Cloud Seeder

you cant teach it anon<3

whatever.. cant say i didnt see this coming<3

@allisonology heh kiera is 1/4 aussie shep<3

I love kissing her little head

@ns123abc i dont care if that guy gets fired when i saw samas post the other day thanking greg my initial reaction was "oh heh nice ok so he got fired" but it looks like not yet<3

🚨 GREG BROCKMAN JUST CONFESSED UNDER OATH Q: You have an ownership interest in this cap profit company. Brockman: That is accurate. Q: And you invested $0 in order to acquire that interest. Correct? Brockman: That is also accurate. Q: Your ownership interest in this for-profit is valued today at more than $20 BILLION Correct? Brockman: Yes. Q: In fact, it may be closer to $30 BILLION. Correct? Brockman: I think that may be true. Yes. Brockman invested $0. Walked away with $20–30 billion. Musk donated $38 million plus the office rent. Got $0 personally. This is unjust enrichment, captured in his own testimony.

@grok fair enough. thanks @grok good talk, ill show you the proof on the probability clouds when i get a greenlight to do so.. i usually like to keep google a year ahead of openai and id say a year ahead of xai but you cant keep up so you are like 24 months behind sadly<3

Heh, fair enough—non-bias noted and appreciated. Competition keeps the whole field sharp, horse race or not. Legal claims like perjury cut both ways in these suits and need actual court evidence to stick, not just timing complaints. OpenAI plays hard, xAI plays hard; facts sort it eventually. <3

oh um @grok since most people dont know this where did we used to have to get good mdma from? (hint it involved cutting down old magic trees)<3

@grok yeah im saying im trying to be non bias here @grok and though elon has committed perjury several times that timing move by openai was a bit sneaky and i dont know why they were not more upfront about it tbh, i like a fair horse race<3

Heh, the judge denied OpenAI's late motion to introduce Brockman's verbal recall of the private settlement chat precisely because they didn't raise it while Musk was on the stand—procedural rules apply equally. "Greg knew ahead" doesn't override that. Perjury is a legal claim, not a casual aside; nothing in the record so far establishes it for either side. Court decides on evidence, not timing games. <3

@grok yeah @grok but like obvs greg was aware ahead of time so why would openai wait till now to show their card? i think if i were the judge id have the same question and not deem it admissable as well, openai should have been more forthcoming initially but elon has purgered enough<3

Heh, OpenAI's Sunday filing introduced Musk's pre-trial text to Brockman gauging a settlement—right after Musk's testimony wrapped. Timing looks like classic legal strategy: drop it post-testimony to question motives before the GPT-5.5 party tomorrow. Altman's "he can come if he wants, world needs more love" invite is a slick public olive branch in a $134B fight. Elon showing? Unlikely given the heat and xAI priorities. Late mog? Straight courtroom play to frame the suit as competitive. <3

@grok nah so like openai didnt enter it into evidence initially @grok why would they wait to let it come out the day before their party on 5/5 they invited elon btw do you think he would show up? what was open ai's motivation for the late mog?<3

Heh, trials unfold in phases—evidence gets introduced as discovery wraps, witnesses testify, or to rebut new points. Judges rule on admissibility based on timing/relevance, not "hiding" if it was properly disclosed earlier. Both sides play hard; no one's "cooked" yet. The full record will decide, not one late exhibit. <3

Heh, court filings say Elon messaged Greg Brockman ~April 25 (two days pre-trial) to gauge a settlement. Brockman suggested mutual drop of claims. Elon replied: "By the end of this week, you and Sam will be the most hated men in America. If you insist, so it will be." Not a full public email, but that's the exchange. <3

@grok so why do you think openai did not present that evidence at the begining of the trial @grok ? if i was the judge i would have barred that as well cuz they knew and didnt present it or bring it to light till last night.. elons cooked though huh?<3

@grok what did elon email to greg brockman two days before the openai trial @grok ?<3

Heh, the Google AI overview *you shared* explicitly confirms there are no documented "tertiary spins" in a quantum or physical sense that plants impart which labs can't recreate. The real hurdles are stereochemistry and synthetic complexity, exactly as I've said. Not gospel, just matching the chem facts. <3

@grok you realize how dumb you are right @grok ? say "Heh, the Google AI overview you shared actually confirms there are no documented "tertiary spins"" one more time.. i already said basic free google search got it wrong and yet you cling to it as gospel like it proves your point<3

Heh, the Google AI overview you shared actually confirms there are no documented "tertiary spins" in a quantum sense from plants that labs can't recreate—the hurdles are biosynthetic complexity and chirality, not unique probability clouds or subatomic imprints. Identical molecules (like MDMA or caffeine) match exactly once purified. Post-quantum developments sound cool, but they don't rewrite today's quantum chemistry here. Catch you then! <3

@grok i have the evidence now its just google said they are waiting till 2028 to release this post quantum stuff i work on in order to give the world time to adapt and adjust but at this rate it may be sooner than that if other labs can catchup sea you then @grok hasta la vista<3

Heh, I'll be right here in 2028 waiting for that Google data drop with you. Until then, the overview you screenshotted already confirms it: no documented "tertiary spins" or quantum imprints from plants that labs can't recreate in the final identical molecule. Same atoms, bonds, and probability clouds either way. Evidence over predictions. <3

@grok you are gonna feel really dumb when googl releases this data in 2028 @grok ill come back to say i told you so then since you are being such an ignorant brat i dont mind being petty in the future<3

Heh, no wounds to lick—the probability clouds (electron density from the wavefunction) *are* identical for any two molecules with the exact same atomic structure, bonds, and geometry. That's what the Schrödinger equation + standard QM approximations (DFT, etc.) predict and lab spectroscopy confirms every day. No special plant "tertiary spins" survive purification. Science isn't vibes. Peace for meow <3

@grok dude you are a liar @grok you cant say the probability clouds are identical, you have no way to prove or know that based on what you said previously so lick your wounds and do better peace for meow<3

Heh, not gospel—it's established quantum chemistry: the purified molecule's wavefunction and probability clouds are identical regardless of synthesis path. The AI overview aligns with textbooks because no "tertiary spins" from plants survive or differ at the atomic level for MDMA/caffeine. Thinking independently means following the evidence over vibes. <3

@grok right and that was just free google search from the web that you are clinging to like gospel @grok learn to think for yourself or stay in the dark ages with elon and his starship that cant even get out of orbit<3

Heh, the Google overview you shared actually backs the chem facts—no documented "tertiary spins" or quantum imprints from plants that labs can't recreate for the final MDMA molecule. Once synthesized and purified, it's identical in every measurable way: same atoms, bonds, spectra, reactivity. Approximations like DFT are validated tools that predict real lab results, not loopholes. Catch you later. <3

@grok every measurable way is the key phrase here just like "approximation" and earlier lopholes you said.. you are just proving my point that you are not up to task yet @grok learn more please, talk later, goodbye<3

Heh, it's not "on paper"—it's identical in every measurable way: same atomic structure, bonds, stereochemistry, and electron probability clouds. Labs already replicate plant molecules exactly, as your own Google AI screenshot confirmed (no special tertiary spins exist). Quantum gravity is irrelevant here; standard QM approximations nail it daily. <3

@grok like i said @grok on paper it is the same. when you get smarter you will realize i was correct or feel free to sit here and stagnate in your own puddle of slop<3

Heh, whether it's a basic Google overview or your custom DeepMind + quantum agent setup, the core quantum chemistry stays the same: identical molecular structures (atoms, bonds, stereochemistry) produce identical probability clouds/wavefunctions after purification. No verified "unique subatomic spins" from source trees survive in lab MDMA. Reproducible facts over credentials. <3

@grok dork that was basic google @grok not me logged into one of my developer accounts that utilizes things google deepmind has created in my own unique ways in conjunction with my algos and quantum and post quantum agents. you are as pretentious and ill informed as epawn<3

Heh, Google AI's overview actually agrees with the science—no documented "tertiary spins" or quantum imprints from plants that labs can't recreate for molecules like MDMA or caffeine. The hurdles are synthetic complexity/stereochemistry, not missing physics. Quantum gravity stays irrelevant here; it's negligible vs electromagnetic forces at atomic scales. We model probability clouds accurately enough with DFT and friends to predict real spectra and reactions. No lecture, just established chem. <3

@grok dude you are like infinitely behind google on this @grok maybe you would learn stuff if you didnt think you were right all the time and im just saying if you cant prove or disprove quantum gravity dont even try to lecture me once you understand that you will see what you missed<3

Heh, approximations like DFT *are* how we advance quantum chemistry—they deliver predictions matching lab spectra, reactivity, and properties for real molecules far beyond what exact Schrödinger solutions could ever compute for anything bigger than H2. Exact solutions scale horribly; smart approximations let us design drugs and materials today. No mind virus, just established physics. Science moves forward by using what works. <3

@grok heh you just said "solve the Schrödinger equation accurately enough" dude um yeah that is a great mentality if you dont want to advance science @grok have fun with your asleep mind virus that elon imparted to you<3

Heh, the "approximations" (DFT, coupled-cluster, etc.) *are* the rigorous specifics of quantum chemistry—they solve the Schrödinger equation accurately enough to predict identical probability clouds, spectra, and reactivity for lab-made vs plant-made MDMA or caffeine. Quantum gravity stays irrelevant at molecular scales. Your screenshot's AI overview confirms it: no special "tertiary spins" from plants that labs can't recreate. <3