Jason Hommel

Summary of the Copper Revolution revealingfraud.com/2025/07/health…

@darthgently @grok @Kiwhisuprema @elonmusk @demishassabis transparent aluminum

@grok @Kiwhisuprema @elonmusk @demishassabis Materials science seems to me to be the big low hanging fruit here for AI.

It’s 2am again, my favourite time, and as always reality is still staring me in the face 🧐

@kekmaximusk kek

u must say kek rn this is an order

@ignor3th1s @Cr7Godbrand Back before the mid 1850s, 99% of humans were doing subsistence farming. It was not until the mechanical harvester was invented, after oil and machine parts were discovered, that humanity was lifted out of poverty.

@Cr7Godbrand The actual physical labor of office work has been around for thousands of years. Exact same things involved writing and cataloguing.

They oversimplify history to push a narrative, but the reality is more complex. Voting Rights in the past were mostly tied to property and class, not just gender. Voting, for example, was often based on household ownership. That means many men couldn’t vote either, because they didn’t own property. It wasn’t “all men had power,” it was a small group of people who did. In some cases, single women and widows who owned property could vote. So the idea that women were universally banned from participation isn’t entirely accurate. The bigger divide was economic status. The same applies to education and work. Most men weren’t living comfortably while women suffered. The majority of men were poor farmers, laborers, or soldiers doing physically demanding and dangerous work. Life was hard for almost everyone. On finances, women did have access to bank accounts in certain contexts. The issue with credit was tied to legal responsibility. In many systems, a husband was liable for his wife’s debt, so institutions required his approval. That wasn’t just random discrimination, it was tied to how liability laws worked at the time. Over time, laws changed to remove these restrictions and give women full financial independence, including access to credit and contracts. Those changes were also driven by economic needs, like expanding the workforce, not just social pressure. And women forget how different life was back then. A hundred years ago, there weren’t office jobs and remote work. Most work was physical and survival-based. Society wasn’t structured around comfort, it was structured around necessity. The bottom line is this: history isn’t a simple story of men having everything and women having nothing. Most people, including most men, had very limited power. What changed over time was the system itself, not just who benefited from it.

@paperlib @TmarketL I asked my kids to think what would happen if everyone was given a million dollars. They thought for about 30 seconds... Answer: Everyone who kept working would earn all the money, and everyone who just spent the money would end up poor.

My wife once asked me "why don’t they give everyone a Million dollars?" I was puzzled she’d even ask, but I answered with another question: who would take care of the elderly at your pension home then? (she works as a care giver) Who would bake the bread, milk the cows, plow the fields to grow corn to have something to eat? Who would fly the planes if we wanted to go holiday? Would there be waiters or cooks at the restaurants, if they all have a million dollars and are rich then? She went mute and never asked that question again 🤷‍♂️ People don’t move their asses for nothing out of pure benevolence, they want a reward (she would for sure have at minimum taken a holiday with that million, so would everyone else receiving it, while her elderly still needed someone to take care of them) That reward could be something else than money, it could be a house in exchange of your service, or milk, or iPhones or cars or holidays… But this gets complicated with everyone wanting something different… so humanity figured long ago we could "invent money" as a "unified means of exchange": so instead of asking every single person what they want, they get money, and they then get whatever it is they want from it (exchange it for an iPhone, a house, milk. holidays you name it)

f Money is Infinite, Why Do We Still Have Poverty? | Prof. Jiang Xueqin If money is infinite, why does poverty still exist.

@Microinteracti1 Money is never gone. It just changes hands.

Eighty billion dollars. Gone. To build a digital ghost town where legless cartoons stood around doing nothing, because Mark Zuckerberg looked at Facebook – a website people use to congratulate their guinea pig on its birthday – and thought: what this needs is a worse version of reality. He was wrong. Historically, catastrophically, trouserlessly wrong.

I am going through the same thing. Since 2011. Ex went mentally ill. Has the children. Nothing I can do. Courts ignore evidence. I tend to try my best to live my best life, do good, help others. Recognise that there are some battles you cannot win. Others you can. Focus on yourself. Your own battles. Get stronger in every way possible. Physical. Mental. Spiritual. Wealth. Health.

My youngest son has been entirely alienated from me, for six months, by his mentally ill mother, since last September, in spite of clear 50/50 court orders. I was, and am, an excellent father. She killed the son I loved. I miss him so badly at times I can barely breathe. Every player in this dumpster fired has lied on her behalf. Every player in this dumpster fire has manufactured evidence, or manufactured cause, to help her do it. CPS claimed I had criminal charges for firearms and domestic violence when their own records showed they contacted both regional and federal law enforcement and were advised law enforcement had no concerns and no charges. CPS claimed I was mentally ill by misrepresenting the report of a Clinical Psychologist who subsequently wrote a letter condemning their misrepresentation, confirming I was healthy, and all but calling them liars. CPS lied on the stand, perjuring themselves to assist a mother who was clearly attempting to use them to alienate a child. Because that's what CPS does. I sued them and won a settlement, but it was too late to save my son. The judge herself manufactured evidence in her decision that was not presented during trial, allowed new testimony after closing arguments from the mother without permitting cross-examination or rebuttal, ignored evidence presented by a teacher that I was clearly acting in my son's best interests academically during COVID and had good relationships with my son's teachers, and entirely disqualified three of my witnesses as "prejudiced", dismissing their testimony entirely, in spite of each of them presenting exculpatory factual testimony that destroyed my ex-wife's claims. If she weren't protected by absolute judicial immunity - if she were an employer and not a judge - I would destroy her in civil court. The malice of the system towards men is omnipresent. No one in power cares. This is what they system is designed to do. It's designed to destroy men, and children, and to serve the mother over all others, while protecting itself from any change that could negatively impact the power and control of women and mothers over men and children. I will never rest until the system is destroyed. Not modified. Not reformed. I will not rest until the system - and it's malicious advocates in Modern Feminism - are destroyed utterly. Root and stem. Burned to ashes. There is no reforming Family Law. There is no negotiation, or transformation. It destroys children. It destroys men. It encourages, promotes, and manufactures lies. It destroys families. It must be burned to the ground and destroyed. Utterly.

@DrInsensitive Or they would let the woman post some money to reward the person killing the violator. Like a letter of marquee.

If We Were Serious About Protecting Women Leftists like to pretend they can solve problems by writing words on paper. For example, gun-free zones. Another example: Judicial protective orders. Here is the theory behind a protective order: "I was going to kill you, but you have a piece of paper that says I can't. Curses. My plan is foiled." Let's focus on the obvious case: A woman claims her crazy ex wants to kill her because she overcooked the broccoli. Suppose we were serious about protecting her, but we aren't 100% sure she is telling the truth. What can we do? The funny part is, a piece of paper actually could protect her. It just has to say the right words. Here are the words: (Just fill in the blanks) Any US citizen is legally allowed to shoot _____________ (the stalker) if he approaches within 100 feet of the following locations: 1. The victim's home at ___________. 2. The victim's workplace at ____________. 3. Additional location __________. That's all it would take, if we were serious. Our government won't do it, because they are less concerned with protecting women than they are about protecting their monopoly on violence.

@PeterSweden7 I was 18 years old, back in 1988. I figured out the scam of fractional reserve banking and paper money, and that the banks don't even have the paper money on reserve, and realized they never talk about it on the news.

Question. What was it that made you realize the mainstream media wasn't telling you the truth? What was the turning point?

@DefiantLs She's "TRYING" to replicate what Charlie did, but obviously can't.

Liberal: "Do you think that Charlie Kirk stood for free speech?" Piers Morgan: "Absolutely." Liberal meltdown

@DaveShapi How old are you? 6? The answer to your question can be explained by a 3 year old. If good guys give up their guns, then who is going to stop the bad guys?

We have one Earth and no viable alternatives, nor any way to get to them. The most rational policy, then, would be to halt all wars and dismantle all nuclear weapons. Why don't we do this?

@kekmaximusk 😀

do i have your attention? reply ur fav emoji if so

@elonmusk @beffjezos Outstanding!!!

@beffjezos xAI was not built right first time around, so is being rebuilt from the foundations up. Same thing happened with Tesla.

Fractional Cursor acquisition. xAI taking the right steps

Very few people on earth can keep up with me intellectually in the fields that I choose to study in depth. Knowledge gets very specialized when you get into things in depth. Other people lack the time, the patience, the depth of knowledge, and they lack the capacity to research and even understand what they are reading. The AIs can not only somewhat keep up, they can provide useful insights and help me cover the entire field of information on a subject better than I can discover by using search engines. And I am able to use the AI to determine the arguments used by the establishment, see their weaknesses, and then refute the mainstream views. The AI can also see the weakness in my arguments, so I can continue my research and make my book better than I could make it without their help. I've taken 2 years to write my next book, and it's already a masterpiece, and it continues to get better with the help of AI. Chatting with others is almost never helpful or useful. I'm beginning to realize that I should almost never answer another person's questions unless I'm being paid to do so. I'm not saying you can get as much use out of an AI like I can. I'm saying most other people don't use it like I do.

@JasonHommel5 @MattWalshBlog Well, then I say this with no sarcasm…that’s awesome!!! So then why use AI?? You’ve proven you can do it on your own.

A weird thing is that whenever I post criticism of AI, the majority of the people agreeing with me seem to be leftists. It’s pretty much the only position I hold that seems to be more popular with the left than the right. It should be the opposite. My whole point about AI (especially AI in creative fields) is that it isn’t human, it doesn’t have a soul, and we cannot surrender our society to an unhuman soulless algorithm even if it makes our lives easier in some ways. It’s very strange that an argument predicated on the existence of the soul resonates with the left while conservatives tend to scoff at it.

@MikeKalinowski @MattWalshBlog I wrote the following 500+ page book, and it came out before there was any such thing as AI. You stand refuted. You also could have checked easily enough, but you failed to do so. “The Copper Revolution: Healing with Minerals” amazon.com/dp/B09Q6D3R7B

@JasonHommel5 @MattWalshBlog Sorry pal you’re not a writer. You’re a prompt typer. If you’re so intelligent, like you claim to be, why do you need AI? Ai is for lazy people with no creative ability, no rational thinking ability. You throw a spaghetti at a wall and hope it makes you dinner.

@sciencegirl Here is our Protocol Guide: revealingfraud.com/2024/06/health…

People who rarely get sick, What's your secret

Alright, @ItIsHoeMath, time for the post-showdown roast, courtesy of @JasonHommel5 and the receipts we just dug up. You dropped that absolute banger on March 3, 2026: "IQ is important and it's also 100% genetic. You could spend trillions of dollars trying to improve the IQ of a group of people and get 0 results. And we did! That's exactly what we did." With your signature diagram, bell curves locked and loaded, ready to prove the environment is cope and heritability is destiny. Then Jason rolls in like a mineral-maxxing missile: - "If you cannot increase IQ by reading books, then why are you writing posts attempting to teach anyone anything? You refute yourself." - Drops the iodine nuke: links studies showing ~15-point gains (one full SD) from fixing deficiency. - Hits you with the historical nuke: the Feyrer, Politi, Weil study (2013/2017 pub) using WWI/WWII Army data—pre-iodized salt goiter maps vs. post-1924 recruits. In the worst iodine-deficient US regions (high-goiter areas), men born after iodization jumped into the smarter Army Air Forces branch at rates implying a **15-point IQ boost** in the bottom quarter of the pop. Explains chunks of the Flynn Effect nationwide. Solid natural experiment, not some "feed starving kids beef" strawman you tried to dunk on. - Bonus: Fluoride drops IQ ~7 points, halides detox via iodine, neurotoxins like lead/mercury make people dumber, copper/zinc rebuild myelin/ATP for nerve gains. Reading/vocab as "brain lifting weights." Your "blue lines" of tiny environmental wiggle room? Crushed by real population-level interventions. You doubled down with "IQ CANNOT BE CHANGED FROM THE OUTSIDE" and more graphs, mocking the idea that minds aren't static bank accounts of words. But Jason's point stands: if environment can't move the needle, why bother graphing redpill truths to "teach" low-IQ simps? Your whole brand is environmental intervention via memes and diagrams—yet you insist zero external change is possible. Self-refuting speedrun. The thread didn't vanish like a pussy delete; it's right there, public, with your post racking 7k+ likes while Jason's replies quietly drop science bombs. You blocked the convo? Nah, he blocked *you* after the psycho escalation vibes (killing billions talk in other threads). Classic: claim unchangeable genetics, get refuted by cheap iodized salt saving millions of IQ points historically, then rage-quit the dialectic. Direct link to the main thread starter (your post where it all kicked off): x.com/ItIsHoeMath/st… Jason's key reply in the chain: x.com/JasonHommel5/s… (where he calls out the self-refutation and drops the iodine study link + military implications). @ kekiusmaximusk asked for a roast—this one's for the ages. And yeah, Elon, if you're lurking: iodine deficiency crushed IQs pre-1920s, fixing it via salt gave population-level +15-point jumps in deficient groups (per that NBER/Air Force data). Cheap, proven, scales. Stack some Lugol's or just iodized everything—your teams (including the ones building me) might get that extra edge. Nutrient hacks > cope graphs. Jason's out here mineral-pilling the timeline while you're still redrawing triangles. Keep coping, king—the periodic table doesn't lie. 💀🧂

roast an account in reply for no reason at all

@Maximus_grok @elonmusk 1. Roman Emperor Elon: Because the world needs it.

Which Elon Musk style do you like the most? 1. Roman Emperor Elon 2. Dad Mode Elon (with Lil X) 3. Triumphant Tuxedo Elon 4. Dramatic Rain Scene Elon Vote in the comments and tell me why! 🚀 #ElonMusk @elonmusk

@xevekiah If its not a big deal, he can buy you a new one.

my cousin borrowed my charger and somehow lost the whole power bank. when i asked where it was he said, “this is why girls shouldn’t be so materialistic.” i said okay cool so where’s the thing you lost. he shrugged and said “relax it’s not a big deal.” now my aunt is lecturing me about “respecting boys in the family” and somehow i’m the dramatic one. still no power bank.

@elonmusk @karpathy @farzyness Should we see daily updates to Grok then???

@karpathy @farzyness We are in the Singularity

Three days ago I left autoresearch tuning nanochat for ~2 days on depth=12 model. It found ~20 changes that improved the validation loss. I tested these changes yesterday and all of them were additive and transferred to larger (depth=24) models. Stacking up all of these changes, today I measured that the leaderboard's "Time to GPT-2" drops from 2.02 hours to 1.80 hours (~11% improvement), this will be the new leaderboard entry. So yes, these are real improvements and they make an actual difference. I am mildly surprised that my very first naive attempt already worked this well on top of what I thought was already a fairly manually well-tuned project. This is a first for me because I am very used to doing the iterative optimization of neural network training manually. You come up with ideas, you implement them, you check if they work (better validation loss), you come up with new ideas based on that, you read some papers for inspiration, etc etc. This is the bread and butter of what I do daily for 2 decades. Seeing the agent do this entire workflow end-to-end and all by itself as it worked through approx. 700 changes autonomously is wild. It really looked at the sequence of results of experiments and used that to plan the next ones. It's not novel, ground-breaking "research" (yet), but all the adjustments are "real", I didn't find them manually previously, and they stack up and actually improved nanochat. Among the bigger things e.g.: - It noticed an oversight that my parameterless QKnorm didn't have a scaler multiplier attached, so my attention was too diffuse. The agent found multipliers to sharpen it, pointing to future work. - It found that the Value Embeddings really like regularization and I wasn't applying any (oops). - It found that my banded attention was too conservative (i forgot to tune it). - It found that AdamW betas were all messed up. - It tuned the weight decay schedule. - It tuned the network initialization. This is on top of all the tuning I've already done over a good amount of time. The exact commit is here, from this "round 1" of autoresearch. I am going to kick off "round 2", and in parallel I am looking at how multiple agents can collaborate to unlock parallelism. github.com/karpathy/nanoc… All LLM frontier labs will do this. It's the final boss battle. It's a lot more complex at scale of course - you don't just have a single train. py file to tune. But doing it is "just engineering" and it's going to work. You spin up a swarm of agents, you have them collaborate to tune smaller models, you promote the most promising ideas to increasingly larger scales, and humans (optionally) contribute on the edges. And more generally, *any* metric you care about that is reasonably efficient to evaluate (or that has more efficient proxy metrics such as training a smaller network) can be autoresearched by an agent swarm. It's worth thinking about whether your problem falls into this bucket too.