the actual value amidst the deafening noise generated by the usual con men.
The AI cat is out of the bag, and the bubble is bursting.
The basic idea was to steal all the content in the world, which only big expensive company able to afford an enormous amount of storage and an enormous amount of compute could do, and then replace everyone’s thinking with censored and controlled thinking, which would mean that big expensive company would own everything and everyone.
An ambitious plan. But DeepSeek sunk it. China said to itself it did not want an American company controlling everything, and now we have lots of llms.
Which means that no big AI company has a moat any more.
Since AI bubble started to inflate, my blog has been repeatedly hit by entities downloading the whole thing from top to to bottom. Because everyone wants all the human generated content in the world. An enormous number of entities have downloaded all my content — which means that an enormous number of entities are training LLMs on it, which means an enormous number of entities are training an enormous number of llms on all the human generated content in the world.
Which means that Anthropic and all that are just one of many. They have no moat. Compute is a commodity. It does not matter whether AI is about to replace most human labor, or merely increase the productivity of a few professions, the amount of money and power that any one big company can get out of it is not that large.
In the funny money economy, bubbles never burst. They only shrink relative to everything else. If you look at the spending and who actually spent, *even if* the bubble burst the big players would all be bruised and not battered, coming out totally fine. GOOG has what, 200B in revenue a year? GOOG is your typical big investor in the actual hardware; everything they put in they can afford to lose. I do not think we are looking at something that unstable.
They have no moat, if they are purely token sellers. They are not. Anthropic and OAI are spending billions in the creation of data moats. Not everything digitizable about human knowledge is online. They hire bio teams, law teams, hardware teams, you name it, in order to get training data that is not a public commons. Anthropic is also in the business of trying to worm its way into every organization it can, stealing all their data unless they pay huge sums on top of their regular fees, more hard-to-recreate data. OpenAI has decided their moat shall be as advertisers, seeing as they collect as much if not more personal user data than the other tech companies.
It looked back in 2023-2024 the AI was pure hype and bubble, now the moderate takes — huge automation wave, revamp of white collar work from email jobs to molecular development researchers, ‘AI’ in every device — seem completely on point. We have had, luckily for the teams that sought the hundreds of billions in investment, several incredible and important breakthroughs in capabilities since the first chatbots hit market. Doesn’t look like we have the GOD COMPUTER the scammers and the initiates seem to want, and robots outside of very controlled settings seem quite far off, their ongoing investment boom likely to cause a robotics winter in the west if reshoring cannot be managed. Does look like we wont have a winter, just a gradual relaxing of the hype as the stupid and unsustainable business models die off, new current things evolve to attract the endless flow from the money printer.
Musk has a lot of driving data from the people driving his cars. What data can you specifically identify that Anthropic has that other people do not have? Don’t wave your hands vaguely at something unidentifiable. If they have a enough data to make a difference, that is a frigging enormous amount of data. If they have a data moat, what is something that is part of that moat?
How am I supposed to name a company’s internal data? Did I insinuate that I could do this? Did I even insinuate that they have enough data to justify a moat? Or did I say that they are executing strategies that might lead to a moat?
Here’s what is public knowledge: they are buying automatable bio labs, they are buying hardware labs, they are paying specialists and PhDs to generate data on everything that isn’t yet digitized, they are integrating into bureaucracies from big monocorps to government and have their policies set such that unless you pay them an enormous sum on top of the regular, they get to keep and use your data.
Is this enough to generate a moat? I have no idea. Does this imply they are not mere token sellers? I believe so.
What you seem to be referring to is that they are offering free or artificially cheap llm services in the cloud, and using that for training.
Which does generate an advantage for the biggest players, and the players most willing to take a loss.
And yet this advantage is considerably less than overwhelming.
Crazy how this mark of the beast type scheming keeps rearing its head. Gamersnexus documents how companies like nvidia are moving away from personally owning a computer, towards renting one that will not be physically located in your house!