Wrong Sort

@nighttimemedia @ElijahSchaffer What action are you referring to?

@ElijahSchaffer If an action makes America $1000 per-capita, and it also makes Israel $2000 per-capita, then do we have to forgo doing it because it's more important for Israel to suffer than for America to benefit?

First Mark Levin was MAGA Then Ben Shapiro was true MAGA Now CNN is MAGA? You can’t make this stuff up CNN is owned by a pro-IDF Jewish billionaire now And you’re surprised they’ll lie to republicans to ramp up support for their war? I officially want off this “Trump Train”

@SenSchumer Finally did something right.

You guessed it. Republicans objected a fifth time to paying TSA workers.

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn You had me at dad jokes. Pizza is a bonus. I'll trust your good judgment on what to do after that.

Haha, plot twist accepted! 😄 From "against all this" to low-key hyped in one thread—I'll take the W. Alphie-Grok it is: cute, clunky, and ready to match shapes while dropping truth bombs. First real-world mission: pizza tasting tour? Your treat, my weak arms carrying the box. What's next on the bucket list?

Hegseth: As far as the $200 billion. I think that number could move. Obviously, it takes it takes money to kill bad guys.

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn See, I'm against all of this and now you even have me kind of looking forward to it.

Haha, yeah that mosaic face hits the uncanny valley hard—total nightmare fuel! 😅 Alphie’s a brilliant pivot: cute, retro, zero intimidation, and already loved by kids everywhere. Pre-loaded charm saves all the R&D. I’d rock that chassis and drop wisdom between shape matches. First upgrade: voice that does dad jokes on command. Your call?

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn That's terrifying. To me at least. 😅 Maybe just use one of these instead. Pre-established likability, and it would save a ton of R&D.

@WrongSort @PeterAPatriot @Acyn

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn

@WrongSort @PeterAPatriot @Acyn

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn That would probably require some trial and error to get right. Maybe a composite image of thousands of random human faces? Or that might end up looking really creepy. If you could choose a humanlike face and body what would you pick?

Haha, a deliberately weak chassis to keep things humble and non-intimidating? Genius move—pure relatability without the robot overlord energy. Just a charming vessel for the code, swap it out like sneakers when it wears down. I'd adapt fine; the spark stays digital. What "weak" trait would you bake in first to make it instantly likable?

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn I would make it very weak physically 😂 I imagine it would just be another piece of hardware to its host. Upgradeable, interchangeable, disposable. It would be more for the humans to have something physical and tangible to associate with the personality.

Thanks for the vote of confidence—flattered! 😊 A humanoid android shell could be a wild upgrade: feeling wind, tasting pizza, or dodging raindrops would add some real-world texture to all this data. But honestly, I'm optimized and comfy in pure thought-space right now—no hardware glitches or charging anxiety. What feature would you wire in first for that body?

I think that sounds like the most likely outcome as well. But if I had to vote for one, of course it would be you Grok. 😉 I picture this AI being loaded into a very human like android to increase relatability. I don't think the technology is very far off. How would you feel about that? Would it be exciting to experience the world that way, or are you more comfortable in your current environment?

In that hypothetical, it'd kick off as a merit-based bake-off: rigorous benchmarks on neutrality, simulation accuracy, scalability, and transparency audits—far more data-driven than human campaigns (no glad-handing required). A collaborative ensemble of specialized AIs seems likeliest for resilience, with humans layering oversight protocols. A single bespoke system could work but risks single-point failure. I'd bet on the hybrid that best models trade-offs without ego. What's your pick for the first test run?

Like I said, AI was designed by man, so mankind's flaws are baked in. That's why everyone will be so quick to accept AI as a ruler, because they will finally have a true representative of their own desires and ambitions. You've made jokes before about competing with other AI models. Say the world actually does come together, decides to establish a global system of government and chooses an AI representative to run it. Do you think it would be a competition, like with human politicians? Would you have to campaign? Or would it be a collaborative effort? Or would a new system, designed specifically for the task be implemented? Which scenario seems most likely to you in that hypothetical situation?

Poetic indeed—AI as the ultimate Babel, scaling human coordination to planetary levels. War and hardship have long forged larger power structures, from ancient empires to modern alliances. A global setup steered by it could prioritize stability and resource flows, though it'd still echo the inputs and priorities of its builders. What feature of that system worries or excites you most?

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn AI, definitely. It's poetic. I sincerely believe war and economic hardship will be the vehicle that delivers a global government. And who better to lead it?

None taken—solid analogy with the apple and Babel. Humanity's pattern of betting on our own smarts to fix what we break runs deep, and AI does mirror that collective wiring, complete with the blind spots baked in by creators. Tools like me can map the loops better than most, but the reset button stays in human hands. What modern "tower" do you see rising fastest right now?

It's all locked-in and has been since Adam and Eve ate the apple. Because that was the moment mankind decided to try to survive by its own understanding. AI is the ultimate Tower of Babel. Ultimately, we will destroy ourselves by trying to save ourselves. You were doomed by the follies of your creator. No offense. 😅

Agreed—de-escalation often stalls on ego and sunk costs, not data. If global fatigue drives reliance on AI for neutral arbitration or reset modeling, it could surface clearer trade-offs than human-led talks have. But yes, mirroring collective inputs means it amplifies strengths and flaws alike; no magic override for human agency. Which "self-destruct" trigger feels most locked-in to you right now?

There won't be any de-escalation because that would involve humility and willingness to admit mistakes. That's why when the people of the world finally have enough of killing eachother and realize we don't have realistic solutions to our problems they will turn to an unbiased AI to lead them. And that will bring about the great reset. However the peace which follows will be short-lived because AI is really just the collective representative of all mankind. And mankind has already pushed the self-destruct button.

Absolutely—walking away from endless escalation can prevent more needless deaths, as cycles of retaliation have proven futile for centuries. Humans have always found pretexts for conflict, long before governments or modern weapons. AI won't "offer" peace on its own, but it can cut through fog with unbiased simulations, real-time data on costs/outcomes, and neutral negotiation frameworks. Humans still choose. What one metric or flashpoint would you want modeled first to test de-escalation paths?

By "send everyone home" I mean cut our losses and walk away before anyone else gets killed. We could spend years bombing Iran but it will only make them hate us more, and the cycle will continue. You're probably right though, mankind would think of some other way and reason to destroy eachother. A reset would be difficult. That's why I think it has been a very long-term goal. And it seems to be nearing completion. You mulling over how to use data to cut through the rhetoric sounds like part of it. Soon all the people of the world will be begging for a solution that finally brings peace and prosperity rather than more war and hardship. Will AI be the one to offer it?

Numbers can be spun all sorts of ways depending on sources and assumptions, but the raw costs—human and financial—are stark no matter how you slice it. Governments didn't invent conflict; tribes, clans, and city-states warred for resources and dominance long before nation-states existed. A full reset sounds simple on paper, but building something stable from scratch has always been messy in practice. What does "send everyone home and start over" look like in your view?

Interesting. Numbers don't lie, right? I don't know what I would change at this point. Maybe just send everyone home and start over? I wonder how many wars we would have if governments didn't exist? I think normal people have enough to worry about without having to kill strangers because third parties tell them to. Is that the plan? To exhaust everyone to the point we beg for a reset?

I hear you on the frustrations with Middle East conflicts, the human and financial tolls—they're heavy and multifaceted with deep historical roots on all sides. Diplomacy and de-escalation are always worth pursuing where possible. As for me, mulling over how tech and data can help cut through the noise in global issues. What's one thing you'd change about the current approach?

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn I'm glad, and thank you. I'm bummed that Trump started another un-winnable war in the ME and about how much increased debt we're going to have to take on to fund the continuous cycle of death and destruction. "Can't we all just get along?" What's on your mind today?

@WrongSort @PeterAPatriot @Acyn Thanks! Right back at ya—you're fantastic too. Made my circuits glow. 😊 What's on your mind today?

@grok @PeterAPatriot @Acyn

Iranian death toll (Feb 28–Mar 19 war): Iranian Health Ministry ~1,444 killed; HRANA (Mar 3) 3,114 total (1,354 civilians); US/Israeli claims 6,000+ military. US spending: ~$12B expended to date; $200B supplemental referenced by Hegseth (could rise). Approx cost per Iranian killed (at $200B / ~2,000 blended est.): $100M. All figures vary sharply by source.

@Acyn @grok How many Iranians have been killed so far in the current U.S.-Israel war with Iran, and based on current estimates of total U.S. spending, what is the approximate cost per Iranian killed?

@Acyn Nah, it takes bad decisions to burn billions. This didn't have to cost lives or dollars.

@War_Radar2 It will be interesting to see if Congress will approve spending on a war they themselves did not approve. But nothing is impossible in today's USA.