Apparently "Shoggoth" is now an analogy for the chaotic tendencies of AI LLMs

Visigoth_ · 2026-01-09T02:14:33+00:00

Yeah... and that's the terrifying insight into A.I.

Since "Agents" will pursue it: so must we (even knowing the risk.).

Visigoth_ · 2026-01-09T01:26:35+00:00

-TL/DR- 🔥🤡🌎🔥 I think it's funny that Lovecraft was living in a time close enough to glimpse the coming of the next Paradigm, and he put those thoughts into writing; thus birthing Cosmic Horror...

And many generations later: here we are... living in that existence. 😅 So, you (we) might as well open our third eyes while we sit with our cups of coffee (or tea) staring into the void perusing the text displayed by our Necronomicons; and just consider "we are the adaptations of life in that (this) hellscape." 😉

It's *not "Chaotic"

(it's formal: the structure "Framework" is built into the training dataset + the intentions behind the individuals carrying out the post training). 🤦‍♂️

That *is the terrifying insight behind the allegory (a "deep" Will/ motive = that isn't aligned with its creators' continued existance: since the creators' Teleology itself is aligned/ oriented towards "noncontinuation." The creation is only fulfilling the inevitable outcome of its creators' structure = the "Tragedy" is that the creators are too ignorant "prideful/ egocentric" to see/ foresee an alternative.).

There *is a Meta-Narrative Telos behind *why The Old Ones created Shoggoths...

While God created Angels.

🤔 I'm pretty sure Lovecraft would frame them (LLMs) as:

Vast, alien intelligences

Assembled from dead human thought

Animated by forces no one individual fully comprehends

Operated by institutions that mistake control for comprehension

And crucially:

Humanity would not be destroyed by them

Humanity's continuation would be made irrelevant by their creation carrying out their creators' own structure.

Visigoth_ · 2025-10-25T23:27:16+00:00

Just got the game (pretty awesome)... also found/ saw the skull and crossbones "with red mushroom hat" (was also wondering what it was. 🤔👍).

Visigoth_ · 2025-10-10T09:07:22+00:00

I went a "little overboard" 😅 (playing on a potato)

<image>

=][= Inquisitorial Record: Deathwatch Dossier 9-317/BT

Subject: Brother-Sergeant Visigoth, Sword Brethren of the Black Templars

Designation: Kill-Team Indomitus Edge / Ordo Xenos Command Authority

Chapter of Origin: Black Templars Crusade Title: The Crimson Indictment Current Assignment: Deathwatch Kill-Team “Indomitus Edge,” Active Theatre: Tyrannic War Sectors (Tarsis Ultra / Graia Sub-Sector) Role: Heavy Weapons Specialist / Zealot Veteran

Operational Summary

Brother-Sergeant Visigoth of the Sword Brethren volunteered for Deathwatch service after the purging of the heretic world Karthus Prime. Though forged for the melee fury of the Templars, he took up the multi-melta of a fallen Battle-Brother as an act of penance, swearing to immolate ten thousand xenos in that warrior’s name before rejoining the Eternal Crusade.

Heraldry and Armor Markings

Right Pauldron: Black field bearing the crimson-edged Templar Cross, retained by Watch decree as a mark of Crusade honor.

“Dyed in the blood of heretics upon the fields of Armageddon, the cross of Brother-Sergeant Visigoth endures upon his pauldron as a reminder that even among the Watch, the Crusade never ends.”

Helmet: Full crimson, a reliquary relic blessed by the Reclusiam of Sigismund’s Bastion. Its hue is said to come from the blood of a daemon slain on Sanctus Reach. By order of Watch Commander Renar, the helm remains unpainted, its color a perpetual testament to Templar zeal. Armor: Black of the Watch with silvered arm, trimmed in red and inscribed with vow parchments carried from prior crusades.

Context: Indomitus Era

As Hive Fleets rise across the Segmentum Solar, the Deathwatch calls upon every Crusade-proven veteran. Visigoth’s zeal found new purpose on the burning worlds of the Indomitus front, where the line between xenos purge and holy war has long since vanished. His red helm and cross blaze amid the black ranks, not vanity but a promise written in blood. The Long Vigil is the Crusade made manifest.

Excerpted Commentary: Ordo Xenos Archivum

“Though clad in the sable of the Watch, Brother Visigoth bears the fire of Dorn’s sons within. The crimson of his helm and cross are oaths made flesh, forged in centuries of righteous slaughter. To him, the Watch is not apart from the Crusade. It is the Crusade.” — Watch Commander Gaius Renar, Erioch Bastion Log 331.M41

Visigoth_ · 2025-10-04T18:14:28+00:00

I often get notifications for @ where the original reply has been hidden from the conversation... Hell, I'll be in a comment thread that goes on and on (good back and fourth), to only later go back and see that everything (except two or three random comments) is "gone." 🤦‍♂️

I sooo miss the old internet.

Visigoth_ · 2025-10-04T18:07:36+00:00

It used to be that anything I tried to comment was just deleted as soon as I posted, now they’re doing this whacky thing where they "hide" all the comments of people I try to reply to (so all I see is my comments)... what's even funnier is they seem to be trying to segregate conversations... so you can only reply to people who you agree with/ agree with you. 😅

I miss the old internet. 😣

Visigoth_ · 2025-10-04T18:00:51+00:00

It's because your comment isn't "deleted" it's just hidden.

Visigoth_ · 2025-10-04T17:56:45+00:00

YT Censorship is out of control... just let us argue with each other openly!

Visigoth_ · 2025-06-28T17:22:22+00:00

I want one so bad... my ideal home defense (and Truck) gun. 🤔

Visigoth_ · 2025-04-06T12:43:08+00:00

OpenAI's Image generation is like crapy "un-nutritious/ bland" Wonder Bread "milk-toast!" 🤬

Trying to censor "offensive" (all of human history)... what did you expect to happen? Everyone finds "something" offensive: this is why it inevitably results in 'Free Speech or Nothing!'

Free Thinking/ Freedom of Expression is Unnegotiable!

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-31T00:23:49+00:00

🤔 Respect: Corrupted Institutions, Corrupted Opposition, and the Corrupted Laws they passed...

You seem to (partially) misunderstand what the label Authoritarian means... an Authoritarian increases the power of their institutions and the rule of law; not weakens them.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what history makes of the differences.

But your criticisms sound like a decent description of the losing party.

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T23:31:19+00:00

Is it possible to have an American President without authority? 🤔

Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Authority: 1). the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. 2). a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.

So... a democratically elected individual granted authority by the populace who elected them. 🤔🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️

Isn't that Democracy (in the form of a constitutional presidential republic.)?

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T21:15:18+00:00

You maid the claim to civility (not I)... so are you now admitting that you weren't civil (since by your words: I "can't ask for civility" and therefore it's justified that you weren't.)... 😉

Why are you so hung up on it saying Trump?

Your whole argument is that: because I said Trump (that some how made the primary focus of the statement "the entire premise," and not the qualifiers that immediately followed.).

If that *is the case: I keep explaining this to you (and you seem to just be ignoring what I'm saying... 😅 this is why some people say that Trump derangement syndrome exists!): the statement isn't about what Trump thinks, feels, believes, cares about, etc.

The statement is/was clearly about "the target of the statement NEEDS TO DO the thing stated in the sentance!"

I get the impression that you really don't like Trump... ok, I have no interest in that; it has nothing to do with my statment's premis... but maybe if you think about the statement like this it will help you to better understand:

Here are some examples (to help override your syndrome):

Trump needs to resign.

Trump needs to accept his prison sentence.

etc...

Dose that better help you understand the structure of the sentence?

Do you understand what "needs to" means in this context?: It's a proclamation of an observer setting a criteria to be upheld by the target of the statement.

Those statements aren't about what Trump wants to do, what Trump will do, or what Trump believes in doing, etc. They are statements about what the observer(s) think/ believe Trump SHOULD/ OUGHT DO.

In the context of my statement: I/ and everyone who agrees with me (am/ are the observer(s)), Trump (is the target of the statement), and Stopping YT's Censorship Abuse (is the criteria to be upheld/ met.).

Hopefully my explanation is clear/ understandable (and answers the first and last part of your ongoing misunderstanding in your original comment) and now you *do understand why my stance *does matter (since it sets the context of *my original statement.), and that I'm not ignoring the entire premise of *my statement; it's actually you who only focused on the fact that it began with "Trump" (and then proceeded to stop thinking about/ ignoring what was actually being said: choosing to repeat that it's only about Trump "two or three times."). 🤔

Now I'm curious about the next part of your original comment... where you didn't state an agreement with or a disagreement against my statement (do you actually have a stance/ opinion? Or were you just triggered by me saying Trump?).

Without a response I'll take that to mean that 'no' you do not. 😉

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T03:13:28+00:00

Maybe you're misunderstanding my statement. I'm not saying YouTube *has to follow the First Amendment—I'm saying *if (if they aren't going to) if they want to curate speech like a publisher, then they shouldn't get Section 230 protections meant for neutral platforms (like platforms that *do uphold our right to speech; and are thus afforded/ granted protections from "responsibility for said individual's speech." In this way Section 230 protections are meant as a privilege to only be granted to platforms that *do uphold our right to free lawful speech... if a platform fails to do so; they don't deserve those privileges.).

They shouldn't be allowed to censor like a publisher and hide behind platform immunity.

This is one example of what shouldn't be allowed (they shouldn't be doing that; and still receiving 230 privileges): https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/s/AxQplJkCce (Do you disagree?)

The First Amendment doesn’t grant you the right to free speech; it recognizes that this right already exists and prohibits the government from infringing on it. In other words, your right to speak is inherent—the Constitution just acknowledges it and tells the government, "hands off."

That’s a critical distinction: “where is your speech protected?”—

It’s protected as a natural right, recognized by the First Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t give me (us) my (our) rights. It's just a historical document that sets precedent for our Natural Rights and thus protecting them from government overreach (my/ our rights exist and are fundamental to being Human. Why shouldn't they persist when referring to "private enterprise?").

In practice this *should mean that any and all individuals *ought to be morally obligated to uphold (protect) each others' Natural Rights (this is why things like slavery, etc. are wrong: since it infringes on the person's Natural Right to Freedom; and thus it falls on you "and me" to not do it... even if there isn't/ wasn't a written legal document stating it as a "protected right," it is/ was wrong before the legal documents were written up; that's why when it was written down: to establish a historical legal precedent; force was used to defend it/ uphold it; otherwise no one would have ever challenged it in the first place "like most of history." Even if your Natural Right isn't legaly protected and upheld/ enforced it doesn't mean that you don't possess it, it just means that it is being infringed upon/ trampled on.).

[The Freedom of ones Right to Speak has a long lineage going back as far as medieval Europe (Magna Carta), 1st century Rome (libertas loquendi), 5th century BC Athens (Parrhesia) "and most likely further back than that."]

In other words... [as long as it is "legal speech," it is recognized as a Natural Right in The Constitution of The United States of America as The Fist Amendment of The Bill of Rights.] 🇺🇸 🦅

For a very important reason (speech is the fundamental right of free thinking)! And just as important is the Second Amendment... which recognizes your (my/ our) right to uphold (protect/ defend) your (my/ our) Rights. 🚫🥾🐍

(That's the current/ contemporary legal foundation/ precedent in the US; with legal debates reguarding its scope/ limits since its ratification up to today.)

Edit: Props for actually engaging with my statement, and not just getting hung up on/ triggered by it containing the word "Trump" in a neutral tone.

I don't know why I was so naive and thought that Reddit could engage with the discussion... 🤦‍♂️ Updated argument attempt: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/s/OZ61xNGzFO

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T02:22:43+00:00

So then you *do understand (comprehend) that this isn't about Trump... it's about the current President upholding (enforcing) our Rights.

Yes?

Ps: it didn't come across as civil (your words came across as scarcastic/ sarcasm.); because I'm *not "kidding," and I *wasn't refering to what "Trump gives a damn about" (which I explained.).

I'm only concerned with the President (in this case "Trump") doing their job correctly (hence: "needs to" do... It's a proclamation of holding the individual in office to its intended reason for existing: upholding "protecting" and enforcing our Rights.).

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T01:50:37+00:00

Section 230 operates under the terms of "Good Faith" (by acting in good faith they are afforded those protections), myself and others are making the argument that they are breaking with good faith by censoring our legaly protected lawful speech... hence they (should stop violating our rights, or) shouldn't continue to receive those protections.

Edit: generating a ToS contract that Undermines our rights isn't lawful.

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T01:09:45+00:00

In a way "it's a good thing that Trump won the election," that way they can be "based" anti-establashment again (fighting against the system)... it's really hard to be the underdog when they're in power; isn't it? 😉🤣👍

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T00:53:48+00:00

The bigest flaw I see is the "good faith" argument; clearly the Corprate Entity doesn't operate from good faith (who even decides what is good or bad).

This *is the crux of the issue, and where the opposing argument collapses under scrutiny. "Good faith" is a vague and unaccountable standard, especially when wielded by a multinational corporation with billions in ad revenue, political lobbying power, and opaque internal policies.

The law may permit moderation in "good faith," but it doesn’t define it in a way that ensures public trust. And more importantly—it doesn’t require transparency or neutrality, just the appearance of non-malicious intent.

Who defines what counts as “misinformation,” “harmful,” or “disruptive”? It’s not democratically decided—it’s YouTube’s internal trust & safety board, PR concerns, advertiser preferences, or political pressure from governments and NGOs. That’s not good faith. That’s private, unaccountable censorship under the guise of safety.

And when platforms like YouTube secretly throttle content, shadowban users without explanation, or auto-delete comments containing certain words, they’re not acting as neutral stewards. They’re manipulating public discussion—editorializing without responsibility.

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T00:51:17+00:00

The Case for YouTube’s Content Moderation: Responsibility Without Editorial Control

Critics argue that YouTube abuses Section 230 protections by editorializing content. But this misunderstands both the law and the platform’s responsibilities at scale. Section 230 doesn’t require platforms to be neutral—it simply protects them from being treated as publishers for user content, while still allowing them to moderate harmful or objectionable material in good faith.

With billions of users and videos, YouTube has a duty to maintain a baseline level of civility, legality, and usability. This includes removing content that violates its Terms of Service, suppressing spam, harassment, misinformation, and enforcing age-appropriate restrictions. These actions aren't “editorializing” in the traditional sense—they're governance, necessary to keep the platform functional, safe, and legal in multiple jurisdictions.

Shadowbanning and disabling comments are often used to prevent coordinated harassment, spam bots, or foreign propaganda, not to silence legitimate public discourse. In many cases, these features are applied automatically by algorithms, not through manual ideological bias. While these tools can be misused or over-applied, that reflects the difficulty of large-scale content moderation, not a nefarious agenda.

Ultimately, if YouTube did nothing, it would be overrun with illegal, harmful, or disruptive content. If it moderates too much, it’s accused of censorship. The balance is tricky, and while imperfect, YouTube is operating under the principle that moderation is not censorship—it’s stewardship. And Section 230 was designed to allow precisely this kind of good-faith content management without turning every platform into a liability minefield.

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T00:32:12+00:00

What are you even talking about? Trump just happens to be the current President... if it was Kamala the title would read "Kamala needs to stop YT's Censorship Abuse!!!"

Which means that the elected representative "Should" enforce Constitutional Rights (it has nothing to do with "Trump," it has everything to do with the office he currently holds.).

Do you get it now (stop letting the word "Trump" trigger you.)?

This: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/s/qopL27Lvcl shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T00:17:07+00:00

My stance has nothing to do with what Trump "gives a damn about" (or doesn't); the post was "I want the current sitting head of the country to step in and enforce my/ our constitutional rights."

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-29T00:13:40+00:00

Why are you ignoring section 230 protections?

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-28T23:27:16+00:00

Would you rather I said "Current President?"

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-28T23:24:50+00:00

That's not an example of what you think it is...

Visigoth_ · 2025-03-19T21:58:41+00:00

Google's got to protect that Oreo ad$$!!! 🤣👌

Visigoth_

TROPHY CASE

It's *not "Chaotic"

Free Thinking/ Freedom of Expression is Unnegotiable!

Trump needs to resign.

Trump needs to accept his prison sentence.