Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓

32.2K posts

Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ banner
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓

Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓

@tealkra

US Navy Veteran, Patriot Guard Member, Retired IT Professional / Professor. No DMs, please.

Kansas, USA Katılım Nisan 2007
3.6K Takip Edilen2.5K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓@tealkra·
I believe he is correct!
Devon Eriksen@Devon_Eriksen_

A vast number of humans, probably a majority, aren't people. They are large language models. I'm not saying this as a generality, as a clever or funny way of saying, "they are stupid". No. I mean something very concrete and specific, and there are a lot of people who appear very intelligent, maybe even win awards for writing good poetry or something, who are nevertheless not people, not fully sapient, just a large language model walking around in a human body. First, you have to understand what a large language model is. It's a computer (organic or inorganic), which has been trained on a data set consisting solely of language (written or spoken), and rewarded for producing language that sounds like the data set, and is relevant to a prompt. That's all there is in there. This is why ChatGPT and Grok lie to you constantly. It's not because they are somehow just indifferent to the truth — they actually do not understand the concept of "truth" at all. For something to be a "lie", or an "inaccuracy", there has to be a mismatch between the meaning of words, and the state of reality. And there's the critical difference. You see, in order to identify a mismatch between the state of reality, and the meaning of a sentence, you have to have a model of reality. Not just one model, of language. This is why Grok and ChatGPT hallucinate and tell you lies. Because, for them, everything is language, and there is no reality. So when I say someone is a large language model, I do not mean he is "stupid". He might be very facile at processing language. He might, in fact, be eloquent enough to give great speeches, get elected president, win the Nobel Peace Prize, and so on. What I mean is that humans who are large language models do not have a robust world-object model to counterweight their language model. They are able to manipulate symbols, sometimes adroitly, but they are on far shakier ground when trying imagine the objects those symbols represent. Which brings us to this woman. Most conservatives understand her behavior in terms of concepts like "suicidal empathy", or "brainwashing", or an "information bubble", interpreted as reasons why she is delusional, but the truth is far worse than that. To delusional is to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong. But to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong... you have to have one in the first place. To sapient humans, words are symbols, grounded in object model of reality, that we use to communicate ideas about that reality. We need those words because we don't come equipped with a hologram projector, or telepathic powers. But for another type of human, that object model isn't very large or robust at all. It consists only of a grass hut or two with a few sticks of furniture, and it can never be matched up with the palaces in the air which she weaves out of words. And so, to her, there is no reality. Or at least very little. Reality consists only of her and her immediate surroundings in time and space, and words referring to anything bigger or more complicated are not descriptions of reality... they are magic spells which will make other humans drop loot or give her social approval. You cannot correct her worldview with contradictory evidence, because there is no worldview to correct. You cannot confront her with the logical inconsistencies in her worldview, because her object model doesn't actually have any, it's not complex enough for that. The relevant parts of her world-object model can be summed up as follows: "If I say Goodthing, I get headpats and cookies from all the people like me." That model is simply not big or complicated enough to contain notions like self-defense or vehicular assault. She has no theory of mind for a man whose job includes violence. She cannot explain or predict his behavior. It is too far away from her daily experience to fit into her reality at all. And if she can't imagine things like these, how can she possibly imagine concrete meanings for vast and complex ideas like demographic replacement, culture shift, and western civilization? This is not about intelligence or lack of it. This is about what her brain is trained to do. Her upbringing, education, and life did not force, or even encourage, her to develop a robust world-object model. It wasn't necessary for her to get safety, approval, or cookies. She just had to be glib. So it really didn't matter if she had an IQ of 125, or whatever, because if she did, then she was just an IQ-125-large-language-model, and only used that brain capacity for writing clever poetry, and saying things that aligned her to her local social matrix. She couldn't actually understand the world no matter how smart she was, because her brain was trained up wrong. I don't know if this is correctable, or if there was some critical developmental phase that was missed, but it doesn't matter, because once the LLM-humans are adults, they won't sit still for corrective therapy, percussive or not. What's important is that they can't be taught things. They can be programmed to repeat stuff, and if you win a culture war, you can even program them to say the sensible stuff. But even then, they will just be saying it for headpats and cookies. They will never truly understand the sense of what they are repeating, because they don't understand things. They are just Large Language Models. And we have to figure out some way to take the vote away from them.

English
0
0
1
108
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Elon Musk tweet media
ZXX
46.7K
220K
1M
74.8M
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Common Cent$
Common Cent$@Common_Cent1·
Obama campaigned hard against a Black woman “Winsome Sears” and got Virginia a crazy White Liberal woman in Spanberger. Obama wants you to be mad that we can no longer do race based gerrymandering. Make it make sense.😉😂
GIF
English
131
2.7K
8K
43.2K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
John Tillman
John Tillman@JohnMTillman·
Yesterday I argued race-based districts inflame segregation but I think the deeper question is one nobody in the civil-rights establishment wants asked. What did those guaranteed seats actually deliver during the past 60 years in Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Cleveland? The same cities, decade after decade, anchored by the safest minority Democratic seats in the country. Look at the schools, the murder rates, the median household wealth of the constituents those seats were designed to protect. Look at how many of those incumbents have ever faced a serious primary, let alone a competitive general. The seats were always safe, unlike the neighborhoods they represented. A guaranteed seat with no competition produces a representative with no incentive to deliver anything beyond the performative grievance that the district expects. The strongest argument for what the Court did this week is not legal but ethical: that the people those districts were drawn to "protect" have the least to show for 60 years of protection.
John Tillman@JohnMTillman

Today's Supreme Court decision on race-based redistricting is bigger than people even realize. I've watched this play out for two decades, mostly in Chicago. The argument for race-based districts was always that they protect minority representation. What they've actually done is inflame segregation, and not just for voters but also for the elected officials. When, say, ~90% of one racial category dominates a legislative district, the lawmaker representing it is incentivized against interacting with the world beyond it. They don't have to find common ground because there is simply no coalition to build. Alienation is a requirement of the job. Now imagine a Chicago aldermanic map drawn for compactness rather than identity: a 65/20/15 district. You literally would not be able to win a seat on city council by pandering to one single group. You'd actually have to go talk to people about how they actually live and things they care about: schools, safety, jobs, taxes. Working-class voters of every background want roughly the same things. Identity-based districts function to paper over that. But a blended district would necessitate it. The superficial grievance model of left-wing politics relies on the existence of racially sorted districts. Today's ruling makes that sorting harder. That's what matters here.

English
97
555
2K
50.9K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Sassafrass84
Sassafrass84@Sassafrass_84·
THIS WAS SAID SO PERFECTLY ON FB THAT I HAD TO SHARE. 👇👇👇 “They arrested the President of the United States four times, hit him with 91 charges, indicted him on four separate cases, spied on his campaign, sabotaged his first term, jailed his supporters, raided his private residence, censored and gagged him, tried to bankrupt him, and attempted to remove him from state ballots. When none of that worked, they tried to assassinate him—not once, but three times. And yet they still go on national television demanding we vote for them to ‘save democracy.’ 🤔 The WHCA alleged shooter wasn’t some nut job lurking on the fringes of society, forgotten by the system. He was well-educated, credentialed, employed, and institutionally formed. That’s what makes this so disturbing. At first glance, this doesn’t look like a breakdown of the system, it looks more like a product of it. Academia, media, and politics helped build the moral permission structure. While neither ‘side’ is perfect, all I know is this: I’m on the side that doesn’t kill people, celebrate their deaths, or fantasize about killing them just to win an election. That’s the side I’m on. 🇺🇸” PC: Lance Smith
English
196
2.4K
6.2K
76.2K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Buzz Patterson
Buzz Patterson@BuzzPatterson·
No American lost their right to vote yesterday. None. Democrats lost their ability to manipulate the votes. That is all. Stop your bitching.
English
384
6.9K
43.3K
217K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Clay Travis
Clay Travis@ClayTravis·
There isn’t a single Republican congressional house member in all of New England. (Susan Collins is the only Republican in the senate from any of these states.) Democrats have far more aggressively gerrymandered blue states than Republicans have red states.
David Burke 🇺🇸@ConservativeTht

Dear Democrats whining about Democracy: please explain to America how, out of 21 Congressional seats representing the 6 New England states, there are ZERO Republican Representatives, even though 40% of the electorate are registered Republicans, 48% in New Hampshire alone?

English
326
2.9K
10.2K
254.1K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Clay Travis
Clay Travis@ClayTravis·
If you were born in America since roughly 1975, the only systemic racism that has existed in your life is racial discrimination by the state & feds in favor of minority groups. This governmental era of racism to cure racism is ending and Democrats are losing their minds over it.
English
347
2.5K
16.9K
262.2K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Mike Lee
Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee·
“This is a return to Jim Crow,” says the man who literally wants the states to engage in racial gerrymandering
English
1.4K
2.6K
12.9K
130.4K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Geiger Capital
Geiger Capital@Geiger_Capital·
SCOTUS: You can’t draw Congressional districts based on the color of people’s skin. Democrats: this is far-right extremism
Geiger Capital tweet media
English
120
1.7K
10.6K
130.9K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Julia 🇺🇸
Julia 🇺🇸@Jules31415·
Homegrown nuts 🤡
Julia 🇺🇸 tweet media
English
4
60
126
1.8K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
C3
C3@C_3C_3·
So…. “Grants” are just money the government steals from taxpayers and gives to people that hate us. They just needed to give it a nice sounding name. Hoping we wouldn’t notice. Facts.
English
26
256
916
8.3K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
C3
C3@C_3C_3·
The fact that Jimmy Kimmel is not profitable in a business hyper focused on profitability proves he is employed to push propaganda. Jimmy Kimmel is a propagandist and not a comedian. Simple.
English
221
2.1K
13.7K
67.5K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Cynical Publius
Cynical Publius@CynicalPublius·
Let me explain the four major differences between leftwing political violence and rightwing political violence: 1. Rightwing violence comes from the fringes of the conservative movement. Leftwing violence comes from the mainstream of the progressive movement. 2. Conservatives rarely encourage or glorify rightwing violence. Progressives routinely encourage and glorify leftwing violence. 3. Leftwing violence is such a common event that we hardly take notice of it unless it involves assassinating a major political figure--think of how routine Antifa/BLM style destruction of our cities has become. Rightwing violence is notable in its rarity. 4. Leftwing violence is often falsely attributed in the mass media to conservative beliefs. The opposite never happens.
English
346
3.1K
11.6K
249.4K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
C3
C3@C_3C_3·
Once you realize this everything makes sense… Racism is profitable. Homelessness is profitable. Drug Addicts are profitable. Failing schools are profitable. Career criminals are profitable. And on and on… No problem is ever solved if money can be made from the problem.
English
345
3.6K
9.8K
75.9K
Dr. K 🇺🇲⚓ retweetledi
Bill Melugin
Bill Melugin@BillMelugin_·
My thoughts on the security at the WHCD last night. The first exterior security for me was on the street outside of the hotel. I flashed my ticket and was waved through in one second. My name was not checked against any list, I showed no ID, I was not patted down and did not go through a metal detector. I probably could have shown a ticket from a prior year or a fake one as they barely looked at it. (I don't know who that exterior security was, they were guys in suits). From that point, I walked into the hotel with no further security check, and I walked down to the Fox pre-party where there were multiple ballrooms that were absolutely PACKED with attendees. Still did not go through any security at that point. Hypothetically, If I had hidden an explosive in my shoe or my jacket, I would have had no problem getting into one of those ballrooms. Only once it was time to get into the main ballroom for the dinner did we pass through magnetometers, empty our pockets, and get a pat down. And even that checkpoint was just outside of the dinner room. Two things can be true at the same time. Secret Service reacted quickly to an active armed threat and prevented that threat from getting into the ballroom. But the security leading up to that point, in my opinion, appeared to be lacking severely.
English
1.2K
6.8K
27.2K
2.4M