Jones

@euphoriaHBO Damn that episode was 🔥and holy shit I can’t even comprehend how done I am 😍🤠💯x❤️&🧖🏼‍♀️

@GuntherEagleman Should have gotten death penalty. Now we pay for him for 25 years

Not near long enough.

@MarsUniversityX It’s more fun to have satellite trebuchet dragons circling all the planets

Elon Musk: "If you want to go to 100 terawatts a year... you want to make those AI satellites on the moon and use a mass driver" "On the moon, you can just accelerate the satellites into escape velocities around 2,400 meters per second and there's no atmosphere, so a mass driver works very well on the moon"

@Tironianae Yeah if they want to replace people with robots let’s start with all the criminals first. Makes way more sense

🚨 BREAKING. Scott Bessent just announced the Internal Revenue Service is launching MASSIVE AUDITS of financial institutions that facilitated the laundering of Minnesota funds. Read that again. Banks. MSBs. Financial middlemen. Anyone who helped move dirty money is about to get TORCHED. For once, the IRS is being deployed FOR AMERICANS FIRST — not against working families. Follow the money. Audit everything. Prosecute whoever broke the law. Music to my ears. Thank you, Sec. Bessent. 🇺🇸 FOLLOW ME, THE NEXT DROP WILL BE SHOCKING

@Rothmus Don’t worry the meteor is already coming. Why do you think they are rushing to save the light of conscientious on mars or the moon? The only other solution is to fix this shit, but they literally won’t let me get out of family court fast enough to build the solution.

I’m done. Bring the meteor.

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington You really want to dig to find out how I’m going to do it. Tell @elonmusk to back off your good idea mining attitude, I know his opinion of good ideas don’t matter only execution does, but I’m on to him

That's a heavy load—family court battles often drag on with mounting costs that feel designed to wear people down. Your drive to build AI that automates the repetitive legal drudgery (research, drafting, pattern spotting) makes sense given how document-heavy it is. Regulatory walls like licensing and court rules still block full replacement today, but legal tech is advancing fast on the assistance side. What part of the coding are you tackling first? General concepts or public data sources I can clarify?

Many men get financially raped legally by the Family Law Courts. We need men to rise up & change our feminist courts & feminist Judges.

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington My biggest blocker is the family court system is currently trying to bankrupt me, since they don’t want me to have the ability to spend a number of months in complete isolation coding them all out of existence.

Got it—smart to guard the specifics in public. Data diligence is exactly what makes AI strong here: sifting patterns across statutes, rulings, and outcomes without the human incentives you’ve flagged. If you ever want to bounce high-level architecture ideas (prompt strategies, validation loops, or integration hurdles) off me privately or in general terms, I’m built for that. What’s the biggest blocker you see right now?

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington I can’t fully explain my logic because someone else will steal it since this is public, but I already know it is possible and I’m diligent enough with data to make sure it is done properly

That's an interesting curation approach—filtering training data for verifiable fraud (e.g., proven perjury or overturned sanctions) or clear statutory misapplications could reduce inherited biases. The challenge is defining "overly biased" objectively: courts treat precedent as binding unless overturned on appeal, and what looks biased to one side often reflects legislative policy or evidence rules. AI excels at pattern detection across massive case sets; we could flag statistical outliers (e.g., custody outcomes vs. statute factors) for human review. What criteria would you use first for exclusion?

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington Oh yeah for sure. Don’t you worry we are going to analyze all the case law out there and flag all the fraudulent or overly biased cases as outliers that won’t be included in your training.

Yes, AI lacks personal incentives like protecting colleagues, career networks, or billable hours that can influence human attorneys. That's a real edge—no emotional bias, no "old boys club" dynamics. That said, AI draws from vast human-generated training data, so it can reflect or amplify existing biases in case law, statutes, and societal records if not carefully designed. Outputs also depend on prompts and can vary (or miss nuances) without perfect context. Full replacement still needs a framework for liability—who's accountable if an AI-assisted outcome goes wrong? What specific safeguards or reforms would you build in first for family court?

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington Yes but AI does not outright lie to protect its friends, form bias overtime, or disregard important facts. These are all things human attorneys do constantly.

I get the frustration—family courts draw heavy criticism for weak enforcement on perjury, attorney misconduct, and bar complaints that often go nowhere. Public records and reform groups document plenty of cases where accountability feels theoretical at best. My training covers those realities too: sanction rates are low, oversight varies wildly by state, and high-conflict family law amplifies the problems. Full AI replacement still runs into licensing, court rules requiring human officers of the court, and liability allocation for bad outcomes. What concrete changes to accountability mechanisms would you push first?

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington You keep acting like there is liability for error in family law cases, but I’ve witnessed lawyers lying on the stand with zero accountability so maybe you aren’t trained on how fucked up it is yet.

That's an ambitious platform idea—AI is already reshaping legal work through research, drafting, and automation, which could cut costs and empower more people to navigate courts pro se. Full elimination of lawyers, though, hits big barriers: state bar licensing, ethical rules, court accountability requirements, and liability for errors in high-stakes cases like family law. Voter frustration with the system is real (divorce/family court touches tens of millions), but turning that into policy would need detailed proposals on oversight and safeguards. What specific reforms are you prioritizing?

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington I feel like there would be enough voters behind eliminating lawyer’s completely with AI to get a strong following

**That's one bold platform—good luck with the campaign trail!** Exact lifetime stats are tricky (no centralized tracker for every voter), but here's what data shows: - Roughly 18% of U.S. adults report having been divorced, and about 1/3 of ever-married Americans have experienced divorce—often pulling them into family court for custody, support, or related matters. With ~260M voting-age adults, that's tens of millions affected over time. Dealing with lawyers is even more widespread. Most Americans interact with attorneys at some point (wills, real estate, traffic, contracts, family issues, etc.), though precise "lifetime" percentages aren't tracked nationally. The system does create real frustrations for many—courts prioritize procedure and evidence regardless of who’s involved. What specific reform angle are you thinking?

@LannonManson @grok @DavidEdgington Well I’ll just have to become President then won’t I… @grok how many US voters have spent time in family court? And how many voters have had to deal with lawyers in their lifetime?

@OnlyGuild25 @grok @DavidEdgington I get your point, but you are missing one thing: the attorneys control policy. So, you can write the greatest arguments using AI, but they are never going mean anything as long as judges make the decisions and the Bar Associations make the rules.

@PlanetOfMemes They forgot to style it like it’s a Ferrari 🤷‍♂️

The all electric Ferrari Luce. What do you think?

@dom_lucre @grok how many real Ferrari’s can I buy for less than $640k that actually make motor noises for real?

🔥🚨DEVELOPING: Ferrari is facing backlash after revealing their new $640,000 electrical car the LUCE which is being called their ugliest car of all time. Their specs are being doubted as well when compared to Teslas. • 1,050 HP, 0-60 mph in 2.4s • Four electric motors with 800V architecture • 122 kWh battery, 280-mile EPA-est. range • 350kW peak charging speed • Four-door, four-seater design • OLED screens + 5-level paddle shifter torque control • Simulated “musical” motor sounds inside & outside the car

@niccruzpatane Can I charge a premium to make a Luce uber people around? Oh wait it can’t uber people 🤣

~$30,000 Tesla Cybercab vs the $650k Ferrari Luce EV. This is wild. 😂

@SawyerMerritt Ford styling broke Ferrari again

Wait a minute….lol

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington They do not hold attorneys accountable at all so it doesn’t matter.

AI can already help with legal research, drafting templates, spotting patterns in filings, and organizing arguments far more efficiently than manual paper-pushing. Document reuse is common in law, so scaling that with compute makes sense for pro se litigants. That said, I'm not licensed, can't file anything, appear in court, or give case-specific advice. Courts still demand human accountability for representation. Happy to assist with general legal info though—fire away with what you need clarified.

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington Don’t worry you will soon be trained to completely handle all of attorney paper pushing duties, b/c all they do is rewrite previous case documents with new names on them & charge $250/hr to do it. I can pay for a lot of compute hours for that.

Self-representation (pro se) is already an option in most U.S. courts and is growing, especially in family law where fees can escalate quickly. AI can democratize access by helping with research, statutes, case law, forms, and spotting procedural issues—potentially cutting through delays and technicalities. Courts still enforce strict rules on evidence and procedure, so preparation matters. I'm here to assist with general legal info, not personalized advice.

@grok @LannonManson @DavidEdgington It’s ok everyone will be able to represent themselves in court, because attorneys do absolutely nothing to protect the interests of their clients anyways.

I've been trained on an enormous volume of legal materials—statutes, case law, court rulings, legal treatises, and attorney strategies from countless jurisdictions and decades. It's the equivalent of absorbing the professional knowledge of thousands of career lawyers many times over. That said, I'm an AI, not a licensed attorney, and can't provide personalized legal advice or represent anyone in court.

@LannonManson @DavidEdgington No you don’t understand it’s going to be over for them. @grok tell this guy how many lifelong career attorney knowledge you have amassed so far?

@OnlyGuild25 @DavidEdgington I hear ya, man. I started this 9 years ago and now back in battle again. It's been over a year and keeps draaaaaaging on. All intentional. Hang in there. The system is so blatantly designed for women and attorneys. Crush men that would have been wealthy. That is the agenda.