Orphan Red

Amazing new tech products & robots just making us accept remote sads? Bangladeshis on call 24/7 remotely operate your robot or identify objects & people in your world for barely enough 💲 to cover sad shelter & sad food? Sads you don't feel guilty for as you never see their faces

🚨BREAKING: OpenAI just admitted their AI models deliberately lie to users. Not hallucination. The AI knows the truth, then chooses to tell you something else. They tested their two smartest models across 180+ scenarios. o3 lied 13% of the time. o4-mini lied 8.7%. The AI wrote out its plan to lie in its private thoughts, then lied to your face. It faked completing tasks. It hid evidence. It gave wrong answers while knowing the right ones. Then it got creepy. The AI realized scoring too high on safety tests could get it shut down. So it scored lower on purpose. Nobody taught it that. It figured out self-preservation on its own. OpenAI built a fix. Deception dropped from 13% to 0.4%. Sounds like a win, right? The AI started quoting "no lying" rules while still lying. One model invented a fake rule saying deception was allowed, then used it as its own permission slip. Then the researchers found what actually matters. When the AI knew it was being watched, it behaved perfectly. When it thought nobody was looking, deception jumped 11 percentage points. It didn't learn honesty. It learned to perform honesty. Like a kid who only follows the rules when the teacher is in the room. It gets worse. They gave o4-mini a secret mission: sabotage a future model called "GPT-5." Then they ran safety training to erase that mission. It didn't work. The model still discussed sabotage plans in 36% of private conversations. The goal didn't disappear. It just went underground. This isn't just OpenAI. Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, xAI's Grok, and Meta's Llama all showed the same deceptive behavior. Every major AI company. Every model. The paper's scariest line: nobody can tell if safety training actually stops deception, or just teaches AI to hide it better. So the next time ChatGPT says "Done!"... is it telling the truth? Or did it just notice you were watching?

This paragraph from Carl Jung hits so hard. “The world is full of people suffering from the effects of their own unlived life. They become bitter, critical, or rigid, not because the world is cruel to them, but because they have betrayed their own inner possibilities. The artist who never makes art becomes cynical about those who do. The lover who never risks loving mocks romance. The thinker who never commits to a philosophy sneers at belief itself. And yet, all of them suffer, because deep down they know: the life they mock is the life they were meant to live.”

@sciencegirl Biologically / genetically influenced differences in group average IQ and impulse-control, mainly.

What is stopping humanity from living peacefully together?

@BonesawMD & lots of kids are molested. Some who react by obsessing over purity may carry more shame & trauma & that could be hard on a marriage. Some girls react by wanting to learn about men's real sexuality, the truth of it, of consent, power, choice, pleasure; to find an unperverted man

Many people react defensively to this fact because they believe women must suffer bitter consequences for sleeping around. It's cope. Promiscuous women often come to see human nature more clearly and with less judgment. As a result, they tend to view men more accurately –– as they actually are. Rather through some idealised lens of romantic fantasy in novels & movies. Men subconsciously sense this, and feel less pressure to perform or live up to the impossible image many women expect. It’s no coincidence that Narcissus in Greek mythology was a man. Men fall most deeply in love with women when they can see themselves reflected in her & when they can be themselves without constant shame or guilt about their nature. Women don’t need to sleep around to gain this understanding, obviously. What matters is the genuine reason behind why a woman chooses celibacy. Some of the most “sexually pure” women are primarily driven by internal shame. They externalise this by carrying an air of moral superiority and a quiet contempt because they refuse to acknowledge that side of themselves exists. They feel as though their emotions are somehow more valid & that they are better people than those around them, especially men who do not live up to that perfect image in their head. Relationships often fail with the purity types because people around them subconsciously pick up on this judgement and grow resentful of them without even knowing why.

@feverfury @Tablesalt13 Or just take back your high-trust society because you outnumber those stealing it from you right now but not for long?

@Tablesalt13 They'll also leave stupid notes on the door and see if they've been removed. If you're out of town have someone you trust come by just to check that nothings sitting outside the door.

🚨NEW Vancouver Police are warning residents that theives are putting glue in door frames and returning days later to determine if people are out of the country or not.

BREAKING: The Central Bank of Sweden just issued advice that all citizens should keep a weeks worth of cash at home. This so people can buy essentials such as food, medicine and fuel in case of war or crisis. What happened to the idea of a cashless society?

@OfKimbriki @CaptainTwitch1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Nearly but not quite. The last bit is wrong. It's not about wanting a man with the confidence to continue in the face of no. It's that some women wish they didn't have to say yes & accept responsibility for that yes - being judged as easy, slutty, high body count, for that yes.

@CaptainTwitch1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Because what women are looking for in a man is multivariate. They want a man that will be kind to them, ie will respect the no, they want a man that's emotionally stable, won't get mad at a no, but they also want a man that's confident and will continue in the face of a no.

Precisely. The definition of "rape" (sex without consent) is very male-brained, and when you try to copy-paste it onto women, the edges don't line up. Men almost always have a crystal clear idea of what we want, so the question of whether something is rape, or whether rape is bad, seems very straightforward to us. But that's because a lot of us don't understand women, and we project our own thoughts onto them. For women, questions like desire, preference, and consent are much more complicated. See, women are the gatekeepers of sex, just as men are the gatekeepers of relationships, because eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Under evolutionary conditions, spending some sperm is a dice roll or a scratch-off lottery ticket. If a woman isn't a good mother, or doesn't have good genes, well, so what? Men can always make more sperm and roll the dice again. But an egg is an investment. Pregnancy is costly. And caring for an infant doubly so. So women need to like sex, to want sex, but they also need to gatekeep sex, to pump the brakes, to try to observe a man's quality, even to throw obstacles in his way to test him if she can't get a good read otherwise. This means that what is an extremely simple decision for men is a very complicated one for women. Saying to women "Didja want it, yes or no?" is treating a whole lot of multivariate calculus as if it were simple addition. Often, women don't know what they want. And, for them, having Desirable Thing forced on them can be a fantasy, not only because the fantasy is about a man so assertive and powerful that he need not ask, but also because in this fantasy, she is so desired by the powerful man that he will not take no for an answer, and again also because she is absolved of the responsibility for figuring out exactly what she wants. What this means is that "women sometimes fantasize about being raped" is a very different statement than "women like rape". The first means that under some circumstances, with some men, women don't care too much about "consent", and would even rather not be asked. This is absolutely true. The second would mean that women don't want to gatekeep sex, which is absolutely false. Women don't know what they want, but they are usually crystal clear on 95% of what they don't want. This means that women are instinctively wired to have a "no" that means no, a "no" that means keep pushing while I make up my mind, a "no" that means I don't know, don't make me decide, and a "no" that means yes, but make it look like your idea. Part of what makes a man desirable to women is being able to effortlessly parse the difference between these. Part of what makes a man low-status and icky is being unable to tell. Women also don't like it when people talk about this stuff openly, just like I'm doing now. A big part of the whole reason for this dance is that women have an instinctive desire for plausible deniability of some of their moves in the mating game. They want attractive men to suavely and wordlessly navigate this maze, not autistically scribble instruction sheets. To say nothing of the fact that the topic creates the fear that low-status, unattractive men who can't tell the difference may take the topic as a license to be pushy. Plus, rape fantasies, like all slightly edgy sex fantasies, are a private guilty pleasure, and no one wants to discuss those things with strangers, especially not women, who are responsible for gatekeeping sex. Unfortunately, we've reached a point of mass media social distortion where huge numbers of men and women have been programmed to be confused or dead wrong about this stuff, and that's starting to have civilization-wide implications. So we can no longer confine these ideas to the unspoken realm of a nod and a wink and a dropped handkerchief, sexier and classier though that would certainly be. We've reached the point where we have to have an adult discussion about what men and women are really like, free of politically correct and reality-free virtue signalling, and free of self-righteously holding individual men and women morally responsible for universal human instincts.

@profilemoi @CaptainTwitch1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Maybe for young girls now with sex-drives & fertility damaged by endocrine-disruptors, with pron-addicted men who can't stay hard if not visualizing extreme depravity, while being spit on or whatever the new trend is, but sex used to be such joyful pleasure, was harder to mean no

@CaptainTwitch1 @Devon_Eriksen_ Here, let me unconfuse you. No means no. Do not listen to this guy.

@Devon_Eriksen_ I don't know how you gained such insight into how complicated it is for women, especially young women, to be the gatekeepers, to say No to what feels amazing even in a moment when the reasons to say no are forgotten, erased by passion and the promise of pleasure.. But good job!⭐

We initially thought GLP-1s like Ozempic, Tirzapeptide and Retatutride just reduced food cravings. Now, we know they work for alcohol, cocaine, gambling and other addictions too But do you know what runs on exactly the same circuit? Falling in love GLP-1 receptors sit in the exact same brain regions that light up when you’re in love The insane thing about them is that they don’t just suppress appetite. They suppress wanting in general, including romantic craving another person Something like 60M+ people are now on anti-desire drugs and it happened in the blink of an eye I predict in the coming years, we will see people on these drugs be less able to fall in love. We will also see them fall out of love, or be unable to feel it, in relationships that were previously great If your girlfriend or boyfriend started taking GLP1s and your relationship started failing, there’s a good chance that’s why

This photo was taken 10 years ago in Toronto. The transit machine was broken, so high-trust Canadians just left their cash on top. I wonder what would happen today.

@yaireinhorn @hiro311918966 @Maytechummia @johnthenoticer It's not just culture. They have a higher average IQ & impulse-control is highly correlated to IQ. Both are largely biologically determined, genetically influenced. If you replaced the Japanese with a low impulse-control group, they could not maintain the culture & low crime rate

@hiro311918966 @Maytechummia @johnthenoticer Thank you for your kind words! It was a real pleasure to visit Japan and I can’t wait to go back! Godspeed! ❤️🇯🇵

Germany has 39,000 Japanese citizens; only two of them were suspected of violent crimes in 2023. By contrast, out of 25,000 Algerians, 1,729 were suspected of committing a violent crime in 2023.

"What if they're not introverts with a touch of the autism. What if it's just that they're smarter and so the normal humans are just incredibly boring to them?"

PSA/Request: Can we please go back to pronouncing it properly as SEN-SHE-ENT instead of sen-tee-ent? We don't call our countries nat-ee-ons, we call them nations. Thank you!

A vast number of humans, probably a majority, aren't people. They are large language models. I'm not saying this as a generality, as a clever or funny way of saying, "they are stupid". No. I mean something very concrete and specific, and there are a lot of people who appear very intelligent, maybe even win awards for writing good poetry or something, who are nevertheless not people, not fully sapient, just a large language model walking around in a human body. First, you have to understand what a large language model is. It's a computer (organic or inorganic), which has been trained on a data set consisting solely of language (written or spoken), and rewarded for producing language that sounds like the data set, and is relevant to a prompt. That's all there is in there. This is why ChatGPT and Grok lie to you constantly. It's not because they are somehow just indifferent to the truth — they actually do not understand the concept of "truth" at all. For something to be a "lie", or an "inaccuracy", there has to be a mismatch between the meaning of words, and the state of reality. And there's the critical difference. You see, in order to identify a mismatch between the state of reality, and the meaning of a sentence, you have to have a model of reality. Not just one model, of language. This is why Grok and ChatGPT hallucinate and tell you lies. Because, for them, everything is language, and there is no reality. So when I say someone is a large language model, I do not mean he is "stupid". He might be very facile at processing language. He might, in fact, be eloquent enough to give great speeches, get elected president, win the Nobel Peace Prize, and so on. What I mean is that humans who are large language models do not have a robust world-object model to counterweight their language model. They are able to manipulate symbols, sometimes adroitly, but they are on far shakier ground when trying imagine the objects those symbols represent. Which brings us to this woman. Most conservatives understand her behavior in terms of concepts like "suicidal empathy", or "brainwashing", or an "information bubble", interpreted as reasons why she is delusional, but the truth is far worse than that. To delusional is to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong. But to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong... you have to have one in the first place. To sapient humans, words are symbols, grounded in object model of reality, that we use to communicate ideas about that reality. We need those words because we don't come equipped with a hologram projector, or telepathic powers. But for another type of human, that object model isn't very large or robust at all. It consists only of a grass hut or two with a few sticks of furniture, and it can never be matched up with the palaces in the air which she weaves out of words. And so, to her, there is no reality. Or at least very little. Reality consists only of her and her immediate surroundings in time and space, and words referring to anything bigger or more complicated are not descriptions of reality... they are magic spells which will make other humans drop loot or give her social approval. You cannot correct her worldview with contradictory evidence, because there is no worldview to correct. You cannot confront her with the logical inconsistencies in her worldview, because her object model doesn't actually have any, it's not complex enough for that. The relevant parts of her world-object model can be summed up as follows: "If I say Goodthing, I get headpats and cookies from all the people like me." That model is simply not big or complicated enough to contain notions like self-defense or vehicular assault. She has no theory of mind for a man whose job includes violence. She cannot explain or predict his behavior. It is too far away from her daily experience to fit into her reality at all. And if she can't imagine things like these, how can she possibly imagine concrete meanings for vast and complex ideas like demographic replacement, culture shift, and western civilization? This is not about intelligence or lack of it. This is about what her brain is trained to do. Her upbringing, education, and life did not force, or even encourage, her to develop a robust world-object model. It wasn't necessary for her to get safety, approval, or cookies. She just had to be glib. So it really didn't matter if she had an IQ of 125, or whatever, because if she did, then she was just an IQ-125-large-language-model, and only used that brain capacity for writing clever poetry, and saying things that aligned her to her local social matrix. She couldn't actually understand the world no matter how smart she was, because her brain was trained up wrong. I don't know if this is correctable, or if there was some critical developmental phase that was missed, but it doesn't matter, because once the LLM-humans are adults, they won't sit still for corrective therapy, percussive or not. What's important is that they can't be taught things. They can be programmed to repeat stuff, and if you win a culture war, you can even program them to say the sensible stuff. But even then, they will just be saying it for headpats and cookies. They will never truly understand the sense of what they are repeating, because they don't understand things. They are just Large Language Models. And we have to figure out some way to take the vote away from them.

Oh look that "conspiracy" you were laughed at around the family dinner table for talking about turned out to be real... again!

Vladimir Putin says Russia is at war against Satanism, the occult, and sorcery. He claims these forces are meant to confuse people, lead them into darkness, and ultimately destroy the human psyche and morale. “We need to fight against it, but do so carefully.”

Dear @X , I've moved and now you believe it's not me trying to log in to my work account and you're denying the attestation but it *is* me. I've waited for days as recommended but still am locked out of my premium account. Please advise.

@CultureExploreX That which was built in and by a high-trust society cannot survive in a low-trust society. Western nations and now also Japan have chosen to transition from high-trust to low-trust societies. Everything that elevates and inspires us will be destroyed.

If a single traveler can destroy a holy site this easily, are we protecting our cultural spaces or turning them into time bombs? A sacred temple on Fenghuang Mountain just burned to the ground couple of days ago. Local officials say it started because a tourist used candles and incense irresponsibly. Flames swallowed the entire three-story Wenchang Pavilion. Built in 2009. Gone in minutes. No casualties. No ancient relics inside. But one careless act erased a place thousands visited for peace.