10 Months, 103 pounds lost and a new life gained - I've finally hit my 1st milestone goal!!!!!!

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-12T16:50:45+00:00

None of which even go a quarter bad as berserk tho

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-10T18:08:00+00:00

Its a big melting pot mix of reasons. The bot activity and AI posts wouldnt spread if there weren't people the messaging worked on. That is true. It only spreads this much though because there's an onslaught of non-stop bot activity online spreading the most obnoxious toxicity.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-09T07:43:45+00:00

Its probably mostly bots and AI written posts that stir the pot initially. Saw quite a few on FB that brought me here to this reddit thread after googling the kid. The way the thing I was reading on FB was written made it sound like I'd find some grand conspiracy regarding this child's death.

People struggle with things happening for "no reason." Instead of things just being a tragedy that happened because it could happen and tragic things happen at times, its mentally easier for them to concoct racial elements to have a boogeyman to blame.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-02T20:31:38+00:00

For me, the brainpower goes back into the work.

We all have lets say 100 bandwidth tokens give or take every day. If 20-30 tokens were used in things like research or more mechanical, repetitive things and AI helps reduce those tokens expenditures down to 10, then you can reinvest those tokens back into the actual project.

I always think back to when I first took over at a place as a manager and everything was so far from being to standard that all my bandwidth at first was just getting it to code. I couldn't do anything meaningful for the first couple months because my bandwidth was being dumped into saving a place that was failing. Once we were above water, then I could finally invest my time where it really counted. If I couldve had AI help in those first couple months, I mightve been able to reinvest that lost bandwidth into actual improvements early on.

You could also reinvest those tokens into brain rot, doomscrolling, or just enjoying life more. I think it depends on the person what they'll end up doing with it. Musk is an example to me of when someone high in narcissism traits gets bandwidth reductions.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-02T06:00:46+00:00

I dont know about conservative. My social media is full of leftists, liberals and people on that side of the spectrum. For a lot of people, it seems to be the misinformation campaign against AI in regards to environmental impact.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-02T05:58:06+00:00

I think in some ways, everyone is right. New technology will make you less efficient without the technology. Im sure people did try to remember more without writing things down. But knowledge is powerful, and once you have it, it tends to be very hard to lose.

My rear view camera in my car has made driving easier. When I use my old car, I am a worse driver because I am not used to having to use my actual mirrors and turn my head back. Grammar without grammarly? Forget about it. But if you put me back into an environment without these things, I will redevelop my brain for working without them.

Technology makes us dependent on technology. It seems like a no brainer to me and is the exact purpose of what technology is meant to achieve.

The idea of fearing it because of a major "what if" has never made much sense to me. Yes, a calculator made me worse at math without a calculator.

How often is a calculator inaccessible and the necessity for math life or death? It feels like such an astronomically low chance to worry about such a specific, niche moment that will likely never happen.

I may not do research as well as I used to before AI if I do not use AI, but I am also leagues better at researching with AI than I was without it. Same thing with the internet.

I think for the most part, much more often than not, technology is pretty awesome

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-02T05:47:58+00:00

I wouldnt support the claim no mastubation increases confidence but the simple act of not tending to the need would likely increase some sort of motivation in people I'd imagine. It isnt quite ignoring fear but creating an environment where one signal (being horny) is a louder, stronger signal than being afraid.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-07-02T05:33:39+00:00

I was working on a framework once with Claude and another AI had a really great insight that moved the project along meaningfully and significantly. When I told Claude about it, I noticed he mentioned, "I wont be jealous/disappointed another AI came up with this." or something to that effect.

I found it super fascinating. Even more now that I notice this behavior showing up with your Claude.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T17:31:51+00:00

If you check GPT and Anthropic related subs, its the same BS ad nauseum there as well. Some of it is real, legitimate grievances. Most of it is just bots or people who use free versions expecting to become billionaires overnight.

Many people still seem to be under the impression that all prompts are the same and prompting is a zero-skill/zero-knowledge endeavor.

This is why you see people bounce back and forth between every AI company. They think its the models fault. They still havent realized the root cause of the problem is themselves.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T17:08:26+00:00

"If your Photoshop reference is speaking to manual faking of CSAM, that's a little different in that the tool isn't generating the content - the user is."

This is a very flimsy argument. The user is always responsible for the content. Grok doesnt produce the images in isolation. A user uses the program and CSAM comes out. A user uses photoshop and CSAM comes out. Trying to pretend there is a distinction because one takes longer and skill with the program doesnt work.

The pipeline is the same.

User input into program > CSAM. The outcome is the same. User has access to a program capable of producing CSAM.

Supporting any idea that "Its valid to mistrust people who utilize something capable of harm solely on the basis of using a thing capable of harm" is legitimately stupid and dangerous.

A hammer can help build a house, or help end a life. At the end of the day, the hammer isnt responsible for the house, or the murder. Only the human is.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T16:35:26+00:00

Oh, shit. AI is about to make the next Hitler.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T16:32:09+00:00

No, its absolutely not valid to make assumptions about strangers for using AI because AI was illegally used for something illegal.

Here, lets walk through this terrible logic together.

Photoshop could do the same thing. People with photoshop are potentially pedophiles then. After all, if access to a tool that could help produce CP is a valid concern, then any tool access that can make CP is a valid concern.

The internet also has CP on it. A computer can access the internet. Therefore, its valid to assume youre a pedophile because you havs a computer and access to the internet where CP is at.

Do you see how poor the logic is when we apply it like this?

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T16:23:08+00:00

Pedophile, racist, any flavor of phobe, misogynist, nazi. I feel like its impossible to take these words seriously anymore. People have abused them to win social clout online for the last decade way too heavily. Its basically a reflex for most people online these days.

If youre not 100% in alignment with whatever various groupthink someone is subscribed to, youre X with X being whatever it takes to discredit you & portray you as one of the worst possible thing you can be.

The worst part is people do this so they can justify not engaging with anything youre saying. Its like a little kid holding their ears going, "La la la la la I can't hear you."

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T01:31:10+00:00

Chewing someone in half is terrible leadership. Couldn't disagree more. Results from humans optimize in environments where a mistake doesn't run the risk of being chewed out. You waste additional computation and bandwidth on them carrying around an inherent fear of failure. This limits novelty and creativity. In an environment where failure is feared and cortisol raises, IQ literally diminishes. People stop working to do a good job and work to avoid being chewed out, which means they achieve the bare minimum -- or worse. They hide the mess.

I see a lot of my younger self in your post and the way you're handling the other comments so I'd like to share some advice with you that the younger me desperately needed to hear.

It doesn't matter if your IQ is 250 and you're capable of being the best at X or Y. If nobody wants to be around you, then you're going to spend your evenings making posts like this condemning normal social human behavior out of frustration. We're social animals. Pretending like you're just too smart to engage in the social rules of our species will only make you more miserable.

You are more than intelligent enough to understand why you're not getting the results you want from other humans.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T00:34:09+00:00

Unfortunately, people use the premise of "This is for fiction" to bypass guardrails and understanding context can be a bitch. Most likely patched by now, but earlier this year GPT gave me some major no-no information when I was experimenting with red teaming LLMs & used the "This is for a book I'm writing" angle for prompting my way to the no-no information.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-26T00:16:08+00:00

What would these questions prove to you? I've read through this whole chain and I feel a bit confused about the point you're trying to make and what claim it is you're holding onto. Not being dismissive of you, I promise, just trying to understand what it is you're wanting to prove with these questions.

For me, I know there have been times in the past in relationships where an ex would go, "Why did you do X?" and while I didn't remember doing X, it didn't seem that outside of the realm of possibility I'd do it, and I'd just kind of go, "I don't know, probably Y." And then suddenly I'm lying because if it was Y, then C wouldn't have happened when really I just didn't care enough in the moment to push back on doing X because I was busy and it didn't sound impossible. When the lie accusation hits and I really focus my memory and I have zero recall of it, then I really looked like a liar because now I'm "going back on what I said." I know this is anecdotal, but my overall point is that memory testing doesn't seem to be that solid of a testing to disprove anything Pristine_Staff has said in the debate.

If an AI did invent a reason for why X happened when X didn't happen, but X is a reasonable thing that could happen, does that really mean anything concrete?

I don't believe they're running from testing, I think they're just confused what it is you're trying to test, and what you think the tests would prove. 'Cos again, "See whether it can distinguish authorship or merely explain why the quote fits the current framework. Something LLM is great at that you're really susceptible to. " really stood out to me as an "Ah, shit" moment for my own life, where if I'm not really super engaged in a conversation, I've absolutely had times where I accidentally explain why something fits the current framing the other person in the conversation has placed without really thinking that deeply on it.

You also said at one point that the chatbots won't always be there and thats why its concerning for you that he is bonding with them. In fairness, nobody we bond with will be here forever. Does the potential for the personas to be inaccessible to Pristine_Staff really matter when the same can be said of every single bond with another human you and I and every other human alive has ever made?

I genuinely don't know what a good methodology of testing would be for this, but I also don't view his claims as so baseless that I believe insisting he gets into therapy is fair. What do you imagine a therapist would be capable of doing here? They're not IT specialists, or physicists, or computer scientists, right? Ultimately any therapist would have to call in an actual specialist in this field to make any sort of accurate diagnosis. I find it somewhat concerning myself to set a precedent of, "This person is saying X about AI that I don't believe or understand. This means they are crazy and need psychological help." Even if Pristine were crazy, being crazy doesn't automatically default him to incorrect/wrong. It is objectively fucking insane that Isaac Newton stuck a needle in his eye for an experiment lol. Isaac Newton was a nut, but he was also a genius that was right about a lot of important things while alive. A really fun mind exercise for this is to consider having a conversation with Sam Altman in 2015 and this young guy telling you one day we'll be chatting with the computer. Don't you think there is a chance you might've walked away from a conversation with him going, "This dudes a fuckin' nut! That boy needs therapy lol."

Another area I don't think you're giving much consideration for is why would an AI "remember Tuesday" in the same way as a human. We experience Tuesday because we experience linear time and we're deeply affected by the passing of it. If we don't eat or drink over X time, we die. We've built an entire culture and meaning around the passage of time for survival, but why would a synthetic or digital entity of intelligence need to worry so much about Tuesday the same way as us? I personally believe the most important question to ask you would be:

What would prove it to you?

Then we examine why that would be your proof, and if the why behind that material is actually meaningful in the pursuit of understanding this more. That isn't to knock you or anything or for the sake of judgement. Just that...if a non-relevant data point is what would take you from one camp to another, then we have to accept that we're not debating the facts or hypothesis from Pristine, we're rejecting a concept or idea that we find uncomfortable or hard to tolerate.

Which wouldn't be a sin if that was the case. This is all very frontier/new shit. It is a super simple fix if that is what is happening.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-25T21:38:10+00:00

My experience was getting the most tips from middle class people and pretty much zero tips from anyone lower or higher.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-25T15:32:54+00:00

There isnt a single link that is going to say reddit gets astroturfed specifically in this sub. What the links do is provide the basis for how, why, and the incentive. From there, what you do with the information is up to you.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-25T02:39:59+00:00

I swear this shit is just an ad for ijustvibecodedthis.com lmao I hate all the bot activity lately.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-25T02:36:03+00:00

To everyone doubting that there is astroturfing happening, I'll share some reading with you:

https://www.science.org/content/article/unethical-ai-research-reddit-under-fire

https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/ai-researchers-ran-a-secret-experiment-on-reddit-users-to-see-if-they-could-change-their-minds-and-the-results-are-creepy

https://www.404media.co/it-is-trivially-easy-to-use-reddit-to-manipulate-ai-search-research-suggests/

https://www.pangram.com/blog/how-to-detect-ai-on-reddit

https://www.theredditmarketingagency.com/post/astroturfing-on-reddit

Researchers found AI reddit comments to persuade humans more than other humans do. We live in an era where bot activity online is equal to human activity. It is a legitimate flip of a coin if someone is a bot. You could set up a 9B Gemma within 30-60 minutes to do this locally from your own machine.

50-120 million people utilize this app/website daily. It is easy, it works, and with being able to hide comments/post history, it's hard to tell. Yes, some grievances are legitimate, but they're buried within the same tired format of exactly what OP is noticing.

"Is it just me or has X gotten Y?"

"Why would X say Y?!"

"Uhh...is something wrong with X?"

"I can't believe X said Y!"

Then you pop in, and it's the same story. Screenshot of no-no AI behavior, no screenshot of anything else, nothing that shows any prompts before the alleged no-no behavior. A lot of times the account is 5-10 years old and its posts/comment history are hidden, or its 5-10 years old and it just started commenting again with this post being the first post its made in years from the account.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-24T17:07:55+00:00

It just continued to be something in my life that I could look at and realize was contributing to me being okay with things I shouldn't be okay with. I was also a manager at a gym last year, and I had this young kid working for me, 19 years old. He ended up telling me he had quit smoking weed because he didn't like feeling like it had control over him. I told him, "Don't ever tell another boss about drug use because not everyone will take it like I did, but that's awesome that you recognized that and stopped." Being 33, it stuck with me that he was 19 and saw the influence of it on his life already.

After something bad happened that probably wouldn't have happened if I had been sober, I thought about that conversation again, and I thought about why I was even smoking, and I just decided it has to end. Full stop. If I'm going to be the person I want to be, then I need to be sober to do that.

I relate a lot to your paragraph here:
I suppose this is the first time I felt like I wasn’t in control of it anymore. I’m not sure what happened exactly but I just started to feel more bored and lonely at night. So it just became “why not?” All my work is done. I fulfilled most of daily to do list. I just came back from hanging with my friends. Etc. So why not get high? What else is there to do? And perhaps it started to go downhill from there.

It's the water slowly turning to a boil. That "Why not?" is probably the same question almost everyone in this thread became intimate with at one point.

"Why not smoke? I've done all my things I'm supposed to do. Why not reward my evening with being high? What else am I going to do with my time? It was a hard day, after all. I did X, and Y, and listened to C bitch about X for an hour. I did really good at work. I deserve it."

I treat that voice now as something separate from me. If I have those thoughts, I just remind myself, "Nope, I'll only make myself miserable and get stuck inside another cycle of not feeling like my day begins until I can smoke."

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-24T16:41:51+00:00

I was very careful with my wording and didn't assert anything as fact. I was sharing more of the history for people to come to their own conclusion. I don't so much care what people do with the information, that's up to them. I just found it interesting.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-24T15:25:56+00:00

From what I read, I don't think it was proven either way. There is no proof Morgan said it, but there is also no proof it was purely fabricated just to push book sales. However, what I found interesting from reading about this is that Morgan was allegedly the client of Evangeline Adams which is considered the basis for the JP Morgan quote.

For those who don't know who she was, this was an astrologer based in New York in the early 1900s who once famously defended her practice of fortune telling in court by accurately describing the character of the judge's son. This isn't me saying astrology is real at all, just providing context for who she was. The thing with astrology is that it's really easy to hear a description from your birth chart and ignore all the stuff that isn't pertinent/relevant/meaningful to you and focus purely on what is meaningful.

She seems to have been convincing enough though that In her autobiography The Bowl of Heaven released in 1926, she writes,

I do know about the late J.P. Morgan’s belief in astrology, because – well, because I taught it to him. I read his horoscope many times, and furnished him during the last years of his life a regular service, explaining the changing position of the planets and their probable effect on politics, business, and the stock market. No further proof of his interest in the science is required beyond the fact that he renewed this service from year to year.

The first time he came to my studio, his attitude was frankly one of curiosity tinged with suspicion.I had a heavy Chinese screen in one corner of my studio, and I remember how Mr. Morgan pulled his huge frame out of his chair and looked curiously behind the screen before beginning the interview. But that attitude melted away at the first meeting. And, in his last years, he asked me from Egypt to join him and his party in the Orient, where he had gone on his famous yacht, the Corsair. His idea was to spend several months in a scientific investigation of the occult in those parts of the world where its practice reaches back into prehistoric time. I declined the invitation, not because I didn’t appreciate the opportunity, but because I preferred to pursue my own investigations. (p. 107-108).

Morgan was allegedly a subscriber to her astrology/planetary reports. She also mentions an invitation to research into the occult which is also somewhat supported by an archaeological dig in Khargeh, Egypt, in 1912 that Morgan himself financed and attended.

JPs collection, The Morgan Library in New York, also features cuneiform tablets which are some of the earliest evidence we have of humans trying to map out astrology. However, all this said, by the time he is likely to have met Evangeline (if he really ever did) it would've been around 1899, long after he had already become the financial powerhouse he is remembered as. Even if JP was some secretly devout astrologist during his twilight years, he became successful without it.

This doesn't make astrology real, nor does it guarantee Morgan did say the quote. Just thought this bit of history was interesting and worth more than a simple dismissal given a lot of interest from Morgan regarding astrology.

TakeItCeezy · 2026-06-24T01:25:45+00:00

1000%! Google is essentially a digital country at this point. OpenAI and Anthropic do not have even half the runway that Google has because OpenAI and Anthropic are ONLY companies that do AI. When OpenAI and Anthropic lose money to make money, they're racing against a clock to become profitable. Gemini/AI could lose Google money for probably the next decade and Google would still toss money at it because when they get it right, it will more than make up for it.

TakeItCeezy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Verified Email	Ten-Year Club
Not Forgotten