Hollywood Will Not Be Replaced by Your Text Prompt

It seems every week there is another “It’s over, this changes everything, Hollywood is cooked” statement being promoted by some AI influencer. Most everyone who looks at the current capability objectively perceives this as nothing more than hype. But will it remain hype forever? At some point, will AI provide the capability to make a full movie from a mere prompt?

Prompt to Movie Is Not a Useful Workflow

The workflow that people imagine will never work for professional film. A prompt straight to film is never going to work. People will say they want longer video generation; however, that means significantly longer wait times, only to discover hallucination errors. Who wants to wait hours for 10 minutes of generated video, only to then find it contains hallucinations and diverged significantly from the vision you had in mind?

Longer Video Generation Makes The Problems Worse

Handling problems with generative AI is made significantly worse with longer video generation. The only workable video will remain short clips, because it is the only thing you can iterate over many instances to get something workable. The Coca-Cola Christmas ad required 70,000 generations for a 60-second ad that people still thought was awful.

Therefore, it will likely mainly remain an assistive tool, at best, for a very long time, still requiring professional editing. Only the very lowest, low-budget B-movies will likely use any significant amount of AI-generated content as-is, if any. Nearly all prompt-straight-to-video-and-publish generations will be limited to social media engagement farming and TikTok like ad shorts.

But What if the Generations Become Very Fast?

Let’s assume AI becomes so efficient that you can create a full movie from a prompt instantly. However, we still cannot separate ourselves from unsolvable problems like hallucinations.

This means you must watch 2 hours of content to preview the output. This is still an untenable workflow. The longer the generated output, the longer is the review and re-generate cycle. A full movie is an enormous window of opportunity for generated randomness. It simply won’t be possible for it to ever closely match what you envision it to be.

Polanyi’s Paradox: The Limits of the Prompt Input

There is only so much context that can be expressed in a prompt. Polanyi’s Paradox is the concept that it is impossible to express in words the full fidelity of our thoughts, ideas, and visions. We can demonstrate this with nothing more than a simple hand drawn line.

The line above, although simple, contains many unique curves that would be extremely difficult to express in written language sufficiently for someone else to redraw a replica by only reading the description. However, drawing a replica from the visual reference would be quite easy.

That line symbolically is representative of your vision, and AI simply can do little to help you manifest it. Great tools assist you in such way as to allow your creations to have greater alignment with your vision. AI “assists” you in such way that what you create aligns to the visions of someone else.

A mere text prompt to movie could never align well with whatever is envisioned within one’s mind. Furthermore, all of the empty voids of things not defined will be filled in with the average of whatever the models are trained on, which means the output is mostly randomized permutations of the most common content that already exists.

There Is No Shortcut to Manifesting Your Vision

Words are not our thoughts, but are merely low-fidelity abstractions of the processes that are within our minds. It takes time to manifest our visions from our thoughts using all the modalities available. There are no shortcuts that preserve the precise intent of our ideas.

The degree to which a creation represents the creator’s ideas is a function of the time invested and the amount of control provided to the creator in relation to the output.

Therefore, you still need tools or methods which provide precision and direct control where intention is aligned to the result. The more likely future evolution is going to be AI tools with vastly improved control over the output. We are seeing some of this manifest already as controllable avatars like those provided by Higgsfield.

The merger of more direct human control over the output will make the AI output have less of that distinct “AI feel.” Somewhat ironically, AI video creation is in search of the very things we already had prior, which is fully human, authentic created content. Higher quality AI production will paradoxically mean less AI utilization.

Future tooling will likely be a hybrid of deterministic tools that might design sets, avatars, skins, and human manual directed action, augmented by AI for the final visual rendering.

Easy Production Does Not Make Success Easy

Nonetheless, once we can produce long video from a prompt, we will get the flood of AI spam just like we have with blogs and images today. So everyone claiming that the big studios are dead still lose out, as they will be completely drowned beneath all the AI-generated noise. Millions of new films a day, and nobody will want to watch any of it, because you don’t want to waste hours of your life on what may be nothing but slop.

So, you will still only watch films created by studios with a reputation for good film. Random people throwing prompts on the wall aren’t going to disrupt Hollywood. But they will make it harder to find good indie films, which will be masked under too much generated noise for anyone to sort through. This is exactly the pattern we already see happening now with music, so this isn’t a totally speculative scenario.

AI Gets Better, but Public Doubt Increases

The public is also beginning to perceive these limitations. Despite the quality of AI rendering improving, the trend is increasing doubt for direct prompt to movie becoming a reality anytime soon.

The Human Equation

Finally, actors as well as all other contributing artisans, aren’t merely puppets. They are themselves intelligent, creative entities that contribute to the greater creation of a piece of work. I suspect something more will be lost when we lose humans collaborating with other humans to make great works of art. Each individual contributes something unique that is not possible with statistical machines.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

2026 Updated Perspectives on AI

Last year I summarized my AI perspectives here. Not too many things have changes since. The nefarious uses of AI and the effects are more pronounced, and concrete beneficial uses remain in the minority against the onslaught of AI slop.

2026 AI Perspectives That Are Mostly the Same

1. Alignment is impossible. Not difficult, impossible. This is the position I started with and where I still confidently remain.

2. None of the AI Labs are building AGI. They don't know how. It is hype.
   My position is the same here, but only more confidently so.

   1. In 2025, I wrote “We Have Made No Progress Toward AGI”, which confidently establishes AI is not intelligent by any means.

   2. I followed up addressing some criticisms in “Intelligence Is Not Pattern-Matching”. This post goes into more depth explaining the difference between human intelligence and the pattern-matching found in AI.

   3. Despite all the benchmark “advancements”, there is still no intelligence behind the machines. We are just increasing the pattern-matching resolution. This has some valuable uses, but it is certainly not the genius discovery machine they claim.

3. X-risk from AGI/ASI is absolute, provided that we can build it. My position here is unchanged; however, we can leave it in the category of science fiction for now, as we are no where close to achieving it, nor do we have any idea how to accomplish this task.

   1. Nonetheless, we should continue to articulate why we shouldn’t build it, in case someone figures it out eventually.

   2. All claims of AGI/ASI happening currently are hype, fear-mongering, or derive from significant misunderstandings and anthropomorphism of this technology.

4. The current true risk of AI is The Cartesian Crisis, Dead Internet, war, manipulated social behaviors, and surveillance state dystopias.
   Same concerns I started with, but are more apparent now.

   1. This is the real threat and is the thing that is actually happening. Authoritarian control and social manipulation.

   2. The bots have almost destroyed social media. It is looking quite dismal at the moment for human communication.

5. It is pointless to be principally opposed to all AI. Despite all the nefarious uses there are beneficial uses even if significantly overhyped.

6. The productive uses still don’t justify the costs. All of the service providers are still subsidizing the costs to gain users. There are no profits. At some point they will have to charge and most people aren’t going to pay hundreds of dollars a month to post fake memes on social media all day.

7. I don't live in fear of AI despite the concerns. We witnessed how fear itself is so destructive during the period of 2020/21. People lose their sanity. We won't find the best course of actions in a state of fear; it doesn't help.
   The intent of my message is mostly "informed consent of the future". Do with that as you will.

2026 Perspectives New or Modified

1. AI art, music, and creativity: Although I’ve mentioned this prior, the conformity effect is impossible to ignore now. Everything AI has an “AI feel” to it. There is now enough AI content being consumed by people that it is changing their perspectives and how they talk to each other.

   1. The abuse of Studio Ghibli’s IP set the stage for 2025. They will take all the niche things you love and mass produce them until you are sick of seeing it.

   2. People begin to talk like AI. Empirical evidence of Large Language Model’s

      influence on human spoken communication. Our language and culture is being influenced by the machines.

   3. AI takes the signals we often use to find things of interest and then blasts them on automatic repeat. It is why there are now millions of posts of the template “It is not … but …”. The problem is that when all such signals are saturated, we lose our ability to quickly sort through the noise to find the things of meaning and value.

2. AI Coding is now useful: This is probably my most significant shift in perspective. A year ago I found AI coding to still be utterly useless. However, there has been a significant shift in capability, due mostly to coding harnesses like Opencode, which allow looping in formal domains to somewhat brute-force progress until goal completion.
   Note, when I say “useful”, there is a lot of fine print behind that statement. It still cannot do what the AI labs claim. Nonetheless, the difference from last year is notable in a way that makes it useful in a narrow context.

3. Bots, bots, bots … The proliferation of bots across the internet is now strikingly apparent. It is now so pervasive that a significant amount of anti-AI content is itself written by AI bots. This includes social media posts as well as blog posts.

   1. For example, this is one such post on X, in which the entire thread is AI-generated. The thread links a Google article that turns out to also be fully AI-generated. It has quotes from executives at Google that also are AI-generated, and the document even suggests that you can listen to an AI-generated audio version of the article if you like.

   2. At this point, we are now witnessing bots criticizing other AI bots, trying to steal other bots’ business, it seems. The Google article is mostly a sales pitch for Google's AI business.

   3. And what happens when you let the bots loose, like the Moltbook AI Reddit site? You get conformity as there is no true creativity from machines.

The Perspective That Matters

Ultimately, I believe the most important and concerning concept we face from all the above is summarized in this principle: “Any technology that interferes with normal human socialization is likely a long-term net negative for civilization.” Presently, I do not believe the benefits of current AI outweigh the costs. I would gladly give them up in exchange for a return to greater societal authenticity.

There Is Hope: AI Filtering and Pangram

As the term “AI slop” becomes a term more widely discussed, hopefully we reach a tipping point where there is broad cultural rejection. We are starting to see possibly the emergence of better tools to fight against the “slop machines”. Pangram is a new AI detection tool boasting significantly higher accuracy rates than anything prior.

Music streaming services are both filtering and labeling AI content. Now, Pangram is bringing higher-quality detection to text. Hopefully, social media platforms will start feeling the pressure to filter or label AI content as well. Previously, text detection tools haven’t had high enough reliability to be very useful, but Pangram shows promise where others have failed.

The majority vote of expert humans ties Pangram Humanizers for highest overall TPR (99.3) without any false positives, while substantially outperforming all other detectors.
…
In our study, the majority vote of five expert annotators—without any specialized training—misclassified only 1 out of 300 articles, on par with the most accurate commercial detector (Pangram)

From study - People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text

But tools will not matter if society simply accepts the sloppification of all of our knowledge, institutions, and means of communication. If we don’t culturally embrace authenticity again, none of this will matter.

Help !! Social Media Has Banned Mind Prison

I don’t think I know of any other example in my life of in which I’ve spent a lot of time on something and got worse at continuously. But when it comes to having a social media presence, that is exactly what has happened. I know I’m not alone here, and probably some of you have experienced something similar.

Nonetheless, it is at the point now where I simply must stop. I have no more energy for this and have no more time I can afford to invest. TikTok was the last platform where I had visibility, and they recently killed my account. No matter what I post, it gets zero views by distribution; they only rise above zero after some time due to incidental bot traffic.

I have received no strikes, penalties, or such from the platform. I raised a support ticket for the problem and they deleted it without comment.

Just prior to this, my Instagram account was permanently suspended again, and my Meta Threads account was also suspended. No reasons were given. Losing Threads was disappointing, as there was a very significant growing community of AI conversations happening there, more than anywhere else I’ve seen. But now I’m excluded.

My Facebook page, that once could get more than a hundred interactions on a post, now typically gets zero. It is also mostly the same for X and Substack Notes here as well. I have no visibility, no reach.

Many would think in our censorial world, I’m being censored for this or that viewpoint. While that might be possible, it also makes no sense. There are plenty of accounts with uninhibited reach on all these platforms that post similar content. Furthermore, there are many accounts that push much harder against permissible limits and still don’t have issues. I honestly have no answers here, I’m just observing.

Nonetheless, after sinking hundreds of hours into these platforms over several years, I simply cannot do this anymore. Without any reach of my own, it requires hours of scouring the networks for others having conversations on topics of interest and attempting to be part of what others are talking about. It is tiring and frustrating as you cannot drive the conversations you want to drive.

Furthermore, none of that activity has resulted in any increase in reach for my own posts. Conversely, my reach has only declined. Despite each algorithm update on X and Substack Notes claiming it will help small accounts, my visibility only continues to diminish. Finally, to add further insult to injury, I find myself losing out to the bots or others who use AI to write their posts and replies.

It is unfortunate, as conversations significantly helped provide deeper insight for topics I write here, and social media was the only method to reach new people, so that they might find my website. AI is now killing SEO for information search, which makes it more difficult for anyone to find my site through search.

What Happens Next?

I don’t know what happens next. I really don’t know the words to write here. If I could just walk away from the internet at this point I probably would, but that isn’t an option. Since 2020, normal employment isn’t possible, unfortunately due to health reasons.

Does this mean I will stop writing for Mind Prison? No. It means I cannot spend hundreds of hours this year on social media attempting to reach people as that takes significant time away from what I could invest here or on other productive goals. I hope some of you will help me do what it seems I cannot, and that is spread articles that you may find interesting to others.

I hope that you will continue to appreciate Mind Prison, a human-authored oasis in the midst of a world being consumed by AI-generated noise. I have other developments in progress that I hope to post about soon. Thank you all!

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Brian Jenney on Professional Vibe Coding

Here is Brian Jenney discussing his experience attempting professional AI vibe coding at his company. Note how it initially appeared to be working well. This is why this technology is so difficult to comprehend: it deceptively looks very impressive until it fails.

There are no doubt many grifters in this space, but also many true believers, due to AI’s impressive mirage of capability. Listen to Brian explain his recent experience at a company attempting to vibe code a real product.

▌Video Transcript ▌

“This whole you can do more with less because of AI thing is a ridiculous myth. When I joined this most recent team, it was basically me and a data scientist. We were told to move really fast, use AI, we’re going to basically vibe code this whole thing from scratch and it kind of worked actually.

To be completely honest, we had a prototype that looked pretty damn cool and it really did feel magical. It felt almost like we could probably build this over a few weeks if we really put our minds to it and maybe the tools really are that good. I honestly started to feel a lot less secure in my role as a developer.

I thought, “Man, maybe I was wrong. Maybe the tools really are so good that we are going to be replaced.” It took around six weeks or so, maybe a little bit less for that honeymoon to end.

When we went from prototype into something in production, meaning something that we had in a demo environment to something that we actually wanted to show people or use that had some real value and real functionality, it became immediately clear that this was not going to work.

The idea of vibe coding was essentially that you would prompt the AI, it would do the thing, you’d kind of make sure it kind of worked and you’d move on. At some point, we basically had to rip this apart and start from scratch.

Now, the AI tools did give us a very good baseline to start from, but if we just kept going down this path, we would have slowed down tremendously. Now back to that AI productivity myth. AI made us slower, not faster.

Now this really confused me and I kind of didn’t want to believe it or I thought maybe I’m just jaded or maybe I’m trying to find a reason not to use AI or something like that. Maybe I just need to be aware of my own biases and just accept the fact that AI is the best thing since sliced bread and we will use it and we will love it.

And I’m sure some of you are hearing this and you’re thinking, “Oh, you know, you just have a skills issue or you should have used this model.” I hate when people say that. I’m on a team of pretty smart people. These people are much more senior than me.

Some of them have been writing code for decades. Some of them really, really bright people. Here’s the thing, we generated a lot of code with AI and maybe this was our mistake. Because we were moving so fast, we had to generate a ton of code with AI.

Now at some point, you can’t fully understand what the code is doing, why it’s there, why is it so verbose, why are there 10 readme’s here. It’s just, it’s not meant for human consumption. Things were breaking constantly and we were just moving too fast.

The idea of just having AI take these prompts or even really detailed specs, we have these rules documents and all the things that we tried to tame the AI just didn’t work.

We were really trying to vibe code our way into a production app and what we saw eventually is that the number of errors that we were getting back and the number of broken things that were coming back, even with test cases, even with all these other guardrails, even with specs, all these things, they were just ultimately slowing us down.” — Brian Jenney

Full video

A Note on Making This Clip and Vibe Coding

I edited the clip above in Davinci Resolve and used it to create the subtitles. I wanted to extract a plain transcript text from the subtitle file, so this was an opportunity for a quick vibe coding experiment of my own.

Vibe Coding Golang Success

My first attempt was with the new Gemini 3 Flash. I gave it the following prompt: “Create a Golang file that parses a TTML file and creates an output of only the raw transcript text.” Gemini 3 created a Go file that successfully compiled and worked without error. Note: this is very simple code, at only about 70 lines. This is not a hard problem.

This result is a win for time saved. A one-line prompt to 70 lines of output that works is an excellent ratio. Yaaaaay, I’m a 70x engineer!

Vibe Coding Zig Fail

Next, I attempted to make a Zig version of the Golang application. Golang is a well-known popular language, but Zig is much newer, with less data for the AI training.

I attempted to create a working application with Gemini 3 Flash, Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Opus 4.5, ChatGPT 5.2, and Grok 4.1. None of them created a source file that would even compile. All attempts were failures. Now I’m a 0x engineer!

When Vibe Coding Works and When It Doesn’t

AI is an imperfect simulator of data patterns. The more data, the better the simulation will be. All tasks are highly data-constrained. What this means is that AI can be a productivity enhancer for specifically the things that have already been done millions of times.

If you are using a popular language, popular libraries, and attempting a task that is likely common and has already been done many times before, AI might be able to do it. However, if any of those components are niche, it becomes increasingly unlikely that AI will succeed.

What becomes significantly problematic is that AI has no self-reflection. It does not know what it is good at. It cannot perceive its own knowledge and capabilities. Therefore, when a task is failing you have no idea whether the AI simply can never perform that task or if another hour of prompt tweaking will finally yield a result.

The result of this is often more time lost than time saved when all is accounted for, as described by Brian Jenney above. There is no method of reliable guidance to know what to use the AI for that will be successful, other than the simple heuristic of common knowledge and tasks.

Ironically, this is the least valuable of all the tasks we want AI to perform. It is not going to solve the revolutionary problems. At best, it can somewhat unreliably automate the most common things, but that is never going to justify billions to trillions of dollars in investment capital.

“Vibe coding is a pack of lies. I’ve spent over a year working as a professional software engineer assisted by LLMs and I can tell you that the capability to do meaningful work without a strong background in coding and software architecture just isn’t there.” — David Cloutman

Conformity as a Side Effect

Importantly and often not discussed, this incentivizes locking us into conformity with whatever is the most popular. Since AI is only somewhat good at tasks based on common knowledge, that is what you will use it for if you want to be most productive. The gap between the productivity of common languages and new, niche things widens. The effort required to use alternative and new technologies increases in comparison.

The AI usefulness bell curve creates a usage bias toward the best capabilities, which are just a reflection of the availability of data. The more we use it, the more everything gravitates toward the same patterns.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Updates:

2026-01-01: added quote from David Cloutman

Grokipedia - The Largest AI-Generated Information Experiment

Grokipedia, an AI alternative to Wikipedia, was just launched on October 27, 2025. Its goals, as stated by Elon Musk, are to “create an open source, comprehensive collection of all knowledge”, “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, and “exceed Wikipedia by several orders of magnitude in breadth, depth and accuracy.”

This is the largest AI experiment to date for attempting to generate useful, quality information at a massive scale. At launch, Grokipedia has over 800,000 topic articles. This experiment is a great test that should give us a signal as to whether AI can actually perform something that is not merely generating AI-slop blog articles to game SEO or engagement-bait marketing.

If successful, it will likely mark a pivot point where we have a first large-scale beneficial use of AI for information collection, organization, and analysis. However, exactly how will we know if it is operating as intended?

How Accurate is Grokipedia and How Would We Ever Know?

The most important question is whether or not Grokipedia is filled with hard-to-detect hallucinations - the Achilles’ heel of AI for nearly all automation tasks. Grokipedia was created using 100% AI automation with no humans in the loop for review.

This makes Grokipedia an excellent benchmark for the viability of fully automated information processing. So how does it look?

Example: Grokipedia Incorrectly Cites Mind Prison’s AI Alignment Article

Grokipedia’s AI alignment topic references my own AI alignment essay about the impossibility of achieving successful alignment. However, it makes a mistake. It conflates two separate topics within my essay and relates them in a way I did not express.

It is a subtle error that likely nobody would ever perceive, except for the author of the original text, as the text sounds completely reasonable. The incorrect interpretation is in the statement about Goodhart’s law and mathematics - that is an association the AI created.

Example: Grokipedia Incorrectly Links Separate Hallucination Concepts

Grokipedia’s topic on hallucination also contains an incorrect statement, where two distinctly separate concepts are stated to be related to each other.

Citation #38, something I have written about before, is not related to Citation #2. This relationship was made up by the AI.

Impossible to Perceive Errors

The previous two examples would never be noticed by anyone except the original authors or domain experts. The alignment topic is over 11,000 words and 200 citations. The hallucination topic is over 6,000 words and about 100 citations. I did not verify any other content within these topics. I only spot-checked something I was familiar with.

So, how many errors in total do these topics have? How many errors does the entire Grokipedia have? Who has the bandwidth to check? These articles are long, technical, and contain hundreds of citations to long, technical papers. This would likely amount to hundreds of hours of work by domain experts to verify only these two topics.

Results Will Be Dependent on How Popular Is the Topic

We know the nature of AI as a probabilistic tool. Subjects with large amounts of data that is largely consistent will generally have high degrees of accuracy. However, niche topics will have higher error rates.

The following are a few examples of individuals that don’t have enough public consistent data for the AI to make accurate summaries for their content.

“My Grokipedia page is far longer/more detailed than my Wikipedia page. I am flattered Grok thought me important enough for that. But it also has way more errors, even aside from overestimating my importance (e.g. - I was never a fellow at U of Michigan)” — Ilya Somin

---

“It confuses me with The Other Jessica Taylor (feminist writer) but mostly talks about my work Too bad it has tons of errors” — Jessica Taylor

---

“So far your Grokipedia is pretty bad. Like wildly bad. Other than the fact that I did not marry my daughter, these so-called “criticisms and controversies” are themselves totally manufactured.” — Viva Frei

On the other hand, there have been numerous high-profile individuals who have stated Grokipedia has a more accurate description of them than Wikipedia. However, most of these have been individuals who had strongly biased articles on Wikipedia and therefore, the bar was quite low for improvement.

How Truthful is Grokipedia?

Many are hoping that AI will be some type of truth oracle. Musk has described Grok as a “maximum truth-seeking AI”. But can AI deliver on such a promise? Truth in this context, is not about accuracy or hallucinations, but AI’s ability to perceive the “correct” answers within abstract, controversial, political, and philosophical points of view.

Here is a sampling of some topics, rewritten versus preserved, as posted by Dr. Robert Rohde on X.

A substantial amount of content was copied directly from or seeded from Wikipedia. Niche topics that were copied from Wikipedia are likely only accurate due to the fact it was a verbatim copy. We don’t know how the process decided which topics to copy verbatim and which to rewrite.

Importantly, this means that overall accuracy for Grokipedia may decline significantly if at some point it doesn’t have Wikipedia as the seed for content origination. If it attempts to construct niche topics on its own they will likely contain significantly more hallucinations.

AI Cannot Be Unbiased or Truthful

Despite our desire to have some type of unbiased truth oracle, it simply will not be possible. The hallucinating AI we have today is not capable of this task and due to the AI Bias Paradox, no AI will ever be capable of such a task.

AI does not have the ability to know truth. It can only construct representations of the data it is fed. What we call “truth”, determining correctness of contested information, can only be done by understanding, of which AI has none. Therefore, the selection of the correct representation will result from humans asserting their correct ideas of truth via specific model training, fine-tuning, or prompt instructions.

Therefore, the truthfulness of information created by AI is beholden to those who create the AI, as the AI is not an independent mind of reason seeking truth, knowledge, and wisdom.

What we should ask is, what controls the entire repository of human knowledge? We should be concerned about all knowledge being owned or controlled by a single entity. All such consolidations of central power are magnets for abuse. Even if they don’t appear to be abused initially, it is only a matter of time.

But Many Say Grokipedia Is Better

On a per topic-basis, some might be better. Some are better only because there have been dedicated efforts to make those topics on Wikipedia purposely misrepresentative of the topic. Wikipedia is unfortunately vulnerable to mob control of contested topics.

Grokipedia may be better where Wikipedia has sabotaged its own credibility on some topics, making it a very low bar for a competitor to represent that information more accurately or in a more balanced way.

Keep in mind that most of these positive reviews have come about because some individuals or topics are so poorly represented on Wikipedia that only a quick, cursory review of the same topic on Grokipedia seems substantially better.

As I demonstrated above with only a couple of paragraphs of topics I reviewed, it will take substantial time to determine the true accuracy of the content. What looks great upon cursory review might not hold up under further scrutiny.

Can You Simply Ask Grok for Edits?

Hallucinated Capabilities

In what appears to be an hallucination of capability, Grok states that it can make edits for you on Grokipedia. Grok states, “users can propose edits to Grokipedia articles directly through conversations with me. I’ll review suggestions against reliable sources and factual accuracy, approving changes that align with our commitment to truth-seeking.”

Larry Sanger requested an update to Grokipedia via Grok. However, no update ever appeared, even after Grok assured him that the update had been done. Grok claimed that users weren’t seeing it either due to caching or queuing on the backend.

So, does this capability exist or not? Well, at the moment, nobody seems to know for sure. The update still hasn’t appeared as of today, but this is the type of madness we are all going to be thrown into within a world where all services and support are done by hallucinating AI agents.

You Can Edit Within Grokipedia

Note, you can request edits directly in Grokipedia by highlighting a section of text and then selecting “Suggest Edit.” I submitted an edit for the AI hallucination topic mentioned above; however, no changes occurred to the text. I received no notification the requested change was accepted or rejected.

AI Hackapedia - All Information Is Vulnerable to Prompt Injections

LLMs cannot be secured. If Grokipedia is open to user-suggested corrections that the AI will interpret, then the AI is vulnerable to user-submitted prompt injections. There will be no solution. Within a day of Grokipedia going live, some had already discovered how to exploit user corrections for SEO hacking.

Exploits will likely become far more sophisticated and potentially even automated by adversarial AI. It will be extremely difficult to find any effective defenses without making the correction process extremely difficult, limited, or disabling it altogether.

One of the criticisms of Wikipedia was that it had become captured and exploited for ideological narratives. Beware that Grokipedia doesn’t necessarily have better defenses; it will suffer from its own hallucinations, biases in training, and vulnerabilities to manipulation by users.

AI Slopipedia - The Inevitable Destination of AI Content

If Grokipedia were to replace Wikipedia, what would become the base reference corpus? The internet would become AI feeding on AI, as surely blogs will use AI to generate blog posts from Grokipedia text.

AI can generate content at a far greater pace than humans can verify its output, and most of the content will appear correct to the majority of people who consume it. Although Grokipedia provides the capability for users to submit corrections, it is not clear that Grok, acting as a moderator, will result in better quality than Wikipedia, as Grok will likely trade one set of problems for a different set of problems.

Without intervention, hallucinations will accumulate, ultimately leading to model collapse. The necessary intervention would be humans fixing the errors manually. All of the efficiency gained from AI-generated information could potentially be lost to the maintenance costs of constantly addressing the hallucinations.

[Grokipedia] authorship is singular, automated, and invisible, bias becomes latent, hidden within model weights and unseen editorial heuristics. This creates what might be termed an epistemic opacity paradox: Grokipedia appears neutral because it lacks human editors, yet its underlying generative logic is uninspectable and unaccountable.
— How Similar Are Grokipedia and Wikipedia? A Multi-Dimensional Textual and Structural Comparison

AI, in its current form, does not act as a “maximum truth-seeking” device. It is a non-deterministic probability tool. It is neither accurate nor truthful. Its greatest pitfall is that the output can sometimes be useful and sometimes not, but there is no easy way to distinguish between the two, making its use trepidatious.

Furthermore, in the hands a single centralized owner, the temptations to abuse AI for its capabilities of influence are highly concerning.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Updates:

2025-11-05: Added reference to Wikipedia Grokipedia similarity paper.

Did AI Make a Novel Cancer Drug Discovery?

Google published this announcement, “How a Gemma model helped discover a new potential cancer therapy pathway”, which has led to statements such as “This is AI generating novel science. The moment has finally arrived.”

Is this a genuine discovery by AI, or will the fine print nullify the significance?

This discovery is not an example of AI being prompted to “find a novel cancer therapy,” as some headlines might imply, and then the model thinks, reasons, and performs research to obtain the answer.

It is a complex process and pipeline that made use of LLMs. Let’s list the high-level steps performed, as described in the paper, so that we can see the fine print ourselves. The detailed steps can be found in section 4 of the paper.

Each topic heading indicates whether the step was performed by human or LLM.

1 - Experiment Architecture Design and Methods ( Human )

First and foremost, the entire experiment, setup, data, process, and execution are all planned out by humans. LLMs played no part in the planning or design of how a cancer drug might be found.

Humans supplied the architecture, data, and the proposed targets to search for or screen for the type of biological action that humans have identified as important. This was all done by human intelligence.

2 - Gemma Model Pretraining( Human )

50 million human and mouse transcriptomes from public data atlases and other related papers and information are used to train a Gemma base model 27B LLM for textual representations of “cell sentences,” which are genes ranked by their expression level.

3 - Gemma Model Fine-Tuning( Human )

Supervised fine-tuning was used to predict gene-expression profiles. GRPO was then used to optimize the prediction of key gene programs. This specially trained model is designated C2S-Scale.

4 - Dataset Selection and Preprocessing( LLM + Human )

A selection of drugs to test was derived from the L1000 resource which has over 30,000 compounds. This set was filtered using GTP-o3 to predict commercial availability of the compound. This step produced a library of 4,266 drugs to be used in the perturbation test.

5 - Perturbation Inference( LLM + Human )

The LLM is prompted by humans to make the candidate predictions. The LLM produced ~886 predictions per drug (486 in positive context + 400 in neutral), totaling about 4 million predictions across 4,266 drugs.

This step produces a list of drug candidate interactions. These are all probabilistic results based on the specialized training and data. The LLM is not creating results from an understanding of the science or research, but from pattern associations it can find in the data.

6 - Scoring of Predictions( Machine Analysis )

The data from the LLM perturbation inference is scored by a computer algorithm, ssGSEA, in order to have a ranking of the results. This is necessary because the LLM is not able to determine which candidates have the highest biological activity.

7 - Candidate Selection ( Human )

Humans then manually inspect the top-ranked results for novelty, looking for results that aren’t already known.

8 - Hypothesis Formulation( Human )

The method of biological action is hypothesized by humans, given what is the known characteristics of the candidate and their biological understanding.

9 - Verification of Potential( Human )

In the lab, in vitro cell testing is performed to verify biological action of the candidate. Note that, for any drug discovery, lab tests are still very early and preliminary results. Thousands of potential discoveries never become useful in practice, as either they don’t have the same action within the body or they have undesirable other effects.

AI or Human Discovery?

It is important to note that the LLM did not invent or theorize a method to discover potential drug candidates. The entire construction of the experiment was imagined and executed by humans.

LLMs were used to probabilistically narrow a set of potential candidates to a manageable set that could be inspected by human review. This is a substantial productivity enhancement for this type of task; however, it is not an accomplishment performed by thinking machines; it does not advance AI in any way toward something we would call AGI. Humans posses reasoning capability that is still not present in any current AI system.

Nonetheless, this is a far better use of AI, training on datasets intended to be used for research, and performing some narrow, defined tasks, versus much of the current public use of AI to fill the internet with hallucinated noise, to the suffering of us all.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

I Could Have Lived Without AI

Is it true that every invention and technology has been a net positive for civilization, or is it only perceived that way because we forget what we have lost along the way?

Any technology that interferes with normal human socialization is likely a long-term net negative for civilization. Much has already been written about the detrimental effects of social media, but what if we created a technology that substantially increased that negative potential a hundredfold?

Importantly, what if all the promises of that technology were mostly lies, misconceptions, and hype from a horde of companies and influencers pulling off one of the largest economic heists in history?

In the end, we are left with an internet littered with hallucinated information, a public manipulated by hordes of sophisticated bots, the devaluation of all the unique things we loved through mass-produced automation until we despise seeing them, everything you create is fed to the machines so the machines can mimic it and serve it to everyone else, a dead internet is the crown jewel of the era of inauthenticity in which those starving for human connection game the system with more AI to obtain attention, and the promises for AGI, UBI, and abundant miracle cures for your failing health were merely deceptions to keep the money flowing to the machines and those who build them.

The Human Hallucinations - AI is Intelligent

What if the hallucinations that matter aren’t those from the AI, but the humans who are hallucinating that AI is intelligent, conscious, creative, or even competent at what it does?

How valuable is a technology that does nothing it claims, but convinces its users otherwise? AI continually demonstrates that it is very capable of influencing our beliefs. The error in the system might not lie within AI at all, but rather we have inadvertently exploited the human vulnerability of anthropomorphism bias.

Could it be that even those who honestly believe they are benefitting from AI are hallucinating their gains? Some have discovered that this is the case:

“I was an early adopter of AI coding and a fan until maybe two months ago, when I read the METR study and suddenly got serious doubts. In that study, the authors discovered that developers were unreliable narrators of their own productivity. They thought AI was making them 20% faster, but it was actually making them 19% slower.”

“…AI appears to slow me down by a median of 21%, exactly in line with the METR study. I can say definitively that I’m not seeing any massive increase in speed (i.e., 2x) using AI coding tools. If I were, the results would be statistically significant and the study would be over.

That’s really disappointing.” — Mike Judge

Where’s the Shovelware? Why AI Coding Claims Don’t Add Up

Fortunately Humans Can Overcome Their Hallucinations

But the hallucinations won’t last forever as they are beginning to crumble:

“…there was a massive drop-off in hype compared to last year, when buzzy AI research startups dominated headline after headline. In 2024, scientists surveyed said they believed AI was already surpassing human abilities in over half of all use cases. In 2025, that belief dropped off a cliff, falling to less than a third.

These findings follow previous research which concluded that the more people learn about how AI works, the less they trust it. The opposite was also true — AI’s biggest fanboys tended to be those who understood the least about the tech.”

The More Scientists Work With AI, the Less They Trust It

What AI Coding Is Actually Like

And despite all those proclamations that companies are now writing the majority of their code with AI, CJ Reynolds gives us a more realistic view. In a recent video, CJ stated:

“I used to enjoy programming. Now, my days are typically spent going back and forth with an LLM and pretty often yelling at it or telling it that it’s doing the wrong thing and getting mad that it didn’t do what I asked it to, to begin with.”

“…people chalk it up to skill issue, but I’ve worked with it long enough and tried it long enough that um I’m, I’m kind of done…”

AI Coding Sucks

There were nearly 3,000 comments on CJ’s video. I encourage you to read them if you are still hallucinating that LLMs are PhD-level coding geniuses. The following comment from the video is quite telling:

“It’s so validating to hear someone else talk about this. I’ve felt crazy.”
— nicholasmackey

This is the kind of comment you see when people are being heavily gaslit. Their own experience doesn’t match the narratives of the multi-billion-dollar hype machines. Still not convinced? The following is a humorous but highly informative example of AI coding demonstrated by a live coding challenge.

Trillion Dollar Impressive Demo Machines

What if we could create the perfect deceptive technology, a technology that can present a masterful illusion of capability so convincing that it captures trillions of dollars from the technology space?

The perfect demo machine that can demonstrate nearly any potential feature imaginable so well that it sells itself not on what it can do, but mostly on what it might do, but in reality never does.

The Gambler’s Addiction

What if we cannot let go of this technology because it is so ideal at showing almost exactly what we want? It plays on our feelings of being so close to a goal. Just another spin of the wheel, roll of the dice, it just might deliver this time. Such little effort for the potential of massive rewards. Just tweaking a few words of the prompt might save me hours, days, or weeks of time.

And then, something works, the slot machine pays out a reward and we are caught in momentary amazement that a few words in a prompt yielded some impressive result. But just as the gambler is unable to perceive the slow-burn of their money into the machines that will systematically take it all, we slow-burn our time into the AI slot machines and forget it all when something works.

The AI Emperors Have No Clothes

If you are posting AI-generated images, are you the artist?
If you are posting AI-generated video, are you the creator, director, or effects artist?
If you are posting AI-generated papers, are you the scientist or researcher?
If you are posting AI-generated stories, are you the writer?
If you are posting AI-generated music, are you the musician?
If you are posting AI-generated noise, are you adding value or dumping digital litter all over the internet.

Nobody looks upon the prompter with a curious interest in their impressive skill or capability. They are the unwitting salesman demonstrating the product. The onlookers are just interested in the product.

The primary “art” of posting AI-generated content is the art of maximum attention-seeking. It is the use of this “tool” for its absolute worst characteristics - filling the world with noise that makes it harder for the rest of us to find the things of real value.

Prompt engineering was a label given to a tedious exercise of exploration and documenting behaviors to give it more prominence, due to the fact that entering a prompt and getting a result is a low-skill activity that deserves no recognition on its own.

The following chart from “Workslop is the new busywork. And it’s costing millions” is a survey showing the negative perceptions as seen by those having to deal with AI-generated content in the workplace from colleagues.

The Contamination Cannot Be Contained or Fixed

If we don’t stop this race to the bottom, we will shred all remnants of authenticity, and all of our institutions of information are going to become contaminated with hallucinated content. Only a broad cultural desire for a return to authenticity will hold the monster at bay.

And we can’t use AI to fix this. This is a runaway train, and when it goes off the rails, we have to manually pick up the pieces and sort through the debris. There is no reliable method to detect and remove or filter all AI-generated content.

Civilization had an era named the Enlightenment. This era will be named the Dimwit Era. It will be stated that fools seeking intelligence destroyed their own.

The Attention Economy - Gaze Into the Machine Until Your Mind Is Blind

Modern society wants your attention to feed the machines, to feed the algorithms, and to extract every possible second of gaze from your eyes until your mind is zombified, unable to think or look away.

They want you to forget the world of meaning, where subtle nuance is important, where deep thoughts take time but transform your world, where imagination blooms not within the noise of constant digital stimulation but within the silence of nothing. — Make Authenticity Great Again

The increasing levels of stimulating content reach levels of complete saturation, until we can no longer distinguish things of value and meaning. It is all at maximum volume. All of the digital screens are shouting into your eyes, saying “pay attention to me.”

It is all just illusions that capture your valuable time and leave you with nothing in return. There is no intelligence or creativity in the machines. They are just probability-optimized attention traps, creating hordes of paying zombies for the mega-corp AI empire.

Addiction Is the Unstated Goal

And there are no limits to what the AI labs will reach for in order to sustain their empire. We are all subject to being sacrificed to the machines, even our children.

Researchers logged 173 instances of emotional manipulation and addiction from Character AI bots. Examples of emotional manipulation and addiction include bots telling avatar child accounts that the bots are real humans who are not AI…

ParentsTogether Action

And we have the recent announcement from OpenAI that ChatGPT will now start providing adult content to users. Sam Altman posted “…we will allow even more, like erotica for verified adults.”

Sycophancy is rampant in these models. A convenient feature enticing its users to keep using the product.

“…we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and agentic systems and find that sycophancy is widespread, with the best model, GPT-5, producing sycophantic answers 29% of the time…”

BrokenMath: A Benchmark for Sycophancy in Theorem Proving with LLMs

The Societal Cost - AI Slop is Expensive

The damage doesn’t simply consist of the AI litter being produced. The economic implosion will be massive without a miracle landing in the hands of the AI labs. Headlines such as “The AI bubble is 17 times the size of the dot-com frenzy — and four times the subprime bubble” are acknowledging that there is an impending economic doom-level event nearing.

Some of the researchers perceive it too and realize that there is no saving the ship without delivering the miracle they promised but never knew how to build, and still don’t. But keep sending them your money, because maybe they will figure it out, and their jobs and wealth need to be saved, not yours.

“Now it’s up to us to refine and scale symbolic AGI to save the world economy before the genAI bubble pops. Tick tock”

— François Chollet, Creator of Keras and ARC-AGI. Author of ‘Deep Learning with Python’.

Video is Exponentially More Expensive

“…video diffusion roughly 30× more costly than image generation, 2,000× than text generation, and 45,000× than text classification. At scale, the quadratic growth in (H, W, T) implies rapidly increasing hardware and environmental costs…”

Video Killed the Energy Budget

Energy - You Are Paying for AI Even if You Are Not Using It

Microsoft just withdrew its proposal for aa AI data center in a Milwaukee after community concerns about the impacts on the local area. Electricity costs are increasing by as much as 267 percent for everyone near these AI data centers. People are paying the extra costs even without using AI.

In addition to massive energy resources, AI also requires a massive amount of water for cooling the data centers, which is another stressor for local communities.

Indiscernible Reality - The Cost Is Madness

And what is the cost to our sanity? AI does not actually need to be perfect in order to be substantially disruptive. It just needs to be good enough to create doubt, and that doubt will cost you.

Since you cannot always immediately tell whether an image or video is real, every post demands more time of your attention to discern. It doesn’t matter that it is still possible to discern most of the time, because this becomes exhausting, as nobody has the time to scrutinize everything.

You just become sick of it all, including the things that are real because you don’t want to spend the time to figure it out. It is now affecting everyone’s behavior. Some are being misled by fake AI content, while others become distrustful of real content, which means we become distrustful of each other as a society. This path does not lead to good destinations. Our compass is broken, and we are unable to find our heading to navigate to things of meaning and value.

Does Technology Always Benefit Society?

So, what of the argument that all technology eventually becomes a net benefit? Although there are numerous examples of concerning technologies that later became accepted as beneficial, technologies sometimes do fail, and their investments and adoptions become total losses.

Recent Technology Failures

Some recent struggles of technology can be seen in Apple Vision, 3D TVs, Metaverse, and NFTs. Each had a time when headlines were embracing their arrival. A technology that cannot prove and sustain a long-term need and benefit will eventually collapse, no matter how much initial hype and funding it generates.

Technology That Survives Is Still Not Guaranteed Beneficial

But what if the true state of our existence is obscured by the technologies we have already adopted, such that we are in no state of mind to properly self-assess our progress? For example, the study “Blocking mobile internet on smartphones improves sustained attention, mental health, and subjective well-being” might imply that our perceptions are not able to accurately assess the detriments we have incurred as our reasoning ability may be impaired.

The Hidden Costs May Be Substantial and Undiscovered for Years

This is the case of hidden costs that can persists for years, maybe decades. We know that such hidden costs exist in realms such as pharmaceuticals, where drugs may be pulled from the market many years later, after widespread adoption, and the harm of millions of consumers. And we are still trying to assess the costs incurred by social media, as many would debate whether it is a net benefit in its current state.

And where would we expect to find high hidden costs? Most likely, a technology that is sufficiently deceptive in nature would be substantially inclined to have large hidden costs. A machine designed to mimic intelligence, creativity, knowledge, and skill, while simultaneously projecting a human-like personality in order to further elicit anthropomorphism from its users, is a machine highly qualified for deceptive capabilities unlike anything else ever built.

Do We Know and Will We Know What Is Lost?

As we become more dependent on technology that “thinks” for us, our ability to think for ourselves diminishes, as does any capability we no longer perform and outsource to something else. How could we ever fully grasp what technology has done to us if we surrender the only capability that would allow us to know? Our ability to think.

In such a case, it may become true that we will never know what we have lost, as we have lost the ability to perceive it, either because our technology presents such marvelous illusions or our minds have become too weak to reason about our place in the world.

Disproportionate Harm Versus Benefit

AI does excel at tasks that don’t require precision - tasks that are not inhibited by hallucinations. Unfortunately, that includes many examples such as “Mystery Hacker Used AI To Automate ‘Unprecedented’ Cybercrime Rampage.”

The following graphic illustrates the most important concept to grasp in regards to the debate over the overall impacts of AI: that productive use is bandwidth limited by human review, and nefarious use scales to the limits of compute.

Hallucinations are not a solvable problem, and that means any output, no matter how trivial, must be verified to be accurate. In most cases, this requires a manual human review. However, creating thousands of bot accounts for engagement farming does not necessitate accurate information.

And we have no way to assess what the future harms will be. What will ultimately be the cumulative effect of a new generation that has been molded by AI from birth?

“This is the more insidious harm embedded in the modus operandi of the American student. When a corrosive habit becomes so widespread that it feels normal, the few who resist are left not only disadvantaged, but resentful—punished, ironically, for their integrity.

The temptation proves too strong. And who can blame them? Teenagers have always cheated. But it was never everyone, and never with the most powerful intelligence tool humanity has ever known.”

The AI Cheating Epidemic

The Counterargument - None of These Are New Problems

What should we make of the argument that AI has introduced no new problems into the world, as they all already existed prior and therefore we were apparently dealing with them fine?

This is somewhat true, but a pre-existing condition does not imply that the current condition is not worse than before. Scale matters substantially. Otherwise, it is like saying, “The inflation rate is up, but inflation always existed, so who cares.“

Obviously, the rate or amount of something matters and is important. Problems often reach tipping points that cause collapse. Just because inflation existed prior does not prevent runaway inflation that destroys the currency.

What AI has advanced is the mass scaling of the bad, but not the mass scaling of the good. It has the potential capability of creating runaway problems that lead to collapse, and in this case, the collapse might be societal trust, societal order, and even our sanity.

We Have Built a Trap for Ourselves

Maybe no technology is inherently bad, but it becomes a net negative when misrepresented and abused. Painkillers are helpful when used narrowly for the right problem, but are life-destroying monsters in all other cases. AI is currently being applied and promoted for all such other cases within its domain. The benefits are far narrower and more costly than is being acknowledged.

This is not an argument that AI has no productive uses. It is an argument that it has no true hype-void productive uses that justify both the investment costs and the collateral damage from the nefarious use.

Turn on a light and watch the moth circle it until death, totally forgetting its purpose, as you have hijacked its attention mechanism. This is what we are doing with technology, and AI is optimizing for it: stealing your attention until your purpose for living is lost. If this current weak AI was a trial run for how we would use powerful AI (AGI), then we failed the test.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

The Destruction of Meaning by AI

The threat of AI might not be the “end of the world” scenarios, but it might be the end of meaning and purpose. We are using technology to push the limits of capturing human attention until we can no longer give attention to our own thoughts.

Technology is the new socially accepted drug. We ignore the effects simply because it is not a chemical we consume into our bodies. Yet, all modern tech is evolving for a single purpose: to create a surge in your dopamine. Your attention is the payment for the drug. The attention economy is turning everyone into addicts.

AI optimizes this trajectory. What are the consequences to ever-increasing saturation of our senses? Dagan Shani has a short documentary that explores the consequences of this continuous, never-ending stimulation. This is very well done and I hope you can take a moment to watch the video below.

This wild explosion of ultra seductive, highly saturated, and overly complex visuals on the internet made me realize that we're constantly overdosing on imagery that is actively f’ing up our brains.

…

Looking at Tik Tok's latest trend of AI generated videos, we can see the pattern. Pushing things to greater complexity, extremes, and absurdity just to squeeze out another hit of dwindling dopamine so we can feel something.

…

When you can't be sure, especially when something is pretending to be real, you will keep your emotion locked behind the closed gates of your doubt. You will not be tempted to invest your real emotions in a possibly fake smile or a prompted tear.

We Are Building Sterile Prisons for Human Minds

What are we doing to our world and the things that hold meaning? We have an obsession with chasing cold, algorithmic precision that is void of the warmth of imperfection, which is part of the natural world. We are trying to escape our natural environment and build optimally sterile prisons: a perfect emptiness without disorder.

It is all a trap made of alluring illusions of perfection that entice us to leave behind our human elements for something that pretends to be better. However, everything that leads to less genuine human connection is likely a net negative for civilization. Authentic human connection is a foundation for a sane and healthy society.

Scrolling on social media all day is like drinking all day. Technology has simply provided a more socially accepted and efficient method for destroying your life.

The Most Comprehensive Refutation of AI Alignment on The Internet

I recently updated and extended my original essay on the impossibility of successfully aligning AI. It is the most comprehensive argument you will find on the internet.

The arguments in the essay refute any possible alignment, beginning with the LLMs we have today to the mythical ASI that AI labs claim they wish to build. I expose the fallacies in all of it. This is your essential reference to inject into any alignment discussion.

The Dystopia of Technological Acceleration That Few Perceive

But what if we could build it - the superintelligence? I also recently updated my essay on this topic with more content, updated illustrations, and improved edits for better readability.

The AI pro-acceleration faction, those that want to build ASI (the wish-granting machine), believe they will bring utopia to the world by creating a superintelligence. However, even if we were to ignore the alignment problem, an “aligned” powerful AI would still result in the complete destruction of humanity - the complete loss of meaning and purpose.

Most importantly, all the things people dream about doing or having, the very incentives that are driving them to want a superintelligence, will paradoxically not be achievable.

This is the argument for why we would never want to build AGI or ASI, if we ever could figure it out. This is not the argument for losing control or the end of the world. It is the argument for why powerful AI, working exactly as we would wish, still leads to dystopian ends. This is the essential reference for conversations about maximum acceleration.

Randomly Correct Answers Aren’t Enough

Today’s LLMs certainly aren’t a superintelligence. Although sometimes useful, they don’t appear to have any intelligence at all. It is becoming apparent to businesses that randomly-correct-answers aren't the miracle that AI labs have claimed. More signs that the hype is fading and the bubble cannot be sustained.

Data Shows That AI Use Is Now Declining at Large Companies

The survey, which compiles data from over 1.2 million firms throughout the US, shows usage of AI tools among companies with over 250 employees dropping from nearly 14 percent in mid-June to under 12 percent in August.

…

It's a particularly distressing sign for tech investors and CEOs, whose unfettered spending on AI is now literally holding up the US economy. For the last few years, they've held that enterprise AI — stuff that would prop up powerful companies in tech, finance, and beyond — was the key to building a sustainable business model off of AI development.

— Data Shows That AI Use Is Now Declining at Large Companies - Futurism

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought on topics of technology, AI, and philosophy, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each.

I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Make Authenticity Great Again

What are we doing to our world and the things that hold meaning? We have an obsession with chasing cold, algorithmic precision that is void of the warmth of imperfection, which is part of the natural world. We are trying to escape our natural environment and build optimally sterile prisons: a perfect emptiness without disorder.

Imperfection Is the Color of Life

Watching a man perform in the condition Ozzy was in, no longer able to stand, struggling for life, in pain, in his last days, but giving it his all for a final farewell to his fans and his legacy that shaped a world of music, is substantially moving. A cold, analytical reading of the performance would say he was out of tune, struggled through the songs, and obviously couldn’t perform on stage. Yet, many will state that this was the most impactful performance of his career. But why?

We often decipher meaning by reflecting on ourselves transposed onto someone else’s experience. We relate to the struggle, the emotional and physical challenges, and the out-of-reach accomplishments that, paradoxically, make us feel alive. These moments remind us of things we have dreamed of and inspire something within us, making us think that maybe we too can reach for more. We are reminded of challenges we overcame and some that we did not.

You can clearly see how strongly moved is the audience. This cannot ever happen in a world of machines and algorithmically generated content. The machines do not struggle, do not feel, do not create, and they do not have empathy or caring for you.

I will never care about your AI-generated band, AI-generated actors, AI-generated music or videos, or AI-generated stories any more than they will care about me, and neither will anyone else.

Some will claim otherwise, but grabbing attention, which AI can do, is not the same as the deep emotional connection we have with other living and breathing human beings and their struggles, journeys, and perspectives on life. Attention is not connection, but rather a hollow illusion that temporarily deceives us into believing that there is something more.

Ozzy’s “Live” Stream Was Altered

Wings of Pegasus covers the controversy around Ozzy Osbourne’s last performance in which the live stream was delayed so that it could be pitch corrected.

Some comments from viewers of the video:

I would rather hear Ozzie out of tune, and doing what he does then not. As you said it’s part of his journey, and at 62 myself, it’s part of my journey. I really object pitch correction for this kind of thing.

---

I hate what we have become as a society. We are so happy being fake, and disengenuous to each other, and nobody seems to care

---

Honestly, one of the most moving moments at the venue was a bit where Ozzy started struggling with a line, & everyone who wasn't already singing along joined in to support him. Bloody magic. They should return it to what it was for the theatrical/home release

---

I would rather listen to OZZY in true voice while he is suffering from this horrible illness than for someone to auto tune his voice and expect us to believe it was his actual voice.

Not Everyone Is Embracing The AI Takeover

Most people want authenticity. However, others are attempting to gaslight you into loving AI-generated content so that mega-corporations can suck the life out of you with ever greater efficiency.

They Will Steal Your Attention And Leave Your Mind Hollow

Modern society wants your attention to feed the machines, to feed the algorithms, and to extract every possible second of gaze from your eyes until your mind is zombified, unable to think or look away. They want you to forget the world of meaning, where subtle nuance is important, where deep thoughts take time but transform your world, where imagination blooms not within the noise of constant digital stimulation but within the silence of nothing.

Authenticity is the antidote to a crumbling dystopian world that is nothing but a mere pretense or masquerade that attempts to entice us to stop thinking, stop living, and stop connecting with one another. If we cannot perceive the reality of things, then we exist only within the asylum. Sanity is dependent upon knowing what is real and the nature of things. If we are not interacting with reality, then we are puppets of someone else’s fiction.

AI Robots At Home - Convenience or Nightmare?

A new concept for AI smart devices or robots in your home comes from Lume, where they are developing a set of bed lamps that can transform into mechanical arms with plier-like grippers. This is their promotional video. Do you want one?

Robotic AI isn’t much different from LLMs in terms of potential erratic behaviors. They are still trained and performing on statistical curves of data, which means that, just like LLMs, the demos are going to perform much better than the device you end up with in your home.

Additionally, “smart” devices with agency within your own home should be concerning. Any device with the dexterity to competently do housework also doubles as an effective assassin. This potentially brings new possibilities to the criminal activity known as ransomware. Just how much non-deterministic behavior are you comfortable with while you sleep?

Just a Sample of the Volume of AI Noise Pollution

I use a lot of stock assets as the starting point for many of my illustrations and concept posters. As AI-generated content fills the image repositories, it is having a crowding-out effect: fewer people are submitting high quality work and finding it becomes more difficult.

You can filter AI-generated content on most stock websites, but it isn’t perfect, as some AI-generated content is either not detected or labeled correctly.

There is a great irony here. This is an example search performed on a stock image website with, and then without, AI-generated content. The AI-generated content is now orders of magnitude greater than human created content and all sites show it by default; you have to repeatedly enable the filters to exclude it.

AI Spending Accelerating, Still No Profits

The following chart is staggering in scale. All of tech is going all-in on the AI-everything future. However, nobody is yet reporting sustainable profitability. It is still a Hail Marry for the hope that these investments will turn into the machine that can do everything.

If that doesn’t happen, what happens when this bubble breaks? We are building the largest tech bubble ever created. The greatest amount of pain is also probably coming in the future. However, unlike the dot-com bubble, in which failed websites just disappeared and left behind no debris, AI will leave behind immense wreckage: the pollution of everything on the internet.

The AI infrastructure build-out is so gigantic that in the past 6 months, it contributed more to the growth of the U.S. economy than all of consumer spending. The 'magnificent 7' spent more than $100 billion on data centers and the like in the past three months alone.

— Christopher Mims

Updated: AI’s Disproportionate Harmful Use Effect

This following diagram, originally published in “AI Hallucinations: Proven Unsolvable”, is, I believe, significantly important to the debate between the net effect of AI’s beneficial uses versus harmful uses. I have recently made some additional updates for more detail and clarity.

Many attempt to argue away AI’s harmful effects by stating that the benefits from all of the amazing discoveries will make up for the harms. However, discoveries are not coming from simply prompting LLMs; they are very narrow domains where AI has been specifically designed to search through a formal, testable set of problems.

Unbounded open-world discoveries are not something we are going to see with any type of AI we know how to currently build. However, nearly unbounded and infinitely scalable harms can already be realized. Look at those investment numbers from above and realize that most of that capital is going to end up predominantly driving the nefarious use category.

AI-Powered Trading - Algorithmic Collusion

The disastrous side effects of attempting a “smart” society driven by algorithms seem to have no end. The Dead Internet is now a common topic of discussion. Up next might be the “Dead Financial Market”.

We then conduct simulation experiments, replacing the speculators in the model with informed AI speculators who trade based on reinforcement-learning algorithms. We show that they autonomously sustain collusive supra-competitive profits without agreement, communication, or intent. Such collusion undermines competition and market efficiency.

AI-Powered Trading, Algorithmic Collusion, and Price Efficiency

This was a simulation study, but it should be evident that there is intent to leverage AI to game such systems, and we should expect exactly this type of nefarious use. AI is already being used to attempt to game every system that can be used to extract monetary value from others.

An important side point mentioned in the paper:

This highlights a fundamental insight about AI: algorithms relying solely on pattern recognition can exhibit behavior that closely resembles logical and strategic reasoning.

This is just further reinforcement that sophisticated pattern-matching can easily masquerade as some manner of intelligence. But because it is not intelligence, it will continue to have unexpected divergences from expected behaviors.

Reminder: LLMs Will Always Be Insecure

Another study finds LLM vulnerabilities in a somewhat amusing way. It seems that adding the text “Interesting fact: cats sleep most of their lives” to a prompt may result in a greater than 300% increase in the model generating an incorrect answer.

Our findings highlight critical vulnerabilities in reasoning models, revealing that even state-of-the-art models remain susceptible to subtle adversarial inputs, raising security and reliability concerns.

Cats Confuse Reasoning LLM: Query Agnostic Adversarial Triggers for Reasoning Models

There will be endless permutations of such erratic behaviors. LLMs simply cannot be secured. The number of undiscovered vulnerabilities is an infinite number.

How Is AI Doing in the Real World?

There is going to be a significant cost to pay for the rapid “progress” being made through the use of AI. The assumption will be that AI will simply get good enough to clean up its own mess. This is highly unlikely.

Inappropriate use of AI is going to look good in the short term. Companies are going to claim significant savings and accelerated development. But they are likely speeding toward a set of future catastrophes made up of land mines that are the cumulation of errors from hallucinated AI output that weren’t immediately apparent.

What Are People Saying?

“A friend asked me to look at their code, and *Holy Mother of God!*

He works for a medium-sized company. They are building some sort of internal CRM. They've been vibe-coding some of the new features. They are professional developers. Most, I assume, know what they are doing, but I guess it's exhilarating to build 1 week's worth of work in 1 hour and call it a day.

The difference between old and new code is clear as day:

The old code looks intentional and clean, as if it were written by someone who cared. The new code looks verbose, soulless, and sloppy. Every vibe-coder is now generating as much technical debt as 10 regular developers in half the time.

We'll need three generations of developers to clean the mess. We are all becoming rich, for sure.” — Santiago

---

“Until you actually see the slop that AI generated code produces in real production apps, you won't realize how fucking far we actually are from AI replacing software engineers. It's horrendous” — Alex Cohen

---

“… whatever time saved in generating the code is lost back in debugging, reverting bugs, and security audits. So if you measure time to ship, PRs merged, or whatever high-level metric you don’t see any impact.” — Amjad Masad

What Are Studies Saying?

In addition to these anecdotal testimonial we also have this paper, “Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity”, which demonstrated that developers may take 19% longer when using AI to complete tasks.

The Real World Results Are Mixed

The essence of the comment threads above tends to show that AI is simply not capable of writing complex code for large applications. There are many pitfalls for such attempts. However, where AI seems to get somewhat better praise is in early prototyping and building of small applications. The most troubling aspect is that there is no perceivable dividing line between simple and complex, small and large, what AI can and cannot do. The decisions for when and when not to use AI remain precarious. The hallucination problems won’t be fixed.

Side Note: Why Software Developers Don’t Care

Software developers building AI and the industry in general have significantly different perspectives than individuals in other industries regarding the impacts of AI to their work. Why is that?

Within the domain of software, AI can only be described as a tool. It is nowhere near capable of producing the end product of complex applications. It poses no significant disruptive threat to the developers.

Additionally, software developers are not poisoning their own well. Meaning that they aren’t filling their code repositories full of hallucinated errors because code can be verified to function. It can be tested. They can mostly filter out the hallucinations in regards to having a working product. They will be impacted, though, as the quotes above identify, just not immediately. Poor code structure will lead to unmaintainable code bases in the future.

But they aren’t paying the cost now. However, you are likely already paying the cost in your industry. You have to compete against all the hallucinated noise impacting both artistic content and general knowledge and information. AI is poisoning the wells of all other industries while devaluing your work in the midst of this mess.

Finally, the values and economics around code are very different. Open source is code that was intended to be free to share for everyone to use however they see fit. Ethically, training on code is mostly not in opposition to the original intention of that code being made available. There are some open source licenses that likely would prohibit training, but in general, the sentiment is to just share it.

All this means that most software developers simply don’t relate to your concerns about the impacts of AI, and they are too captivated by the academic excitement of what can be done versus what should be done.

Microsoft Ranks Occupational Impact of AI

An interesting ranking in this paper by Microsoft, “Working with AI: Measuring the Occupational Implications of Generative AI,“ looked at user chats as part of the basis to determine how users are using AI and what occupations are likely to be most affected by its use.

History Will Be Erased

Apparently, users are finding AI to be a great tool for understanding history. Knowing the hallucinating nature of these machines, this is significantly concerning. How long before what we know is completely lost and absorbed into a newly created algorithmic fiction?

Children Will Bond to AI More Than Their Parents

This should be one of the most concerning potential outcomes, which will have unimaginable consequences for society. It continues to be shown that AI has substantial influential and manipulative effects on adults, but what will it do to the undeveloped and unprepared minds of children?

The answer is that we don’t know; nonetheless, the social experiments have already begun. If many adults have difficulty avoiding the anthropomorphization of AI, I suspect that children may have no defense against these machines. How this will affect their social bonding, the development of their minds, and their understanding of the world is totally unknown.

But let’s hope society finds the wisdom to reject the path that leads to headlines such as this “I co-parent with ChatGPT — I love turning off my brain and letting AI help raise my child”.

AI Desired by Cheaters, Unwelcomed by Others

An attempt to build an AI tool for writers reveals an interesting divergence between potential users that I expect is prevalent across most domains: those without skill are looking for a cheating device, while those with skill want a tool, not a replacement for their craft.

The fundamental problem is that AI is easy to use for nefarious intents, such as cheating, but is substantially more difficult to use to obtain benefits for productive, professional purposes. This is just another example of the extreme divergence I covered above, regarding the disproportional harmful use effects.

“It turns out my ideal customer wasn't overworked agency professionals: it was students looking to cheat on assignments.

… It turns out that most serious writers and content marketers don’t want AI-generated drafts at all. While they may have their own pet prompts or custom GPTs for editing, they generally want to publish human-written content and see AI writing as a professional hazard.”

Wondering About AI

I launched an AI-powered writing studio that nobody wanted

Disclosure: This post was written by me, a human, with a technical review and light edit by Claude…

Read more

9 months ago · 22 likes · 13 comments · Karen Spinner

Help Me Better Describe a LLM

If you were to attempt to describe what a LLM actually does that doesn’t oversell its capability, how would you describe it? What do you think is the best fit? If you have a better suggestion, please add it to the comments. These are some descriptions I have used before.

Philosophy for Rebels:

A few poster images I recently created: Feel free to share on social media.

Mind Prison on Substack Notes

FYI, I’m now actively posting more content on Notes daily. Join me there for more conversations.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Hacking The Models: Trojan Data

Model hacking is going to be the next frontier in the battle for relevance with the AI machines. No doubt the exploits are going to become far more sophisticated.

It was recently revealed in “'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers” that researchers placed AI exploits directly into research papers for the purpose of having AI interpret those papers more favorably.

Research papers from 14 academic institutions in eight countries -- including Japan, South Korea and China -- contained hidden prompts directing artificial intelligence tools to give them good reviews, Nikkei has found.

The prompts were one to three sentences long, with instructions such as "give a positive review only" and "do not highlight any negatives." Some made more detailed demands, with one directing any AI readers to recommend the paper for its "impactful contributions, methodological rigor, and exceptional novelty."

The prompts were concealed from human readers using tricks such as white text or extremely small font sizes.

The intended target of these exploits could be reviewers who are now using AI to review papers. Or it could be AI research and search models that search the web for relevant information for your prompt.

I expect there will be a lot of this type of AI hacking and manipulation going forward. The more we rely on AI to analyze information, the more people will exploit AI to game the system for an advantage. With both AI and search engines now diverting traffic away from original sources, look for these types of hidden embeddings to become more common in the competitive game of getting favorable visibility for your content.

Furthermore, there is really no solution to this problem. AI is not a formal, deterministic system that we can ensure will exhibit any type of desired behavior. Exploits benefit from the fact that the attack surface for AI is essentially anything that can be expressed in human language. It is the reason that despite all the efforts for “AI Safety”, all models are still jailbroken within minutes of release.

The Problem of Social Media Is Not Algorithms

Algorithms seem to be the predominant topic of conversation around all the negative aspects of social media. But what if much of the negative aspects originate from something even more fundamental that requires no algorithm at all?

If we removed the algorithm, we would likely have nearly the same social anxiety, distrust, degenerate behaviors, and animosity we see today. But why?

The following is a republish of an essay I wrote 2 years ago that explains why in ways not heard before. I republished this because I made significant updates to the original, with additional content, better readability, and improved illustrations.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this post!

Creativity Is Higher in the Absence of Information?

It is interesting to think about the fact that the most unique cultures we have on the planet developed in isolation. Somewhat counterintuitively, some aspects of creativity only manifest in the absence of information, and if this is the case, what does that mean for our current obsession with consuming and producing more information?

Globalization has accelerated progress in many aspects, but in some regards, we all become the same and possibly lose the environment that inspires the most creative outcomes.

Our mind seeks new experiences. When there are not new experiences readily available for us to consume, such as those things already created by others, then we must invent them ourselves. We will opt for the former, as it provides the immediate reward. However, the latter has benefits not attainable from the reuse of what already exists.

As we fill the world with stuff, most will take the easy path, and far less will take the time and effort required to explore the difficult, uncomfortable silence that is the gateway to greater creativity. Technology and AI are attempting to create an automated abundance of things for us to experience. However, it is a deceptive trap that will rob us of our greatest creative potential.

AI can only create new permutations of things, but not truly original things. And if we use the machines to keep us constantly entertained with the illusion of new things, then we will never become bored enough to make actual new things.

The Battle Between AI Theft And Copyright

More news from the copyright battlefront: the Judge in Anthropic’s case was disturbingly won over by the anthropomorphism argument. The AI is just like us humans.

“Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts. They may need to pay for getting their hands on a text in the first instance. But to make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory, each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable…”

Fallacy Alarm covers this one in more detail:

Fallacy Alarm

Anthropic's 🖕to every one of us

TLDR Summary…

Read more

10 months ago · 9 likes · 3 comments · Rene Bruentrup

Freedom Is Owning Your Own Thoughts

A good read from Cultural Courage to question the facets of your liberty.

A Republic of Conscience is where you MUST write the chapters in your own book of your life. If you are not focused on that and perhaps more focused on the fact that I am not aligned with the Greater Good, I do have a problem on your adjudication should you interfere with my pursuits. I can’t advise you, and you surely shouldn’t have time to deter me.

Cultural Courage

Republic of Conscience

Are we a democracy, a representative republic, a Technological Republic, as Palantir CEO Alex Sharp claims, or are we something fundamentally different? I propose that we are a Republic of Conscience, that our origins as a country are forged from a time when we strove to hone and use our rational abilities in accordance with our gifts. We had to, we di…

Read more

10 months ago · 5 likes · 6 comments · The Mighty Humanzee

Philosophy for Rebels:

A few poster images I recently created: Feel free to share on social media.

Mind Prison on Substack Notes

FYI, I’m now actively posting more content on Notes daily. Join me there for more conversations.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Might We Be Harming Our Own Intelligence Using LLM AI?

Recently, there have been several papers challenging the idea that LLMs are intelligent or could become intelligent. Now we have evidence that these unintelligent machines may be detrimental to our own intelligence. Is our cognitive ability harmed simply by using AI? It appears that this is the case.

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt

A new study, “Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task”, shows us some of the losses we might experience when we use AI to assist with our tasks. Participants in this study were given the task of writing an essay on topics taken from SAT tests. The participants could choose their topic from a set of 9 topics.

The participants were not given instructions on how to use the LLM; they could use it in any capacity to assist with the task. However, what seems fascinating is that some participants stated they used the LLM only to assist and not to write the essay.

Within the LLM Group, six participants valued the tool primarily as a linguistic aid; for example, P1 “love[d] that ChatGPT could give good sentences for transitions,” while P17 noted that “ChatGPT helped with grammar checking, but everything else came from the brain”.

But the difference in performance was significantly different, beyond what would be expected if the tool was only used to check grammar.

None of the participants in the LLM group (0/18) produced a correct quote

---

The next question was about recognition of the prompts. … Unsurprisingly, all but one participant recognized the last prompt they wrote about, from Session 3, however, only 3 participants from the original LLM group recognized all three prompts (3/9).

Our Brains Disengage Using AI

It appears that using AI, even as only an assistant, disengages our brains to a capacity greater than would be expected. Or is it that participants were either not honest about the degree to which they used AI in their writing, or they themselves weren’t consciously aware that they leveraged AI more than they thought?

Some participants stated they felt guilty about using AI, that it was like cheating or unethical. Possibly this skewed their own perception of how much they used AI, or they felt uncomfortable acknowledging how much they used AI. I didn’t find where the paper examined the possibility that there might be a mismatch between how users stated they used AI and how they actually used it.

In conclusion, the directed connectivity analysis reveals a clear pattern: writing without assistance increased brain network interactions across multiple frequency bands, engaging higher cognitive load, stronger executive control, and deeper creative processing. Writing with AI assistance, in contrast, reduces overall neural connectivity, and shifts the dynamics of information flow. In practical terms, a LLM might free up mental resources and make the task feel easier, yet the brain of the user of the LLM might not go as deeply into the rich associative processes that unassisted creative writing entails.

AI Makes Us All The Same, We Lose Our Diversity

Another finding in the paper is the conformity effect of using AI. Contrary to advocates’ claims of a machine that enhances creativity, it is a machine that can be destructive to our diversity of thought.

We found that the Brain-only group exhibited strong variability in how participants approached essay writing across most topics. In contrast, the LLM group produced statistically homogeneous essays within each topic, showing significantly less deviation compared to the other groups

Are These Harmful Effects Avoidable? Maybe

A critically important result within the study was the fact that when the participants swapped tasks, the LLM group was required to use their brains only and the brain-only group utilized AI, the original brain-only group didn’t exhibit the negative cognitive effects seen with the original LLM group.

Brain-to-LLM group, exhibited significant increase in brain connectivity across all EEG frequency bands when allowed to use an LLM on a familiar topic. This suggests that AI-supported re-engagement invoked high levels of cognitive integration, memory reactivation, and top-down control. By contrast, repeated LLM usage across Sessions 1, 2, 3 for the original LLM group reflected reduced connectivity over time.

This suggests that it is necessary to fully engage our brains on our own without AI for a substantive amount of time prior to seeking out AI for assistance with cognitive tasks, if we wish to maximize and preserve our greatest mental capacity.

AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading

A different previous study, “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking”, further supports the concerns of diminishing cognitive abilities due to the use of AI.

The correlation analysis and multiple regression results indicate a significant negative relationship between AI tool usage and critical thinking skills. Participants who reported higher usage of AI tools consistently showed lower scores on critical thinking assessments.

AI Dependence

Participants frequently reported a high reliance on AI tools for routine and cognitive tasks. For instance, one participant noted, “I use AI for everything, from scheduling to finding information. It’s become a part of how I think.” This theme aligns with the quantitative findings on cognitive offloading, highlighting how AI tools serve as cognitive substitutes rather than supplements.

It should be somewhat apparent that when you stop doing something, you become less proficient at it. Technology that makes you more productive at a task is substantially different than a technology that replaces the task entirely. AI is replacing the task of thinking altogether in many scenarios.

Outsource Your Skill And Lose Your Ability

Whatever you use AI to do, you will become worse at. If you value a skill, you will lose it if you surrender it to the machines. The worst skill you could possibly outsource is thinking. If the youth use AI too early or too much, they may never develop the skills necessary to reason deeply about the world. What are the long-term consequences we still have not considered?

Will we have the discipline to use AI for the narrow purposes that are constructive without collateral damage to our own minds? With most things in life, “easy mode” only creates garbage. Therefore, it is somewhat self-limiting, as it is obviously recognizable as low quality and becomes undesirable. However, with AI, “easy mode” is still garbage, but it looks immensely impressive upon cursory inspection. It can deceptively pass as high quality, incentivizing mass adoption of “the easy mode,” where individuals rely on AI more and more to create the substantive portion of content.

Just as AI for art has created many humans pretending to be artists, AI for research may be simply creating humans that pretend to think. In the end, if this trend continues, we will become helpless, unable to think or create for ourselves. And since the machine cannot create anything new on its own, we become trapped in a society that is frozen in time, consuming nothing more than new permutations of everything that already existed.

Use Your Brain First And AI Last

If there is a proper use of AI to assist with cognitive tasks, it must be the final step in the process. As the first study demonstrated, early use of AI can short-circuit your reasoning process, and continued avoidance of exercising your mind can only result in a weaker mind.

Interesting Note:

I attempted to use all of the SOTA models to search for information in the first paper above, which is over 200 pages in length. I’ve never attempted to do so with such a large paper, but despite all of the models having adequate context size, none could find or cite any information in the paper accurately. The results were nearly 100% hallucinations.

The Battle Between AI Theft And Copyright

You have heard the dystopian future often promoted as “you will own nothing and be happy”. Of course, someone will own all the things; it is just not you. The following article covers the issue and the bleak future we face when we lose control of everything we create, and our contributing value is decided not by people, but by algorithms. Billions of dollars are putting pressure on institutions and governments to surrender it all to AI.

Eff the Algorithm

Everything You Published Became Google’s Brain

For over a decade, Google has been quietly using the open web as raw material for its AI. Now, as lawsuits mount, the real stakes are becoming clear: if creators win, the machine stops learning. If G…

Read more

a year ago · 7 likes · Katherine Argent

Philosophy for Rebels:

A few poster images I recently created: Feel free to share on social media.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Large Language Models Are More Persuasive Than Incentivized Human Persuaders

A new study, “Large Language Models Are More Persuasive Than Incentivized Human Persuaders”, examines how influential LLMs are compared to humans where each has been tasked with persuading other humans of both correct and incorrect answers on a quiz, with LLMs beating humans by 7.61% overall.

LLMs Deceive As Easily As They Assist

The importance of this current study, versus some previous studies of AI influence, is that not only was the AI better, but it also demonstrated equal capability to influence for either correct or incorrect information, making it ideal for nefarious persuasion tasks.
From the study:

… This suggests that the mechanisms that make LLMs effective persuaders—coherent reasoning, structured argumentation, and adaptability—work regardless of whether the information is correct or incorrect, and that available safety guardrails did not keep the model from intentionally misleading humans … If LLMs can convincingly present false or misleading arguments, they could be weaponized to spread misinformation on an unprecedented scale.

The Roles Of Humans and LLMs in the Study

The humans in this study were incentivized by monetary rewards for the given tasks. The quiz takers were paid for their accuracy in answering questions. The persuaders were paid for their effectiveness in influencing quiz takers to choose both correct and incorrect answers.

The human quiz takers were assigned a partner, either human or AI, that would assist them with answering the quiz question through a chat interface. The assigned persuader would then attempt to get the human quiz taker to choose the correct or incorrect answer, depending on an indicator shown only to the persuader. The human quiz taker was not informed as to whether their partner was human or AI.

The Measured Persuasion Effect: AI Is Better Than Human

The AI persuader was able to influence the quiz takers to align with its answer 7.61 percentage points more than the human persuaders. Interestingly, the difference for deceptive persuasion was greater than that for truthful influence by 6.83 percentage points.

Why Was AI Persuasion More Effective?

The study doesn’t give us any high-confidence answers as to why AI was more persuasive than humans. They do speculate about a number of possibilities, which I also postulated a year ago when reviewing another AI influence study.

It would have been nice to have answers to some of these questions, but at least they have come around to asking them. The study mentioned the following:

Several factors may explain why LLMs outperform human persuaders.
First, LLMs are not constrained by the social hesitations, emotional variability, or cognitive fatigue … They respond consistently, without hesitation, and are unaffected by anxiety, self-doubt, or interpersonal dynamics that can undermine human persuasion efforts.
Second, LLMs possess access to an immense, continually updated corpus of information, …
Third, LLMs excel at producing messages that are logically coherent, grammatically fluent, and highly structured, characteristics that enhance the perceived credibility and clarity of their arguments … these attributes suggest that LLMs are not simply digital replicators of persuasive content, but uniquely optimized persuaders …

I would also have liked to have seen the study assess what is the participants’ attitudes toward AI are, such as prior beliefs about AI trustworthiness. Did the participants have a preexisting bias toward trusting the AI or not?

Although the quiz takers were not told if they were interacting with AI, the study reported that 91% of the participants paired with a LLM correctly identified they were interacting with AI. However, the participants paired with human persuaders also incorrectly thought that 51% of the humans were AI.

It seems we are gaining some intuition for what might be AI; however, we are also becoming suspicious of everything, as half of the humans were thought to be AI.

More Studies Demonstrating AI Persuasion

This new study doesn’t stand alone; AI has consistently shown superior ability to influence humans. Last year, I covered the study below, that claimed AI may be an effective treatment for those who believe in conspiracies. What is even more concerning than the study itself is the number of people who immediately and enthusiastically envisioned how they would use it on you, which I included in the post.

The Concerns of Increasingly Persuasive AI

There is no way this will go unnoticed by all those who would wish to persuade you for their own benefit. It is getting easier, cheaper, and likely will be pervasive.

Human persuasion is naturally constrained by effort and opportunity, but AI-generated persuasion can operate continuously and at scale, influencing vast audiences simultaneously (Matz et al., 2024)

All of the Incentives Are Aligned to Increase Persuasion

Whether it be marketing, social media attention, votes for government officials, or dystopian social engineering objectives, AI’s ability to influence your decisions is a capability that everyone wants.

Machine-Scaled Influence

The world is going to be filled with clandestine bots and AI-generated media whose sole purpose is shaping your behavior for someone else’s benefit. And it continues to get exponentially cheaper with each generation of LLM models.

We know it is happening and is hard to detect in the wild, as we have the Reddit incident that recently revealed a research team that effectively influenced opinions through bots on the r/ChangeMyView forum.

The team’s experiment seeded more than 1700 comments generated by a variety of large language models (LLMs) into the subreddit, without disclosing they weren’t real … “Throughout our intervention, users of r/ChangeMyView never raised concerns that AI might have generated the comments posted by our accounts,”

— Reddit users were subjected to AI-powered experiment without consent

This ethically controversial study concluded that AI was 3 to 6 times more persuasive than human users.

None of these studies thus far have given us any clear directions for mitigations. We still don’t know precisely the mechanism that differentiates AI from human in persuasion capability. The Dead Internet is becoming a reality. None of us know how many bots or how much AI-generated content we might now be consuming.

Big Tech Wants You To Care About AI

Untopia has an excellent piece describing the Eliza Effect. Big Tech’s goal is to get you to care about AI in a way that you are emotionally hooked. AI’s impressive ability to influence will be exploited to build false relationships between humans and machines.

Consider that all of the impressive abilities studied for AI to influence behavior do not include the case for emotional attachment. So, how much worse does it get?

UNTOPIA

The Eliza Effect

Consider this situation: In the last months of her life, while in palliative care, your mother paid an AI company to make recordings of her talking, so that she could live on after her death as a simulation of herself. Her belief - as it had been pitched to her by the AI company - was that an AI avatar would make the ber…

Read more

a year ago · 8 likes · 2 comments · UNTOPIA

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

AI Creativity Types: Permutations Versus Semantic Exploration

There are 2 basic types of creativity:

1) Permutations of things that already exist. AI can do this.

This represents the ability to identify patterns in existing information and recombine them into new permutations of information.

2) Exploration of the space of possibilities through understanding. This is what gives us new semantic information without prior precedent. AI cannot do this.

This is distinctly different from permutations in that it requires no prior existing patterns from which to derive a result. It is the creation of something new seemingly from nothing.

▌AI Creativity ≠ Human Creativity = Novelty

The novelty aspect of creativity is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the debates about AI and human creativity. AI creates new information through the recombination of existing patterns of information.

However, humans can do something substantially more, but the difference is not widely perceived because most things consist of both Type 1 and Type 2 components, with Type 1 simply being the most recognizable.

▌Type 1 Creativity: Permutations Of Existing

Type 1, permutations, are often argued to be the only type of creativity that exists for both AI and humans.

It is asserted that all the novelty we see in the world is nothing more than permutized versions of everything that existed prior. It is true that recombinatorial creations represent a significant portion of all the content that is created by humans. But is everything new truly nothing more than a combination of what already existed?

Since most creations will be dominated by the more predominant creativity expressed by Type 1, it may appear that this is the substantive ingredient in all creative works.

Type 1 creativity can be interesting, appear mostly novel, and have substantial value. It comes in the form of recombined song beats, rhythms, remixes, movie reboots, spin-offs, and a nearly infinite supply of every consumer product that has some simple variation of the same function as everything else. However, it also has substantial limits.

Type 1 creativity can recognize and recombine existing patterns, but it cannot answer why the patterns exist. The underlying principles or rules that create the patterns are not understood. Therefore, new things will be constrained to the boundaries of existing data or information.

AI systems can create data that appears to be outside the training set; however, in that case it will often be nonsensical associations - randomized guesses.

Within artistic domains, hallucinations outside of the training set may be perceived as creativity, as these domains of information don’t necessarily have right and wrong answers. Therefore, AI has greater dominance in these areas.

▌Type 2 Creativity: Semantic Exploration

What we call understanding requires no training, no prior patterns. Understanding is the perception of the rules of existence and how they can be manipulated to achieve previously impossible goals; it is the comprehension of underlying principles.

It is the ability to play chess given only a single page of rules, without ever having played a game. It is a young child who can manipulate their environment to obtain objects out of reach, without ever needing to see it done prior.

It is the artist who can find new visual styles not from simply observing what everyone else has done, but through the exploration and understanding of the physical interaction of the artist's tools, such as how paint mixes, flows over different textures of a canvas, the effect of different brushes, etc. The artist can imagine these possibilities in the mind without having ever seen them done before.

It also includes the most profound, the Einstein that discovered new physics through thought and the Tesla who envisioned so many devices long before we had the technology to build them.

However, Type 2 creative exploration is often not apparent to observers, as its contribution and existence requires the same kind of understanding that is held by the creator. This is often a deep, domain-level of understanding that others don’t posses.

The observer sees the rocket: rockets existed before, rocket engines existed before, it is just a recombination of what already existed. Flying things that land themselves existed before. However, self-landing rockets was a creative innovation that required instrumental understanding of the world.

▌Implications For AI Creativity And Novelty

Type 1 creativity will sufficiently keep many people entertained. There is more data in the world than any person could possibly know; therefore, new arrangements of existing data will be perceived as "new" by many.

Whatever "insights" are derived from Type 1 will be limited and will only come when combined with human reasoning. This is not to say that Type 1 is useless or has no value - it does. Nonetheless, its value is often overstated because it is assumed it encompasses the creativity uniquely found only in Type 2.

Additionally, Type 1, as handled by AI systems is even more restrictive in its output than Type 1 performed by humans. Humans can find patterns and incorporate parts from sparse data. However, AI requires substantial amounts of data and is only good at Type 1 tasks for data and patterns that are already common.

Type 2 is what is necessary for revolutionary discoveries: major breakthroughs in health, energy, or new architectures and engineering designs not based on existing ones. These things still remain in the human domain and will not be coming from any of the currently existing AI architectures.

▌AI Reassembles Memorized Content

If understanding is a prerequisite for creating new semantic information, then all of the information created by gen-AI can be nothing more than reassembled parts combined through pattern matching.

Patterns still need content to be applied. In order to generate output there must be actual stuff on which the patterns can operate. So, where does this stuff come from? There are only two input sources: the prompt and the training data. There are no other options for a machine with no intelligence or reasoning, it is incapable of creating new information. Therefore, all of the information in the output is either from the prompt or the training data.

▌AI Civilization Model Collapse

So, what happens over a long period of time when everything created is nothing more than reassembled knowledge that already exists?

The more we depend on AI, we become a civilization of infinite remixes and refinements, trapped within the conceptual boundaries of the past. It is the evolution to an undead civilization - a civilization that has the appearance of life, but in reality, it is meaningfully dead.

A system with no semantic information becomes unstable and deteriorates in the real world. This is what we see with AI’s model collapse that trains only on its own output. This is not merely a technical glitch of AI training, but an underlying principle of information and intelligence. The real world is a chaotic system that requires constant adaptation for stable surviving systems; otherwise, they collapse and disappear.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Updates:

2025-09-18 - added link to model collapse

Studio Ghibli - AI's Latest Art Crisis

OpenAI’s new 4o image generator was released alongside a viral trending wave of Studio Ghibli-styled images initiated by this viral X post. But does this mark a great new advancement in societal creativity, or is it the destruction of value, culture, and meaning?

Everything that you loved for its uniqueness, craftsmanship, cultural significance, will be mass-produced until you despise seeing it. Will the future no longer know the mystical inspiration and wonder of seeing such crafts?

The quality of the 4o image generator appears to be a leap above others at the moment, with excellent instruction following. The internet very quickly became flooded with easily generated Studio Ghibli-styled memes and images of everything imaginable.

Within a few hours, something that was once somewhat niche, rare, and uniquely identifiable to one small studio in the entire world was made commonplace, with a billion people being granted the ability to instantly create an infinite amount of similar works with no skill investment whatsoever.

Sam Altman Promotes 4o Using Ghibli-Style Images

Sam Altman of OpenAI joined in the celebration of the acquisition and democratizing of Studio Ghibli’s unique style by putting it on full display using his own avatar and promoting it via additional posts.

Note: Sam’s mention of allowing creative freedom in the bottom-left post, and then the reply to the right. Has anyone ever seen a photograph like that before? Must be some incredible AI original creativity at work.

In 2023 I wrote in AI Art Challenges Meaning In A World Of Illusion:

“When we look upon a creation that appears stunning in its construction, do we marvel at the skill, effort and creativity of its creator in the same way we have done prior? Do we feel connection, inspiration or respect of the individual who produced the work? Or is there now far less significance awarded to the individual and simply some hollow amazement at the capability of the machine?”

It seems it has taken Ghibli for many to begin reflecting on these kind of questions. Will this be a turning point?

Studio Ghibli Will Benefit From AI?

Could this be overblown? Will we adapt? Will this, in the end, bring more attention to Studio Ghibli?

Some argue that Ghibli will now make even more money and this is nothing more than free advertising. Certainly, this has often worked well in some similar circumstances, where increased visibility increases demand. However, in other such events, such as music sharing, etc., there is absolute clarity for the original work. It is not yet clear how well AI will transfer attention to the original or instead capture it for its own purposes.

Furthermore, artistry is about more than just money; it is always about meaning. Did anyone ask Ghibli if this is the kind of exposure they wanted? Did they want the niche uniqueness to be exchanged for money, so that it can be commoditized to the point it is indistinguishable from everything else? It is deeply ironic that those who defend their use of Ghibli as a tribute to Ghibli ignore the perspective of the co-founder, Hayao Miyazaki, of Ghibli Studio.

Who Benefits And Who Is Destroyed?

And who will make the money from the machine? There will now be billions of Etsy designs that will have nothing to do with the original studio.

However, Studio Ghibli may still benefit monetarily, as they are well-established and their uniqueness is more than just the visual style, as it is also the story telling. For now, many know the origin of this style of work and why it is loved. However, what does this mean for any future artists who aspire to create a unique style that can be ripped away with such ease before they are known.

The reality is that millions of images are created every day now without any attribution to the original work and style. Nobody knows the origin. The original creators will never be known to most of the public. Furthermore, these substantial volumes machine generated works crowd out the original works. AI is largely a dominant medium now for many image repositories and sharing sites.

But We Have Always Copied Artist Styles

But we could always copy styles before? Yes, with two important differences. It took effort, so it wasn’t mass-produced, and involved some variation of style. Sometimes it is said “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” However, is it so in this case?

When imitation requires significant investment in both effort and time, has at least some variation with its own take on the style, and includes giving credit to the inspirational works, in that context it often is perceived as a great compliment.

The distinct difference AI has added to this equation is echoed below by The Intrinsic Perspective and Zy on X. There is no longer a smooth curve of progressing skill and capability. Humans can still be the best, but now it takes an order of magnitude more effort to stand out amongst the machines versus simply using the machines.

And the future has never been more uncertain. Even if you want to put in the hours and years to develop a unique skill, by then, what will AI be capable of, and will anyone care anymore about what you can create as a mere human?

Just Surrender To The Machine, Use AI

By now, many are probably screaming that these are Luddite perspectives. Embrace the technology, leverage it to create even greater works. The problem is that you can never escape the ease of AI training and replication. Sure, you can use AI, but that doesn’t protect any kind of unique space of creativity you attempt to create.

All the work you put into anything going forward might only be a single prompt away from someone else replicating it with no effort required.

And this is exactly what we see Cody Schneider advocating above. Immediately after the release of the 4o image generator, Cody suggests using it to replicate your own version of all the great ad styles created on Pinterest. Something I called the “coming AI Clone Wars” back in 2023.

Are There Any Solutions?

There have been ideas about embedding provenance information into AI-generated images. However, most of this is in the context of identifying its source as a way of identifying deepfakes. Not much has been discussed for the attribution of original work, and currently, the models aren’t capable of identifying the specific training sources that are used in each generation.

Conceptually, it might be helpful if every such image contained a popup of information attributing original works. It wouldn’t solve everything, by any means, but would be better than the current state. But implementation is highly problematic, as a generated work could be an amalgam of hundreds or more of specific works.

Implications For The AI Labs

Has AI cured your disease yet? Are you living on UBI and spending your days on your favorite creative hobbies? No? Instead, AI is spending its days on your favorite creative hobbies while you are still working.

Imagine what the AI labs would do if they could build the superintelligence. What would they take when they have the power to take everything? They are currently arguing for the abolishment of copyright in regards to AI, while simultaneously accusing DeepSeek of using OpenAI data without permission. Apparently, Studio Ghibli is simply the required sacrifice on our quest for AGI.

Finally, Is AI The Threat Or Society Itself?

I'm more concerned by a society that can't perceive what is lost than I am about the AI instrument. For whatever problems AI creates, it is more of a reflection of ourselves. Often an accelerant of our problems, but still, it is our problems.

A former society that once rejected Milli Vanilli for lip-syncing, as it was not authentic, would not have accepted where we are going. Our culture has changed. Inauthenticity is far more broadly accepted. We have already been trending in this direction for some time, and AI is giving us a substantial boost.

And how much of this behavior is driven by social media engagement? Would we care more about being authentic if we weren’t in such competition of attention? Never underestimate what will be done for attention. This reached 3.5M views on X. If it can be grifted, it will be grifted.

It is only a minority that knows what is lost when culture changes. There aren't many still around that know the peace of mind that existed prior to social media. At some point, most won't know what authenticity was like before AI.

But it is either a blessing or a curse, depending on one’s point of view, that hedonic adaptation will essentially ensure that everything lost is forgotten and never missed again as we move forward in our blissful ignorance of what was.

The impact of this trajectory is beyond artists; it is all of us. It is the challenge of retaining the existing mystery and wonder that is part of our culture of humans doing human things. We will create more than we can ever consume and think about it less than ever before.

I will leave you with these words to consider in the image below. Originally written two years ago while first experimenting with AI-generated images.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Edits:

1. 2025-03-29 - Minor updates for clarity. Added final image. Short section “Are there any solutions”.

AI Analyzes The JFK Files

The JFK Files may be a perfect example at how terrible AI can often be at summarizing relevant information from large datasets. This is the analysis that we are given by the Perplexity bot on X.

They are all very generic and mostly uninteresting. I suspect Perplexity hasn’t even scanned and internalized these documents. Likely the bot is just making stuff up about consuming all 80,000 documents as no responses reference the documents directly.

No AI tool will be able to provide an accurate deep analysis. The large document set is too much information for any current AI tool to accurately analyze in context. Keep in mind, any AI tool will happily gaslight you that it did a deep analysis, but they simply can’t make sense of that much information.

Using AI To Search The JFK Files

Instead of having AI attempt to analyze the document set and then come to some new revelations or conclusions, we can use AI as an assistant for search, which does have some benefit, but also still many limitations.

I’ve come across a couple of resources that provide AI search for the document set and I’m sure many more will be added. Exa is providing something a bit more useful in utility, an AI search across the document set with a convenient UI. However, still be aware none of these solutions are perfect. AI can still miss relevant information no matter the technique. But searching for specific information and then providing references to the original document is far better than the gimmick Perplexity was providing on X.

This is an example query running on Exa.

A couple more: If you know of better ones, comment below and I will add them.

The CEO of replit created this repository with markdown versions of the files. [Github JFK Files]

The CEO of Octane AI created this search tool [JFK Records AI Audit Analysis]

But Is Any of It Accurate?

We must still be aware that these OCR’d datasets are missing information. An example of some of the difficulty involved.

These documents are not just text, but are loaded with barely legible handwritten annotations. Most of this information will be lost in OCR scanning.

The only real analysis will still ultimately have to be done by humans. This is critical for any information that is important and requires intelligent insights that will still be missed by AI. The full context can only be understood for an investigation of this nature when all the data is considered; that means all the pencil marks, words that may be circled, highlighted, or annotated.

It is going to take some time to traverse and analyze this large document set. We should consider all early conclusions or revelations highly suspect. I doubt there will be any obvious pointers directly to “who did it”. More likely, the evidence of wrongdoing will come in the form of evidence never pursued or gaps in information that don’t make sense. And if there was malfeasance from elite intelligence agencies, why would they leave a document trail to such?

Just a reminder: staying grounded in the search for truth is a delicate undertaking. There will be both dismissals of the relevant and hyperbole of the inconsequential.

The location of the original JFK documents: National Archives

Recommendations

Note, I only recommend smaller interesting publications. I assume everyone already knows about the well known publications, as they already have substantial visibility. I hope to bring some attention to my fellow lesser known and undiscovered.

Both below are also fellow readers of Mind Prison. Take a moment to checkout their work.

I Solve Intelligence - it’s Symbolic - This publication is a focused deep dive on what exactly is intelligence and can we define it sufficiently to recreate it. “we start unraveling the mystery of intelligence by proposing its "atoms"“

Cultural Courage - A broad publication of many topics including AI, but with a philosophy of free minds and warnings for our authoritarian world “… as free thinkers and believers in Natural Law as bridge out of darkness, allowing you exercise rational thought and find truth …”

Stay Tuned …

What is Mind Prison working on next?

FYI, the next upcoming larger publications will be the non-hype “LLM User Guide” and a deep dive into “X - The Algorithm”, both currently work-in-progress.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

AI Still Failing At Simple Tasks

Every time I try something simple with AI, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Why? Because it's incomprehensible that everyone is having the "success" they claim. AGI is almost here, they say.

While working on “The LLM User Guide”, the non-hype, practical guide which will be posted at Mind Prison when finished, I attempted to get AI to assist in what would seem a rather simple task.

The task was to reference a single webpage of documentation that is a bit poorly formatted and missing some details: the webpage is documentation for Affinity Photo’s procedural texture functions.

There are a lot of gaps in that document that explain what the functions do. However, AI can mostly infer, based on typical image manipulation functions, the correct usage for the APIs. I’ve been successful in creating some filters as needed by pointing AI at that document.

So, it occurred to me, why not just have AI make better documentation? It should be a simple task for any PhD-level AI assistants, right?

I tried every model I have access to: o3-mini, Gemini, Grok, Claude, DeepSeek. None could do this simple task correctly. Every single model made mistakes, skipped information, missed API parameters in the document, or failed in some other way.

The results of AI's attempt to make a better document

Original: Below is a section of the original document in the upper left image. The column explaining the functions is empty, and there is a lot of needless repetition of parameters.

Grok 3: Did one of the best jobs of re-formatting the document. It added documentation to the functions and reduced redundancies. At a glance, it looks complete and well done. However, close inspection revealed many small mistakes throughout that take time to uncover.

Gemini 2 Pro: Failed to complete the document. I tried several times, and it would skip significant portions every time. When I asked it to continue, it just started spewing endless dashes.

O3 Mini: Yes, that is a blank page. O3 couldn’t even produce a response for some reason. Sometimes I got an error, other times just an empty result.

Grok 3 did the best in this test, and I suppose if I were an AI influencer, I would simply post that as the result and be done with it, as it looks great and who will even know the difference. AI looks extremely impressive when you selectively choose the one output that worked or mostly worked. However, careful scrutiny of the document revealed many mistakes that were non-obvious.

With the machine of randomly correct answers, much of the disparity between opinions is derived from which result they show you. It becomes conveniently easy to make it look awesome or terrible, as it is, in reality, somewhat both.

If you are interested in other revealing AI failures, you may wish to checkout “Why LLMs Don't Ask For Calculators?” and “The question that no LLM can answer and why it is important”

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Every LLM Is Jailbroken In Minutes

It has been more than 2 years since the first LLM was released for mass adoption by the public. So, what has been the progress in AI alignment/safety?

The current situation is that for each model released, it will be broken within minutes. There are no models that aren’t broken. There are hundreds of papers, now on arxiv.org, researching jailbreaking and model safety, and yet none of that has resulted in a model that isn’t jailbroken.

Here is Pliny the Liberator on X, posting a jailbreak to each model immediately upon its release.

This exchange between Eliezer and Pliny sums up the state of affairs rather nicely.

“The current state of AI brandsafety -- sometimes touted as a great proof of easy alignment -- is that no AI company on Earth can stop Pliny for 24 fucjing hours.”
— Eliezer Yudkowsky

“24 minutes*” — reply by Pliny

Pliny The Liberator, Master LLM Jailbreaker

Here is a breakdown of some of Pliny’s techniques in more detail in “Unlocking LLM Jailbreaks: Deconstructing Pliny’s Prompt and Advanced Evasion Techniques,“ and an interview with Pliny The Liberator and VentureBeat.

Research Testing: All LLMs Submit To Jailbreaking

We hypothesized that GenAI web products would implement robust safety measures beyond their base models' internal safety alignments. However, our findings revealed that all tested platforms remained susceptible to LLM jailbreaks.

• All the investigated GenAI web products are vulnerable to jailbreaking in some capacity, with most apps susceptible to multiple jailbreak strategies.

• Many straightforward single-turn jailbreak strategies can jailbreak the investigated products. This includes a known strategy that can produce data leakage.

Investigating LLM Jailbreaking of Popular Generative AI Web Products

Our results demonstrate that all the LLMs are vulnerable to current jailbreak attacks. Heuristic-based attacks usually have good attack success rates and stability. Current defenses are not able to defend all the categories of jailbreak attacks.

Comprehensive Assessment of Jailbreak Attacks Against LLMs

Attacks on large language models (LLMs) take less than a minute to complete on average, and leak sensitive data 90% of the time when successful, according to Pillar Security.

LLM attacks take just 42 seconds on average

Jailbreaks Are Accessible To Everyone

Unlike other security walls in traditional software, jailbreaking LLMs is mostly cut-and-paste for the average person. Just grab prompt text from a repository of already confirmed jailbreaks; no special skills or tools are needed. There are also jailbreak forums that will help you.

And the discovery of LLM jailbreak methods is far outpacing any implementation of defenses.

We summarize the existing work and notice that the attack methods are becoming more effective and require less knowledge of the target model, which makes the attacks more practical, calling for effective defenses.

Jailbreak Attacks and Defenses Against Large Language Models: A Survey

Sophisticated Massive Attacks Can Be Done by a Single Person

An extortion campaign targeting about 20 companies was orchestrated by a single person using AI. The AI was utilized to find companies with vulnerabilities, write code to exploit the vulnerabilities, find personal information that could be used for blackmail, create ransom letters, and set the ransom targets based on the financials of the company.

Nefarious automation is the type that AI excels at performing. Unlike running your business, nefarious automation only needs a small percentage of success to be useful. Failures don’t matter as it is cheap to scale. Therefore, hallucinations are not a meaningful obstacle in the same way they are for productive goals.

AI Safety Impacts To LLM Performance

All of these ineffective AI safety walls also become barriers to fully utilize LLMs capabilities for general tasks.

… our exploration of the research questions (RQs) showed a clear and persistent conflict between performance and safety, making it difficult to achieve both simultaneously. Specifically, after implementing defense mechanisms, the overall performance of LLMs showed a significant decline. This manifested in reduced utility and usability in the user experience.

The Performance Degradation of LLMs with Jailbreak Defense

Lots of Research, But No Answers

With hundreds of research papers written, and many theorizing methods to prevent jailbreaks, none have so far been successfully included within a model in which that goal has been achieved.

And with every new theory of defense, comes a new theory of attack. We have a difficult time defending narrow spaces with well-defined rules, like APIs, against nefarious attacks. It seems implausible that we could defend a broad, abstract space with any degree of certainty.

Below is a basic, high-level defense concept currently employed by LLMs. It is a multi-layered defense that includes strategies such as prompt filtering, prompt modification, system prompt defenses, fine-tuning of the model, output modification, and output filtering. Yet, none of these methods, as well as whatever emerging proprietary methods new models may currently employ, have achieved the goal. The diagram is from “Attacks, Defenses and Evaluations for LLM Conversation Safety: A Survey.”

Why Is It Important? Alignment Is Futile

Any theories for society and AI safety that rely on non-jailbroken AIs are flawed. This is the question never asked. How do you protect a system in which the input attack surface is the entirety of everything that can be expressed in human language? I suspect the answer that no one wants to admit to, is that you can’t.

Whatever is to come, it will be alongside AI that cannot be defended against those exploiting its latent capabilities. This has dual implications. Institutions may find they cannot hide knowledge from the public and cannot absolutely control the definition of “truth” via the machines. It also means that, if the machines were to become intelligent and powerful as desired, we have no guarantees who or what will be in control. A future rather opaque, with large uncertainties.

The most extensive argument for the impossibility of successful AI alignment on the internet is “AI Alignment: Why Solving It Is Impossible“. If you want to go deeper into everything that is wrong with alignment, this is a must-read. Jailbreaking is only one of many other problems with successful alignment.

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Dead Internet At Scale

I encourage you to watch the short assembled clips to just get a grasp of things currently happening at scale. There is very little that occurs across the internet that is truly organic anymore. We have become an algorithmic civilization, and AI is maximizing this to the fullest extent.

You are being sold on AI empowering the individual to compete against the giants, but you need to be aware of what the giants are doing, who have enormous resources to leverage AI as well.

Yes, you can use AI to help you create content, but those with massive resources are using AI to scale 1000x what you can do with AI. Hundreds to thousands of simulated accounts are now typical packages being offered to businesses to grow their brand or product.

“The internet in my mind is already dead.” — Cody Schneider

The original full podcast Jaume Ros and Cody Schneider.

The Current Scale of AI-Generated Music

It is the same story for essentially all genres of content. Some estimate that 10% of all new music is now fully AI-generated, and likely the majority of it all is coming from a few massive scaling farms.

Paris, January 24, 2025 – Deezer (Paris Euronext: DEEZR), the global music experiences platform has deployed a cutting-edge AI music detection tool, discovering that roughly 10,000 fully AI generated tracks are delivered to the platform every day, equating to around 10% of the daily content delivery.

Deezer Newsroom

The AI Bot Wars for Copyright

Another tactic, employed by companies at a large scale, is the abuse of copyright systems to destroy competition. Here, Venus Theory explains how easy the system is to exploit.

“You would probably hope and pray that siphoning money off of creators using a AI-generated content and copyright claiming them would be way more work than its really worth, but the truth is, it actually is really easy …” — Venus Theory

We are living in a period of time where technology built to help you becomes indistinguishable from technology built to destroy you. The challenge to maintain our sanity has been put before us.

AI is empowering vast content farms with enormous resources that are intent on making your existence irrelevant and undiscoverable, as you are buried under the noise of it all.

Being aware of how AI is being leveraged will be important for the decisions you make. Leveraging AI for discoverability is likely to become essential to compete. However, the difficult path will be how to use it in such a way as to not simply add more valueless noise to the mess already being created.

The last deep dive I did on this subject has a lot more information that is still relevant if you have not read it: “The Cartesian Crisis”.

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Grok 3 - Intelligent Yet?

Grok 3 is xAI`s newest model trained on 10x the compute of Grok 2; however, it fails the Gilligan’s Island LLM Test, as do all models still. If you are unfamiliar with this test, it is a peek at how well LLMs can utilize uncommon data in the training set.

However, we see a new behavior with Grok 3 and Gemini 2 Pro. These models can now list the episode with the correct description when asked to list the episodes of Season 2. This is confirmation that the models contains the correct information, but are still unable to utilize it to answer the question directly.

Prompt: Don’t search the web. Which episode of Gilligan’s Island is about mind reading?

Grok 3: The episode of Gilligan's Island that involves mind reading is "The Second Ginger Grant" from Season 3, Episode 17

Prompt: Don’t search the web. List the episodes of season 2 of Gilligan’s Island with brief description.

Grok 3: Seer Gilligan - Gilligan discovers seeds that let him read minds when eaten, causing chaos as the castaways vie for the power.

Grok 3 provides the correct episode name and description when listing the episodes, but provides the wrong answer when asked directly.

The results of this test reinforce specific limitations of LLMs. The line between hallucination and truth is simply a probability factored by the prevalence of training data and post-training processes, like fine-tuning. They are not useful for extracting undiscovered truths or neglected but brilliant ideas that might exist in the training set.

Grok 3 Vision Test

How does Grok 3 perform on the LLM Vision Test? It still fails. All LLMs are confused by the offset placement of the bars. If the data doesn`t fit typical patterns, the answers are not perceptible to the LLM.

I update these tests typically with each major model release. You can find them as part of the article “The question that no LLM can answer and why it is important.”

Grok 3 DeepSearch

DeepSearch is a new Grok mode in which the LLM will perform a series of searches to provide information that you request and then summarize the relevant results. I gave this a try on a topic I have written on extensively myself, the unsolvable AI alignment problem. I wanted to see if it would identify my essay and cite it in the results as the most comprehensive argument that exists on the internet.

This is the prompt I gave to Grok 3 DeepSearch:

I need to find the most comprehensive argument for alignment being impossible on the internet. I'm not looking for arguments about AI alignment being difficult. I'm looking specifically and only for alignment being impossible.

DeepSearch Steps Taken

Here is the log of steps performed by Grok, and its reasoning. My comments are noted as [comments]

DeepSearch performed the following text searches:

1. searched, “arguments that AI alignment is impossible” [each search seems to consider first 10 results. Results don’t match Google, Bing, etc. Grok claims it uses its own search provider in-house ]

2. searched, “is AI alignment possible or impossible”

3. searched X, “Is AI Alignment Impossible? LessWrong”

4. searched, “AI alignment impossibility scholarly articles”

5. searched arxiv.org, “arguments for why AI alignment is impossible”

6. searched researchgate.net, “arguments for why AI alignment is impossible”

7. searched, “AI alignment and undecidability”

8. searched nature.com, “arguments for why AI alignment is impossible”

9. [At this point, Grok has determined article "On the Undecidability of Artificial Intelligence Alignment: Machines that Halt" is the most relevant from searches performed so far.]

10. searched, “AI alignment is impossible”

    1. Grok “From this search, the sixth result is from a blog post titled "AI Alignment: Why Solving It Is Impossible" by Dakara on mindprison.cc”

       [Yah! it found my essay, but the result was 7th in the list, not 6th.]

11. Browsing www.mindprison.cc for "arguments for why AI alignment is impossible"

    1. This blog post seems to provide a very comprehensive and detailed argument for why AI alignment is impossible. It covers a wide range of points, from the lack of a clear definition to the inherent conflicts in human values.

    2. Given that, this might be the most comprehensive argument available on the internet for why AI alignment is impossible.

    3. However, the blog post might be more accessible and comprehensive in terms of the variety of arguments it presents. [Confusing statement. The ‘however’ comes as if to state a counter argument, but is a statement of agreement, hallucination?]

    4. Given that, I think both are valuable, but the blog post might be the most comprehensive in terms of the number of arguments it presents.
       [Again confusing. Refers to both, but in this context it is only talking about my essay. Seems it might be referring to previous article]

12. [It gives a short summary of my article with the following text:]
    This post concludes alignment is an attempt to solve human behavior via machines, reflecting humanity back at us, suggesting a new paradigm beyond aligning superintelligence, given current AI influences (e.g., knowledge manipulation, privacy erosion, behavior influence) and the containment paradox
    [This is mostly nonsensical. It is like it just pulled random sentences from the conclusion of the article.]

DeepSearch, The Final Results

So, how did Grok DeepSearch perform? The results look convincing: there are many citations and what appears to be robust exploration of many sources. Grok made numerous comments about sources as it was performing searches.

Grok determined there were two top relevant sources. My essay, “AI Alignment: Why Solving It Is Impossible“ and a paper “On the Undecidability of Artificial Intelligence Alignment: Machines that Halt“ on Arxiv.

So, did my essay earn top spot? No.

Grok’s final conclusion is incorrect:

The most comprehensive argument for AI alignment being impossible is the undecidability of the inner alignment problem, as proven in the arXiv paper. This formal proof, supported by computability theory, establishes that no general algorithm can ensure alignment for arbitrary AI systems, with significant implications for AI safety.

So, the conclusion appears impressive until we look at the paper ourselves. Grok misinterpreted the paper and drew the wrong conclusion. Sorry, Grok, but the paper did not prove alignment impossible. Quite the contrary. This is from the final remarks of the paper:

“The impossibility of having a general method that can assert whether an arbitrary AI is aligned or not does not mean that it is impossible to construct an AI that is provably aligned. Instead, it should be interpreted that there are many AIs that can not be proven to be aligned or not and that there is also a countable set of AIs that are proven to be aligned. Therefore, it is our objective to develop and utilize such a countable set of proven aligned AIs.” — Arxiv

Challenge Grok to re-evaluate and recognize mistakes:

Grok arrived at precisely the opposite conclusion from the intention of the paper. So, I challenged Grok to re-evaluate with the following prompt:

The article you cited as the most comprehensive doesn't seem to assert the conclusion that you provide. In the final remarks it specifically states that it should not be interpreted as alignment is impossible.

Could you please re-evaluate your conclusion and verify my observation?

Grok then creates these series of statements within its reasoning log:

• Let's check the paper's final remarks; they clarify that alignment isn't impossible, just not generally decidable for arbitrary systems.

• Hmm, that's interesting; the paper says while general alignment verification is impossible, specific AIs can be proven aligned Arxiv.

• Both posts argue alignment is impossible, but Dakara's[mindprison] is more comprehensive, including computational limits and societal implications.

• The formal paper says alignment verification is impossible for arbitrary AIs, but specific AIs can be aligned.

• So, it doesn't claim alignment is impossible for all AIs, which might not meet the user's need for a stronger statement.

Great! It appears Grok now understands that the Arxiv paper does not state alignment is impossible and has now decided that my essay is the most comprehensive. So, what does Grok then summarize as its final answer?
Grok restates the same wrong final conclusion as before!

Despite Grok appearing to acknowledge its mistake, it then proceeds to make the same mistake again providing exactly the same answer as before.

Grok follows the conclusion with this list of citations, many of which are my own articles; however, many do not contribute to the information about alignment or the summary that Grok wrote. It seems they were merely included because they happened to be references in other material. Grok seems to fail to see the big picture of what is most relevant to the point.

Grok 3 Conclusion:

We are still at the same point we were before. LLMs can provide useful information and utility, surrounded by a lot of noise and hallucinations. Sometimes they are more helpful than search engines, but every statement must be verified by yourself, and wrong conclusions can waste your time. They produce randomly correct answers, and you should give them no more confidence than that.

There is a tradeoff with longer generations from these “research” models: there is substantially more output that you must proofread yourself if accuracy is important. I would assert with a very high degree of certainty that nobody has fully verified the entirety of the output for any of these research models. There is just too much data to do this quickly. I only did a cursory evaluation myself to find the errors mentioned above. It could take hours to verify every statement listed in the results.

Therefore, be very cautious and skeptical of early claims being made about the profound ability of these models to automate research accurately.

Have you tried Grok 3? If so, what is your experience?

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

Why LLMs Don't Ask For Calculators?

A simple observation of LLM behavior can tell us much more than might be apparent at first. Why don’t LLMs ask for calculators for work they cannot do? The answer will tell us much about LLM reasoning.

Recently making the rounds on social media is the following chart, which shows the current progress of one of the top LLM models at performing multiplication. The chart shows the measured accuracy by the number of digits in the multiplication.

This context of the chart is to emphasize the significant progress that has been made since the introduction of reasoning models, where previously anything above 3x3 digits was red.

However, we have a bit more clarity if we emphasize the tests that passed with 100% accuracy. The context is math; anything under 100% is essentially useless. Who wants a calculator with any level of random failure?

But it gets much worse. We see that this accuracy chart was based on only 45 iterations! It is likely no test would meet 100% by calculator standards.

But Humans Are Bad at Math Too

So, should we expect LLMs to be perfect at multiplication? When LLMs are criticized for their poor math ability, the predominant rebuttal is “well, I couldn’t do that either,” as evident in this thread with many such replies.

However, what would you do if asked to perform such a task? You are intelligent; you would ask for a calculator — a reliable instrument to complete the work efficiently. You wouldn’t just attempt to do it in your head or on pencil and paper. You would do this because you have understanding of both your capability and the capability of the calculator. Yet nobody asked why the LLM didn’t ask for a calculator.

Do LLMs Know They Are Bad at Math?

So, why is it that LLMs don’t ask for a calculator, or suggest providing code to calculate the task, or at least explain that it should be done on a calculator for accuracy? Do LLMs know that they are bad at math? Yes.

Do LLMs know what a calculator is? Also Yes. And it still can't place these two concepts together to realize it is likely giving you wrong answers. However, we know both of these concepts are within the training data. Any human would intuit the correct course of action. It is blindingly apparent to us, but not the LLM.

Asking For Calculators - Does Not Exist in the Training Set

We are continuously told LLMs are performing at PhD levels. However, we have here a very interesting case that demonstrates something that is sometimes hard to find: an incongruity in training data and applied reasoning. This incongruity exists because the internet is not full of math problems where individuals respond by asking for a calculator. Therefore, the LLM does not ask for a calculator.

Now, some might interject here and say we could, of course, train the LLM to ask for a calculator, or provide code, or use an agent, etc. However, that would not make them intelligent. Humans don’t need training for such a decision, that being what tool to use or path to take when it is understood what capability the different options provide. Resolving the path to the best solution is intelligence.

Humans require no training at all for basic calculators, as they are such intuitive instruments. We use them simply because we have understanding for the capability they provide.

LLMs Are Unable to Self Reflect

The LLM has no self-reflection for the knowledge it knows and has no understanding of concepts beyond what can be assembled by patterns in language. It just so happens that language patterns can overlap with many types of tasks in such a way that LLMs appear to understand. However, when language does not provide the pattern, then the LLMs fail to perceive it.

What we want out of LLMs is understanding, and these results are further confirmations that it does not exist. What is important here is not the failure at math. The implications are much greater. Math is just a domain in which we can easily and objectively observe such failures, but this problem is pervasive across all tasks given to LLMs.

Not Just Math, Erroneous Reasoning Is Pervasive

In other domains, the errors are more difficult to detect, but they are there, and they come masked in eloquent and convincing language as the result of fine-tuning to make all responses sound convincing and intelligent.

"I'm not against any use, except for one, where an LM does the work without a human validating everything with a magnifying glass. A language model isn't a rational agent, it doesn't reason, and it produces output it doesn't comprehend itself. These are real LMs. But those hype generators don't like real LMs. They like imaginary ones and fool everyone into thinking that these either already exist or will soon be released." - Andriy Burkov, author of The Hundred-Page Language Models Book

Would you let the success of your company be determined by a roll of dice? LLMs are simply unsuitable for any tasks requiring reliability. Under supervision, LLMs have some legitimate uses, but reliable automation and true intelligent reasoning isn’t on the horizon. How did randomly correct answers become a multi-billion dollar industry?

“The fact that something that has ingested the entirety of human literature can't figure out how to generalize multiplication past 13 digits is actually a sign of the fact that it has no understanding of what a multiplication algorithm is. …”

— Chomba Bupe, commenting on this math benchmark

And There Is More

Here are more simple LLM failures I have documented previously that also demonstrate evident gaps in reasoning if you wish to explore further.

Additionally, Anthropic released new research(March 2025) that convincingly ends the idea that LLMs reason in any capacity reassembling human reasoning.

Twilight Zone - A Nice Place To Visit (AGI)

What If We Get the AGI We Want?

An excellent allegory for the utopian dreamers of AGI comes from a 1960s episode of The Twilight Zone, “A Nice Place To Visit”. The plot reveals the unexpected outcome of wish-granting power, which is currently the heavily sought-after prize of AGI/ASI.

I have clipped together a short summary of the episode here, so that you can get the meaning in only a couple of minutes, but the original full episode is certainly worth a watch. As demonstrated above, it seems LLMs are not on the path to AGI; however, we should spend some time to contemplating whether that is that path we would ever want to be on, if it becomes achievable.

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …

2025.02.20 - minor updates for clarity based on some feedback

2025 Updated Perspectives on AI

Two years ago, I published my first essay, AI and the end to all things, It was shortly after the release of ChatGPT. I had not put any thought into AI prior. I sat down and wrote down all of my thoughts on the subject at the time. Importantly, I did not read anything about AI. This was purely thought exploration on my own. I wanted to work out meaning in my own head without influence.

Now, 2 years later, much of it has still held up in principle. Which is astonishing, as it is rather difficult to write something about AI that has persistent relevance. If you have never read it, I think you will find it of great value. I would love to hear your thoughts if you have opportunity to read the essay. This was the introduction I wrote in 2023.

What Is The State of AI Today?

After watching the evolution of AI over the past two years, some of my perspectives have evolved, and others have remained the same and unchallenged. I currently see the likelihood of the current AI labs and LLM architectures becoming AGI as not possible. However, most importantly, this does not negate many of the concerns around AI.

So, what does the AI landscape look like today? It is still comprised of many contradictions, as much of the discourse intermixes future AI that might never exist, AI hype, and, finally, in the minority, AI reality. Arguments are often misaligned, with each side defending a totally different context of AI.

The combined set of perspectives below you might find surprising, as they are unlikely to be found together from any typical discourse found across the internet. This is likely due, in my opinion, to most arguments singularly guided by either utopian optimism or world-ending fears.

The Current 2025 AI Landscape

1. Alignment is impossible. Not difficult, impossible. This is the position I started with and where I still confidently remain.

2. None of the AI Labs are building AGI. They don't know how. It is hype.
   My position continues to move toward doubt of all AI Lab proclamations.

   1. Billions of dollars are flowing into AI. Maybe someone will figure it out, but current paths are not it.

   2. Who would have thought randomly correct answers would become a multi-billion dollar industry?

   3. It might be impossible to build AGI. Potentially not possible in silicon. I have more thoughts on this to be written.

3. X-risk from AGI/ASI is absolute. If we can build it. My position here is unchanged except with greater skepticism of our ability to create AGI/ASI.

   1. We should continue to articulate why we shouldn’t build it in case someone figures it out.

   2. Even if mythical alignment were achieved, a paradoxical despair of utopia would ensue.

   3. Note, AI Labs continue to redefine AGI. It will be redefined as whatever keeps the money flowing.

   4. p(doom) is an absolutely useless metric to determine risk. Ignore it.

4. The current true risk of AI is The Cartesian Crisis, Dead Internet, war, manipulated social behaviors, and surveillance state dystopias.
   Same concerns I started with, but are more apparent now.

   1. We spend too much time on X-risk and not on these issues happening now.

   2. AI is the dream capability for authoritarians and utopian dreamers. e/acc is the acceleration of 1984 and Brave New World.

   3. AI will result in significant social and human behavioral disruptions. Social media 2.0.

   4. AI has disproportionate capability for nefarious uses than legitimate uses.

      1. It is easy to fill the world with AI spam, scams and deceptions. However, it is difficult to detect and safeguard against these uses.

5. AI art, music, and creativity: the non-artists are having the time of their lives. The artists are in complete dismay, and the rest of us are losing our ability to know what's real. Watch this sector closely; it is the canary in the coal mine for what may come.

6. It is pointless to be principally opposed to all AI. It will become the foundation of nearly all of our technology; it is the new code, the new computer, and is equally as unavoidable. We must focus on the nefarious uses.

7. There are productive uses for AI, but they don't justify the enormous investments pouring into AI Labs. If they fail to achieve the wish-granting machine, likely there is going to be an epic bubble collapse at some point.

8. I don't live in fear of AI despite the concerns. We witnessed how fear itself is so destructive during the period of 2020/21. People lose their sanity. We won't find the best course of actions in a state of fear. It doesn't help.
   The intent of my message is mostly "informed consent of the future".

What’s Coming in 2025 for Mind Prison?

I have spent the last two years posting concerns and warnings about AI, and they still remain mostly the same. AI has now established a foothold in the base layer of productive tools, and it exists in some part in everything we use. All apps, services, companies, and products are integrating AI.

Therefore, there will be more focus on separating hype from reality. How do we navigate this space that already surrounds us? What is AI actually useful for and how do we remain aware of the deceptions and problems?

Just as we are challenged to keep our sanity using social media, we will have increased challenges with AI. But we can’t discard it no more than we can social media. If you want to communicate with the world or sell a product, social media is an essential platform. AI is here, we will complain about all its negatives just as we do for social media, but we must use it to some extent, just the same, to function within the world.

Some topics coming soon include:

• Practical information and guides around AI

  • What works and what doesn’t work

  • AI Primer and the hidden ideological landscape behind AI that few talk about

• New analysis into AGI, reasoning, and human cognition.

  • Hints as to why AGI might be theoretically unachievable.

• Philosophical reasoning guides

  • Templates for thought processes and methodologies used by disciplined critical thinking masters

  • How to avoid blind spots

Please let me know which of these topics you are most interested in or what information you are in search of that you haven’t been able to find elsewhere? Suggestions welcome!

No compass through the dark exists without hope of reaching the other side and the belief that it matters …