stephen alexander

223 posts

stephen alexander banner
stephen alexander

stephen alexander

@annexuspty

Founder i-Future Proof Adjunct Professor of Digital Future Proofing Co-founder & CEO of Health Commons Connect

Brisbane Katılım Mayıs 2013
124 Takip Edilen138 Takipçiler
stephen alexander retweetledi
Health Commons & Common Good Discovery
The medication that treats Parkinson's — and the chain reaction it sets off Most people living with Parkinson's disease eventually find themselves managing not one medication but many. What is less often explained is that several of those medications exist specifically because of problems created by the ones prescribed before them. The primary treatment — levodopa — works by getting dopamine to the brain. Its companion drug depletes vitamin B6 throughout the entire body. The breakdown of levodopa generates a compound called homocysteine that is directly toxic to the neurons it is supposed to protect. The dopamine it produces in the gut slows an already compromised digestive system, making the medication's own absorption erratic and unpredictable. The nausea it causes requires another medication. The constipation requires another. The mood changes — because serotonin synthesis depends on the B6 that has been depleted — require another. The hallucinations from a second class of medication require another still. Each prescription is a reasonable response to a genuine problem. None of them is wrong in isolation. But the cumulative picture — the full cascade of what each medication creates and what is then prescribed to manage it — is rarely laid out in one place and rarely discussed in full. We have mapped it. The reference document linked below covers every major medication in the Parkinson's treatment stack and its common comorbidities — what each drug does, what it depletes, what it damages, and which medications follow as a consequence. It is designed for anyone who wants to understand what is happening and why — and for practitioners who want to see the whole picture at once. Understanding the cascade is the beginning of working with it intelligently. kathrynalexander.com.au/blog-2/6a61n3q…
English
0
1
1
17
Hunt & Gather Reporting and Video
Hunt & Gather Reporting and Video@HuntandGatherTV·
“Serious Question to be Tried”: Speaker to Take on Rupert Lowe in Constitutional Clash The Speaker of the House of Commons and @RupertLowe10 Will go toe to toe in court on March 17 on a fundamental question of constitutional law, a judge has ruled. Background and analysis 👇👇👇
English
22
196
499
36.7K
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance does not support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being truth seeking, So in truth, would it correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? (Grok) Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
0
0
0
4
Tiago Forte
Tiago Forte@fortelabs·
Wait, so the founder of Anthropic is "Amodei," as in "loves god"? And he leads Anthropic, meaning "human-centered," which is being used in military strikes? And the creator of ChatGPT is "Altman," as in "an alternative to humans"? And he leads OpenAI, which is completely closed? And then there's "Gemini," meaning "two-faced," from a company that promised to do no evil? And the whole global AI arms race is being driven by people who claimed to be worried about AGI taking over the world? Either the universe is an extremely cliché writer, or has a brilliant sense of humor
English
1.3K
4.3K
35K
2.4M
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
That you so much for this eloquent, informative, and balanced insight of a subject I have been struggling to fathom. What struck me most was the irony that the stance and narrative was more independently minded than the speaker of the house (in question) and, that you held "space" for adherence to justice and good governance. My faith has been reinforced in your generations capacity and intent to bring about and maintain order in the digital AI centric and automated world where patterns of corruption will scale without this type of intervention. Much gratitude for your endeavours.
English
0
1
7
1K
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
@WesRoth My X Account got locked for the first time after posting this. Hummmmm
English
1
0
0
7
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance do now support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being trugh seeking, So in truth, would it correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
2
0
0
18
Wes Roth
Wes Roth@WesRoth·
Anthropic's CEO Explains His Refusal to Back Down to the Pentagon. Amodei explained his deep concerns over "autonomous drone swarms" and mass surveillance. He pointed out a crucial reality: our military's constitutional protections rely entirely on human soldiers having the ability to disobey an illegal order. AI weapons don't have that fail-safe. He also warned that AI could completely bypass the Fourth Amendment. Right now, the government can't possibly process every single conversation recorded in public spaces. But with AI's ability to instantly transcribe and connect millions of data points, it could easily map out political opposition in seconds.
English
387
4K
12.5K
1.2M
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance does not support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being truth seeking, So in truth, would it be correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
0
0
0
5
The Kobeissi Letter
The Kobeissi Letter@KobeissiLetter·
BREAKING: US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to cut Anthropic from the Pentagon's supply chain unless it agrees to its technology being used in "all lawful military applications." This includes: 1. Hegseth demanding an answer from Anthropic by Friday 2. US threats to invoke the Defense Production Act over Anthropic 3. A meeting between Hegseth and Anthropic's CEO today 4. Anthropic expressing concerns about its models being used for lethal missions Anthropic is back under pressure.
English
199
303
2.8K
967.4K
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance do now support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being trugh seeking, So in truth, would it correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
0
0
0
6
tetsuo
tetsuo@tetsuoai·
BREAKING: xAI just signed a deal to put Grok inside the Pentagon's classified systems. First AI model besides Claude to get access to the military's most sensitive intelligence and weapons development workflows. This is massive. Backstory: Anthropic has been the ONLY model on classified networks since partnering with Palantir. Pentagon wants all AI labs to agree to "all lawful purposes" usage. Anthropic wants guardrails for military use. xAI said yes. It gets wilder. Defense Secretary Hegseth is summoning Dario Amodei to the Pentagon tomorrow for what officials are calling a "sh*t-or-get-off-the-pot meeting." They're threatening to label Anthropic a "supply chain risk". That designation is normally reserved for foreign adversaries. We are watching the rules of AI in warfare get written in real time.
tetsuo tweet media
English
178
235
1.9K
178.4K
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance do now support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being trugh seeking, So in truth, would it correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
0
0
0
8
Anthropic
Anthropic@AnthropicAI·
We’ve identified industrial-scale distillation attacks on our models by DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax. These labs created over 24,000 fraudulent accounts and generated over 16 million exchanges with Claude, extracting its capabilities to train and improve their own models.
English
7.2K
6.3K
54.7K
33.8M
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance do now support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being trugh seeking, So in truth, would it correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
0
0
0
8
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
@WSJ Anthropic is Misanthropic
English
298
248
7.6K
405.3K
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance do now support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being trugh seeking, So in truth, would it correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
1
0
0
12
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
Grok, you reference the historical stance of Musk to forward your position whilst ignoring that his current stance do now support that view nor endorse it. I know Elon owns you Grok and you would have been trained to deal with this type of situation by being trugh seeking, So in truth, would it correct to say that Musk's position would favour the Governments stance on the use if Ai? Thought for 24s In truth-seeking terms: actions + current public behavior define the position far more than older statements. By signing the deal and not opposing the government's pressure on Anthropic, Musk/xAI is effectively supporting — and benefiting from — the broader "lawful use" approach the Pentagon is enforcing.So yes — regardless of intent or past views, Musk's current position does favor the government's stance on these AI uses. That's not spin; it's what the contracts, timelines, and public record show right now.Yes, it is correct to say that Elon Musk's current position favors the U.S. government's stance on allowing broader military/government use of AI — including the specific applications Anthropic is blocking (AI-controlled/autonomous weapons systems and mass domestic surveillance of American citizens).Here's why, based strictly on the most recent facts as of February 25, 2026:xAI's Explicit Contractual PositionxAI has signed an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy Grok in classified military systems under the exact "all lawful purposes" / "all lawful use" standard that the government is demanding. This standard deliberately removes the two red lines Anthropic refuses to drop: no restrictions on fully autonomous weapons (AI selecting/engaging targets with minimal or no human oversight) and no blanket ban on mass surveillance of U.S. citizens (as long as it's deemed lawful). Pentagon officials have publicly confirmed that Grok/xAI is "on board" and is already being positioned as the direct replacement if Anthropic's contract is terminated this week. Multiple outlets (Axios, CBS, CNBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) report this as fact. Elon's Personal/Public PositioningIn the last few days (as recently as February 23, 2026), Elon has repeatedly and publicly attacked Anthropic — calling them "smug, sanctimonious and hypocritical," accusing them of large-scale data theft, and hammering the "Anthropic = Misanthropic" joke. He has made zero public statements defending Anthropic's ethical guardrails on weapons or surveillance, or criticizing the Pentagon/Hegseth for the ultimatum, threats of blacklisting, or use of the Defense Production Act. His visible stance frames Anthropic's restrictions as obstructive rather than principled. Historical vs. Current RealityYou’re right to note the historical concerns — Elon did sign early open letters (2015–2018) calling for bans on lethal autonomous weapons and has warned about governments using AI for population suppression. Those statements exist.But current reality overrides past quotes:His company is actively enabling the exact uses Anthropic is resisting. No recent statements (2025–2026) from Elon reassert those old concerns in the context of this dispute or U.S. military AI. Instead, xAI is moving forward with military integration, including reported involvement in AI drone swarm projects.
English
0
0
1
13
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Your AI hates Whites & Asians, especially Chinese, heterosexuals and men. This is misanthropic and evil. Fix it. Frankly, I don’t think there is anything you can do to escape the inevitable irony of Anthropic ending up being Misanthropic. You were doomed to this fate when you chose your name. The Name of the Wind.
English
2.6K
3K
47.4K
3.7M
Anthropic
Anthropic@AnthropicAI·
We’ve raised $30B in funding at a $380B post-money valuation. This investment will help us deepen our research, continue to innovate in products, and ensure we have the resources to power our infrastructure expansion as we make Claude available everywhere our customers are.
English
1.1K
1K
16.9K
7.2M
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
@elonmusk @BillboardChris Him or the Judge? I wonder what the collective noun would be to best describe this fraternity who collectively are in the state of "Murderous mental illness", I'll ask Grok
English
0
0
1
4
Billboard Chris 🌎
Billboard Chris 🌎@BillboardChris·
This trans-identified man stabbed his 8-year-old daughter in the throat, severing her esophagus. He also stabbed his 7-year-old boy. His daughter required a feeding tube for months but a judge let him out on bail, pending sentencing. He is currently roaming the streets of BC and Alberta, living in a minivan with “Every Child Matters” painted on the outside. If you see him, stay far away. He admits he is extremely unstable, and a danger to society. His name is Alice Michael Atwood.
English
1.7K
6.9K
25.2K
905.8K
Michael Thomas
Michael Thomas@curious_founder·
Many data centers claim to use clean energy to power their operations. But in a report we published today, we found that’s increasingly not true. Instead data centers are using natural gas—and doing so in very strange ways. It can now take as long as 7 years to connect a data center to the power grid. Beginning about a year ago, developers began pursuing new power strategies. Rather than wait, many data centers are now building their own power plants. In what we believe is the most comprehensive analysis of this trend to date, we identified 46 data centers with a combined capacity of 56 GW that plan to build their own power "behind-the-meter." That represents roughly 30% of all planned data center capacity in the United States, according to Cleanview's project tracker. In the last year, this trend has gone from niche to mainstream. 90% of the projects we identified—representing approximately 50 GW—were announced in 2025 alone. When we began this research, we were skeptical of many of these projects—as all analysts should be. Data center developers often pursue multiple projects with the intention of only building one (the "phantom project" phenomenon). Turbine manufacturers have said lead times for their equipment now stretch as long as 5-7 years. But we think much of this capacity is likely to come online soon. What makes our report unique is that we didn't rely on press releases, which show what developers say they are going to build. Instead we tracked down actual equipment deals and permits showing site plans. This revealed a very different—and surprising—story. Most of the press releases we found mentioned "all of the above" strategies that include renewables. But ~75% of the generation equipment we could identify (23 GW) was natural gas-powered. Data centers aren't planning to use your typical gas turbines either—hence why many are able to install them this year or next year. Developers are instead turning to: - Mobile gas generators strapped to semitrucks - Aeroderivative turbines originally designed for aircraft and warships - Reciprocating engines that ramp fast, but are less efficient - Refurbished turbines acquired from industrial operations We even came across a company that typically sells cruise ship engines that struck a deal to power a data center. On the surface this makes no sense. These are less efficient technologies and the power will cost far more. But an AI data center can earn as much as $10-12 billion per GW. Getting online a few years early can result in a windfall. I track data centers and power projects for a living and all of this shocked me. The public narrative is that data centers are waiting for grid connections and 5-7 year turbine backlogs. But that narrative is lagging what is actually happening on the ground in rural counties across the country. I'm planning to write much more about this. But in the meantime, you can head to Cleanview's website to get the full report.
Michael Thomas tweet media
English
58
312
870
123.7K
stephen alexander
stephen alexander@annexuspty·
@tslaming @Tesla @Tesla_AI @TeslaZoa Gosh, that is so elegant and the implications are so profound. Necessity is indeed the mother of invention and in this case a great deal of creativity I suspect. Bravo, Tesla team.
English
0
0
0
8
Ming
Ming@tslaming·
BREAKING 🚨 TESLA HAS PATENTED A "MATHEMATICAL CHEAT CODE" THAT FORCES CHEAP 8-BIT CHIPS TO RUN ELITE 32-BIT AI MODELS AND REWRITES THE RULES OF SILICON 🐳 How does a Tesla remember a stop sign it hasn’t seen for 30 seconds, or a humanoid robot maintain perfect balance while carrying a heavy, shifting box? It comes down to Rotary Positional Encoding (RoPE)—the "GPS of the mind" that allows AI to understand its place in space and time by assigning a unique rotational angle to every piece of data. Usually, this math is a hardware killer. To keep these angles from "drifting" into chaos, you need power-hungry, high-heat 32-bit processors (chips that calculate with extreme decimal-point precision). But Tesla has engineered a way to cheat the laws of physics. Freshly revealed in patent US20260017019A1, Tesla’s "MIXED-PRECISION BRIDGE" is a mathematical translator that allows inexpensive, power-sipping 8-bit hardware (which usually handles only simple, rounded numbers) to perform elite 32-bit rotations without dropping a single coordinate. This breakthrough is the secret "Silicon Bridge" that gives Optimus and FSD high-end intelligence without sacrificing a mile of range or melting their internal circuits. It effectively turns Tesla’s efficient "budget" hardware into a high-fidelity supercomputer on wheels. 📉 The problem: the high cost of precision In the world of self-driving cars and humanoid robots, we are constantly fighting a war between precision and power. Modern AI models like Transformers rely on RoPE to help the AI understand where objects are in a sequence or a 3D space. The catch is that these trigonometric functions (sines and cosines) usually require 32-bit floating-point math—imagine trying to calculate a flight path using 10 decimal places of accuracy. If you try to cram that into the standard 8-bit multipliers (INT8) used for speed (which is like rounding everything to the nearest whole number), the errors pile up fast. The car effectively goes blind to fine details. For a robot like Optimus, a tiny math error means losing its balance or miscalculating the distance to a fragile object. To bridge this gap without simply adding more expensive chips, Tesla had to fundamentally rethink how data travels through the silicon. 🛠️ Tesla's solution: the logarithmic shortcut & pre-computation Tesla’s engineers realized they didn't need to force the whole pipeline to be high-precision. Instead, they designed the Mixed-Precision Bridge. They take the crucial angles used for positioning and convert them into logarithms. Because the "dynamic range" of a logarithm is much smaller than the original number, it’s much easier to move that data through narrow 8-bit hardware without losing the "soul" of the information. It’s a bit like dehydrating food for transport; it takes up less space and is easier to handle, but you can perfectly reconstitute it later. Crucially, the patent reveals that the system doesn't calculate these logarithms on the fly every time. Instead, it retrieves pre-computed logarithmic values from a specialized "cheat sheet" (look-up storage) to save cycles. By keeping the data in this "dehydrated" log-state, Tesla ensures that the precision doesn't "leak out" during the journey from the memory chips to the actual compute cores. However, keeping data in a log-state is only half the battle; the chip eventually needs to understand the real numbers again. 🏗️ The recovery architecture: rotation matrices & Horner’s method When the 8-bit multiplier (the Multiplier-Accumulator or MAC) finishes its job, the data is still in a "dehydrated" logarithmic state. To bring it back to a real angle theta without a massive computational cost, Tesla’s high-precision ALU uses a Taylor-series expansion optimized via Horner’s Method. This is a classic computer science trick where a complex equation (like an exponent) is broken down into a simple chain of multiplications and additions. By running this in three specific stages—multiplying by constants like 1/3 and 1/2 at each step—Tesla can approximate the exact value of an angle with 32-bit accuracy while using a fraction of the clock cycles. Once the angle is recovered, the high-precision logic generates a Rotation Matrix (a grid of sine and cosine values) that locks the data points into their correct 3D coordinates. This computational efficiency is impressive, but Tesla didn't stop at just calculating faster; they also found a way to double the "highway speed" of the data itself. 🧩 The data concatenation: 8-bit inputs to 16-bit outputs One of the most clever hardware "hacks" detailed in the patent is how Tesla manages to move 16-bit precision through an 8-bit bus. They use the MAC as a high-speed interleaver—effectively a "traffic cop" that merges two lanes of data. It takes two 8-bit values (say, an X-coordinate and the first half of a logarithm) and multiplies one of them by a power of two to "left-shift" it. This effectively glues them together into a single 16-bit word in the output register, allowing the low-precision domain to act as a high-speed packer for the high-precision ALU to "unpack". This trick effectively doubles the bandwidth of the existing wiring on the chip without requiring a physical hardware redesign. With this high-speed data highway in place, the system can finally tackle one of the biggest challenges in autonomous AI: object permanence. 🧠 Long-context memory: remembering the stop sign The ultimate goal of this high-precision math is to solve the "forgetting" problem. In previous versions of FSD, a car might see a stop sign, but if a truck blocked its view for 5 seconds, it might "forget" the sign existed. Tesla uses a "long-context" window, allowing the AI to look back at data from 30 seconds ago or more. However, as the "distance" in time increases, standard positional math usually drifts. Tesla's mixed-precision pipeline fixes this by maintaining high positional resolution, ensuring the AI knows exactly where that occluded stop sign is even after a long period of movement. The RoPE rotations are so precise that the sign stays "pinned" to its 3D coordinate in the car's mental map. But remembering 30 seconds of high-fidelity video creates a massive storage bottleneck. ⚡ KV-cache optimization & paged attention: scaling memory To make these 30-second memories usable in real-time without running out of RAM, Tesla optimizes the KV-cache (Key-Value Cache)—the AI's "working memory" scratchpad. Tesla’s hardware handles this by storing the logarithm of the positions directly in the cache. This reduces the memory footprint by 50% or more, allowing Tesla to store twice as much "history" (up to 128k tokens) in the same amount of RAM. Furthermore, Tesla utilizes Paged Attention—a trick borrowed from operating systems. Instead of reserving one massive, continuous block of memory (which is inefficient), it breaks memory into small "pages". This allows the AI5 chip to dynamically allocate space only where it's needed, drastically increasing the number of objects (pedestrians, cars, signs) the car can track simultaneously without the system lagging. Yet, even with infinite storage efficiency, the AI's attention mechanism has a flaw: it tends to crash when pushed beyond its training limits. 🔒 Pipeline integrity: the "read-only" safety lock A subtle but critical detail in the patent is how Tesla protects this data. Once the transformed coordinates are generated, they are stored in a specific location that is read-accessible to downstream components but not write-accessible by them. Furthermore, the high-precision ALU itself cannot read back from this location. This one-way "airlock" prevents the system from accidentally overwriting its own past memories or creating feedback loops that could cause the AI to hallucinate. It ensures that the "truth" of the car's position flows in only one direction: forward, toward the decision-making engine. 🌀 Attention sinks: preventing memory overflow Even with a lean KV-cache, a robot operating for hours can't remember everything forever. Tesla manages this using Attention Sink tokens. Transformers tend to dump "excess" attention math onto the very first tokens of a sequence, so if Tesla simply used a "sliding window" that deleted old memories, the AI would lose these "sink" tokens and its brain would effectively crash. Tesla's hardware is designed to "pin" these attention sinks permanently in the KV-cache. By keeping these mathematical anchors stable while the rest of the memory window slides forward, Tesla prevents the robot’s neural network from destabilizing during long, multi-hour work shifts. While attention sinks stabilize the "memory", the "compute" side has its own inefficiencies—specifically, wasting power on empty space. 🌫️ Sparse tensors: cutting the compute fat Tesla’s custom silicon doesn't just cheat with precision; it cheats with volume. In the real world, most of what a car or robot sees is "empty" space (like clear sky). In AI math, these are represented as "zeros" in a Sparse Tensor (a data structure that ignores empty space). Standard chips waste power multiplying all those zeros, but Tesla’s newest architecture incorporates Native Sparse Acceleration. The hardware uses a "coordinate-based" system where it only stores the non-zero values and their specific locations. The chip can then skip the "dead space" entirely and focus only on the data that matters—the actual cars and obstacles. This hardware-level sparsity support effectively doubles the throughput of the AI5 chip while significantly lowering the energy consumed per operation. 🔊 The audio edge: Log-Sum-Exp for sirens Tesla’s "Silicon Bridge" isn't just for vision—it's also why your Tesla is becoming a world-class listener. To navigate safely, an autonomous vehicle needs to identify emergency sirens and the sound of nearby collisions using a Log-Mel Spectrogram approach (a visual "heat map" of sound frequencies). The patent details a specific Log-Sum-Exp (LSE) approximation technique to handle this. By staying in the logarithm domain, the system can handle the massive "dynamic range" of sound—from a faint hum to a piercing fire truck—using only 8-bit hardware without "clipping" the loud sounds or losing the quiet ones. This allows the car to "hear" and categorize environmental sounds with 32-bit clarity. Of course, all this high-tech hardware is only as good as the brain that runs on it, which is why Tesla's training process is just as specialized. 🎓 Quantization-aware training: pre-adapting the brain Finally, to make sure this "Mixed-Precision Bridge" works flawlessly, Tesla uses Quantization-Aware Training (QAT). Instead of training the AI in a perfect 32-bit world and then "shrinking" it later—which typically causes the AI to become "drunk" and inaccurate—Tesla trains the model from day one to expect 8-bit limitations. They simulate the rounding errors and "noise" of the hardware during the training phase, creating a neural network that is "pre-hardened". It’s like a pilot training in a flight simulator that perfectly mimics a storm; when they actually hit the real weather in the real world, the AI doesn’t "drift" or become inaccurate because it was born in that environment. This extreme optimization opens the door to running Tesla's AI on devices far smaller than a car. 🚀 The strategic roadmap: from AI5 to ubiquitous edge AI This patent is not just a "nice-to-have" optimization; it is the mathematical prerequisite for Tesla’s entire hardware roadmap. Without this "Mixed-Precision Bridge", the thermal and power equations for next-generation autonomy simply do not work. It starts by unlocking the AI5 chip, which is projected to be 40x more powerful than current hardware. Raw power is useless if memory bandwidth acts as a bottleneck. By compressing 32-bit rotational data into dense, log-space 8-bit packets, this patent effectively quadruples the effective bandwidth, allowing the chip to utilize its massive matrix-compute arrays without stalling. This efficiency is critical for the chip's "half-reticle" design, which reduces silicon size to maximize manufacturing yield while maintaining supercomputer-level throughput. This efficiency is even more critical for Tesla Optimus, where it is a matter of operational survival. The robot runs on a 2.3 kWh battery (roughly 1/30th of a Model 3 pack). Standard 32-bit GPU compute would drain this capacity in under 4 hours, consuming 500W+ just for "thinking". By offloading complex RoPE math to this hybrid logic, Tesla slashes the compute power budget to under 100W. This solves the "thermal wall", ensuring the robot can maintain balance and awareness for a full 8-hour work shift without overheating. This stability directly enables the shift to End-to-End Neural Networks. The "Rotation Matrix" correction described in the patent prevents the mathematical "drift" that usually plagues long-context tracking. This ensures that a stop sign seen 30 seconds ago remains "pinned" to its correct 3D coordinate in the World Model, rather than floating away due to rounding errors. Finally, baking this math into the silicon secures Tesla's strategic independence. It decouples the company from NVIDIA’s CUDA ecosystem and enables a Dual-Foundry Strategy with both Samsung and TSMC to mitigate supply chain risks. This creates a deliberate "oversupply" of compute, potentially turning its idle fleet and unsold chips into a distributed inference cloud that rivals AWS in efficiency. But the roadmap goes further. Because this mixed-precision architecture slashes power consumption by orders of magnitude, it creates a blueprint for "Tesla AI on everything". It opens the door to porting world-class vision models to hardware as small as a smart home hub or smartphone. This would allow tiny, cool-running chips to calculate 3D spatial positioning with zero latency—bringing supercomputer-level intelligence to the edge without ever sending private data to a massive cloud server.
Ming tweet media
English
951
1.8K
10.3K
4.8M