Yeah.
People harp on Onlyfans, but how sexualized and “softcore teasing” Insta and even TikTok are kinda creeps me out. They’re literally entry points to OF.
I have a parent who’s blissfully off of social media, and it was interesting to see their reaction to what they’re like now.
And functional! You’re looking at Dakar rally champions, and hatchbacks so unreasonably fast on dirt, their league was banned.
This is what actual off-roaders look like.
Exactly.
It’s not that I’m indifferent to OF; the idea of getting in such a relationship actively creeps me out. And I’m already pretty messed up.
I propose we trick our fellow Americans by making smol cars offroady enough to embarrass an F150:
Look at them! Who would want a rolling brick over that?
And the Ford Focus is already mostly there.
It’s literally style. Those pickup lifts often ruin durability and off-road capability.
I hope some of it hits the used market, so tinkerers can play with them.
But yeah, knowing them, they will probably just throw the hardware away :(
Could one issue be that professional writers, on average, give female leads worse scripts to work with? Not always intentionally.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MostWritersAreMale
I feel like this is a pattern in Star Wars. Not just with Rey, but Ahsoka and The Acolyte too.
As for why this is a tragedy, I would cite the A/B examples of AC: Odyssey and Cyberpunk 2077 where, given the literally identical gender neutral writing, the women VAs utterly nail their scripts.
I wonder what’d happen if TV got the same treatment.
See you there?
Yep. See you there.
Yep; see you there.
See you “there.”
Why define physicalism so arbitrarily?
Who’s to say god, souls or free will aren’t complex arrangements of matter?
In other words, you are (IMO, respectfully) making the mistake of defining “non-materialism” the same way crystal clutchers do: as something you don’t understand.
Friend, I’m going to be blunt: I think you may have spent time creating this with help from an LLM, and it told you too much of what you want to hear because that’s what they’re literally trained to do.
As an example…”relativistic coherence?” Computational cycles and SHA512 checksums and bit flips and prime instances? You are mixing modern technical terms and highly speculative, theoretical concepts in a way that… just isn’t really compatible.
And the text, from what I can parse, is similar. It mixes a lot of contemporary “anthropic” concepts (money, the 24 hour day, and so on), terms that loosely apply to text LLMs, and a few highly speculative concepts that may or may not even apply to the future.
If you are concerned about AI safety, I think you should split your attention between contemporary, concrete systems we have now and the more abstract, philosophical research that’s been going on even before the LLM craze started. Not mix them together.
Look into what local LLM tweakers are doing. With, for instance, alignment datasets, experiments on “raw” pretrains, or more cutting edge abliration like: https://github.com/p-e-w/heretic
In other words, look at the concrete, and how actual safety systems can be applied now. Outlines like yours are interesting, but they can’t actually be applied or enforced.
And on the philosophical side, basically ignore any institute or effort started after 2021, when all the “Tech Bro” hype and the release of ChatGPT 3.5 in 2022 muddied the waters. But there was plenty of safety research going on before then. There are already many documents/ideas similar to what you’re getting at in your outlines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_safety
I don’t really understand what the documents are practically supposed to be or how they could be “red teamed.”
1st is a bunch of quotes, 3rd is QA.
Is the 2nd one a system prompt?
So what?
What if Canada joined CSTO and signed some pact with China. Does that give the US justification to invade and annex them? Because it violates some handshake from 36 years ago?
If Russia doesn’t like all this NATO expansion, they can drag someone controversial into an alliance or do some other controversial thing. Have at it. A war is not a rational response, unless you’re a tankie.
Good.
Meanwhile, I’m eagerly waiting for the local Tankie to, once again, explain how so much death is justified by the dire threat Ukraine poses to a 17 million square kilometer country with 5,459 nuclear warheads. And, apparently, to their own people. I’m sure NATO is still making them do it, yep.
Not in terms of energy use, ~110 Megawatt hours. Even if you multiply that for production costs, test training runs and such, its less energy than an airline flight, or the yearly power consumption of a few homes. And it only needed to be done once.
It’s not a trivial financial cost though, no.
Same with germanium.
And boron.
…I was gonna say I wouldn’t want a giant cube of boron. But actually, I kinda do?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes. Tune all of that nonsense out… But don’t fret if you own a tiny bit, either.
I kind of like Warren Buffet’s ramblings on it:
Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.
You could take all the gold that’s ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that’s worth at current gold prices, you could buy all – not some – all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take?
Already done. See:
Open training: https://huggingface.co/collections/allenai/olmo-3
Decentralized training: https://huggingface.co/NousResearch/Hermes-4.3-36B
Decentralized inference: https://aihorde.net/
They aren’t the only example of each, either.
The issue, as with many decentralized projects, is that they’re isolated from each other, and too few know about them.
Eh I disagree with the power usage point, specifically. Don’t listen to Altman lie through his teeth; generation and training should be dirt cheap.
See the recent Z Image, which was trained on a shoestring budget and costs basically nothing to run: https://arxiv.org/html/2511.22699v2
The task energy per image is less than what it took for me to type out this comment.
As for if we “need” it, yeah, that’s a good point and what I was curious about.
But then again… I don’t get why people use a lot of porn services. As an example, I just don’t see the appeal of OF, yet it’s a colossal enterprise.
But if we can stop people from looking at the illegal/dangerous stuff, and use AI to create it, let those people watch that instead, I think that would be a net positive. Of course you’d want to identify them, tag them and keep them separate from the rest of people; it’s not a solution to the problem they create, but if you can reduce the demand for it, I dunno, I want nothing to do with that kind of stuff, but I feel like there’s a solution in there somewhere.
CP detectors got really good well before image gen was even a thing. They had to, as image hosting sites had to filter it somehow. So that’s quite solvable.
Look at CivitAI as a modern example.
They filter deepfakes. They filter CP. They correctly categorize and tag NSFW, all automatically and (seemingly) very accurately. You are describing a long solved problem in any jurisdiction that will actually enforce their laws.
If you’re worried about power/water usage, already solved too. See frugal models like this, that could basically serve porn to the whole planet for pennies: https://arxiv.org/html/2511.22699v2
IMO the biggest sticking point is datasets… The Chinese are certainly using some questionable data for the base models folks tend to use, though the porn finetunes tend to use publicly hosted booru data and such.
I have nothing against a beautiful animesque art style, but… does it have to be rail-thin women in schoolgirl skirts and stockings? Is this game the exception?
EDIT:
Watches Steam trailer.
Literally magic schoolgirl skirts and stockings. Complete with winking in action.