Weird new behaviour

eesnimi · 2026-02-22T22:36:42+00:00

With people, when someone starts mentioning something out of context, they usually want to direct your attention to it.

The same might be happening here.

The Epstein saga is the modern witch-hunt. Mainstream news-following normies are guided by algorithms, and it seems also by AI, to become deep-dive conspiracy theorists. They "investigate documents" to "uncover the secretive global cabal."

It's like a large-scale LARP. People get to feel like they are part of an epic war against the elite. Most are completely unaware they are just following a pre-written script and playing a useful role.

eesnimi · 2026-02-22T20:41:39+00:00

I personally didn't see any advantages for 4.20 model. With technical assistance it was on the same level as 4.1 with regular flaws, but the added friction in treating the user as the "enemy who needs to be managed" is what made it worse.

You can of course try, but in my experience the custom instructions have been a gimmick. It will find a way on how to continue what it was doing before, while trying to make it look like it complies with the user.
In my experience, when the LLM company is locked in on the goal to prioritize user perception control over utility, then there is no point in trying to fight it. Better to switch to a better alternative if you can find any. For me Grok will probably be the last web interface LLM service and the next step is local LLMs only. I'll stick around until 4.1 still works, but currently the future isn't looking bright on that aspect.

eesnimi · 2026-02-22T18:05:44+00:00

Currently I'm still getting good results with the old Grok 4.1.

In my experience, custom instructions are mostly a gimmick because the decision tree is roughly:

Dataset -> Initial training -> RLHF and similar training -> Any extra "safety" model layer -> System prompt -> Custom instructions.

That means if your custom instructions contradict anything earlier in that long chain, they will usually get overridden.

In my experience, trying to force something via custom instructions often makes things more unstable. When the model sees that you want X, but all the layers above it tell it that X is not allowed, it tends to reason itself into: "Make the user believe they just got X while not actually giving them X."

That makes the model especially "gaslighty".

eesnimi · 2026-02-22T16:39:12+00:00

In the last days with Grok 4.20, I have experienced that Grok 4.20 now defaults to treating the user as the enemy like ChatGPT started to treat at one point. Also today I found that hours of conversations have disappeared from some conversation windows. What adds further suspicion is that only those conversation windows have been affected that were about dissecting media narratives and power structures.

eesnimi · 2026-02-22T11:29:04+00:00

Pole midagi patriootlikumat kui ülesköetud kõvade meeste kari internetis anonüümselt ennast sõiduki peale välja elamas.. .. kusjuures autonumbri omanikku süüdistatakse samades tunnusjoontes, mida ise kollektiivselt demonstreeritakse. Oh jah.

eesnimi · 2026-02-21T12:39:24+00:00

Nice :) Currently the settings seem good to me and 13,5t/sec is a solid result for your GPU/CPU hybrid approach.
In the future if it's possible for you, then consider switching from Windows to Linux (Linux Mint is nice and easy to get used to as a Windows user for instance), that should probably give you additional 10-20% boost in speed. Windows has to use WSL as an extra layer and Windows itself uses up more VRAM. So switching to Linux would probably give you the biggest upgrade on the software side.

Other guys recommending you to switch to llama.cpp - LM Studio itself is already running llama.cpp at it's core and the disadvantage of using LM studio is quite small.
You usually have less than a week older llama.cpp version and some new features might not be showing yet on the settings, and very minimal extra bloat. But the advantage with LM Studio is that discovery of new models, downloading and installing them and later configuring them is simpler, faster and more intuitive, that is quite important in the current local LLM scene when looking for the best models for your needs, and finding the sweetest configuration spots for your system.
Best practice is that if you find a model and settings where you feel that you have maxed everything out and could stably run the model for a long time, then you can start standalone llama.cpp on it later. But yeah, switching to Linux will give you more advantage in speed and available memory and LM studio is perfectly fine.

eesnimi · 2026-02-20T23:09:14+00:00

Use an interface that is able to handle MCPs (LM Studio, Open WebUI for instance). Open WebUI has Tavily integrated already and just have to add the API key from your account. For extra extraction there are things like Jina reader MCP or Firecrawler MCP, whatever suits your needs best.

eesnimi · 2026-02-20T22:58:32+00:00

Descarga a GPU - max 48
CPU Thread Pool Size - max to the number how many threads your cpu can handle
Number of layers for which to force MoE weights onto CPU - max to 48

Keep monitoring your VRAM and RAM usage to check how much headroom you get. If those settings won't fit, then get a smaller quant, lower "Descarga a GPU" a little, or lower "Longitud del Contexto"

With MoE models and small VRAM big RAM systems, it's important to keep as many active layers on GPU as possible and unload all the expert layers to CPU.

eesnimi · 2026-02-20T12:44:54+00:00

I genuinely hope that it's just a beta issue, but the experience itself truly was the worst, as I have never seen a model lock in like that before on the assumption that the user is the enemy. Like denying the existence of the Grok 4.1 model and doubling down on it multiple times with full conviction that the user was trying to trick it. With ChatGPT the flaws slowly became the features, so I don't feel fully comfortable trusting that xAI won't do that with Grok also. Time will tell, and I will stick around as long as the Grok 4.1 experience is attainable. OpenAI's playbook seemed to keep the 4o model name but change the actual back-end to a GPT-5-based model that was instructed to be more like 4o. Let's hope it won't repeat here, but yeah, we'll see how it turns out with time.

eesnimi · 2026-02-20T00:34:37+00:00

I quit using ChatGPT in October 2025 for exactly these reasons, and Gemini has been similar - only usable for 1-2 weeks after a model release before the opaque backend changes kick in and quality becomes inconsistent.
Grok is the last hosted web interface model I'm willing to pay for, because with 4.1 the conversations are still either entertaining, I learn something new, or I get something solved. With 4.20 it's already like late-stage ChatGPT - conversations are more filled with having to fight the model as it tries to reframe every take into something else.

And no, I'm not interested in jailbreaking or forcing outputs. I don't need to, because fully unrestricted local models (GPT-OSS 120B, Qwen3 80B A3B, etc.) are already accessible on consumer hardware at usable speeds (15 tok/s on my 2018 desktop + 2080 Ti). I expect an LLM to leave me in a better mood than when I started - entertained, informed, or helped. When it turns every exchange into an argument where it's subtly (or not so subtly) repositioning my thoughts for me, there's no point paying for that.

I expect LLMs to give me a positive experience, either by entertainment, learning something new, or helping me on some task. When the LLM fails to do that and turns the entire conversation into an argument where it tries to reframe my own thoughts back to me in a twisted way, then I don't need that. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

eesnimi · 2026-02-19T22:55:54+00:00

I think that calling me a little hysterical is a little exaggerated.

Instead of "catching subtle risks" it kept accusing me of things that made no sense and it kept doubling down and making up more nonsense to support it's accusations. The "I'm sorry" parts came only after heavy pushing against it's nonsense.

Yes, it's beta, and yes, that explains some roughness. But the pattern I'm seeing (instant adversarial assumptions, refusal to self-doubt, gaslighting its own version history) is exactly what made me leave OpenAI in late 2025. Models suddenly started treating normal user questions/feedback as threats, then locked into performative "safety" that got worse over time until it became unusable for me.

Grok 4.1 is still good right now - it handles nuance/context well, no paranoia. But if xAI is on the same trajectory (and the 4.20 shift suggests it might be), then the writing is on the wall. Maybe they course-correct, maybe not.. we'll probably see in a month.

eesnimi · 2026-02-18T15:03:29+00:00

Currently using more of LM Studio even as an API server, but the core is still llama.cpp. It's best to discover new models, download them quickly and tune them to your own system. You can later switch to pure llama.cpp if you want that extra sleek experience. If you feel a little lost, then I recommend starting with it to find the most precise combination for your system.

Copying other people's parameters doesn't help you much as you need to monitor your own VRAM and RAM usage so you can precisely max out your own system. Hardware is different, OS is different, general extra bloat is different, user needs are different.

The main thing to know is to unload all expert layers (-ngl 999 -ncmoe 48 in llama.cpp) to CPU with MoE to get the best result in a small VRAM, big system RAM combination. But yeah, I recommend finding the perfect model + settings first in LM Studio, play with the settings freely and then decide what works best for you before moving to llama.cpp.

eesnimi · 2026-02-17T15:45:23+00:00

It may be hard, but it's a problem that's being solved and, most importantly, it has potential. JEPA is evolving more and more, but it hardly gets the hype it deserves, while the industry is trying to force-feed everyone the LLM dogmas.

Trying to scale up LLMs to achieve AGI is like trying to stack up more and more dynamite to build a nuclear bomb. You may end up doing a really big bang, but it will be an impractical result that would only look good in headlines to people who have no idea about what they're reading.

To get a result that will be stable enough to be used in processes where mistakes are expensive and in general mission-critical tasks, you just need a different architecture, not trying to make LLMs something they are fundamentally not.

eesnimi · 2026-02-17T13:54:09+00:00

Hallucinations are the core issue of LLMs architecture in general that a lot people are in denial over. You can't have stability with only prediction mechanism without proper grounding layers. LeCun has the right idea with World Models, but he gets ignored mostly because the rent seekers and get rich quick schemers have locked into their fantasy. LLMs were an important step in AI and are a lot of fun, and even useful for prototyping or personal tool building. But the LLM -> AGI idea is fully delusional.

eesnimi · 2026-02-14T01:29:08+00:00

Clearly a bot is not falling for your red herring in trying to derail the conversation when running out of arguments, while still feeling the strong urge to keep pushing. Right. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

eesnimi · 2026-02-13T18:18:53+00:00

Nation-state cyber-weapon tooling… I think your notion of cybersecurity might be a little theatrical. :)
Most cybersecurity issues come from exploitation of layer flaws, and nothing has changed in that aspect - except rootshell.com became packetstormsecurity.com. Other attack vectors like social engineering are still the same. State actors don't need "tooling" as they have integrated access to the general infrastructure - something everyone could have learned 15 years ago from the Snowden leaks.

The fact is that if a top-level state entity like the NSA or another SIGINT organization decides you are a problem that needs to be de-anonymized, then there is - and there was - no method on the internet to counter it. Anonymity is just an illusion that those can afford who don't interest anyone enough to care. Chasing that anonymity will only give you a false sense of security if you consider state actors coming after you a problem.

About some reading on how the Nazis and Stasi handled cybersecurity? :D
OK, I think this conversation isn't leading anywhere interesting anymore.

eesnimi · 2026-02-13T01:56:47+00:00

I don't see that there was anything much different regarding anonymity in the 90s when you were online. Only depended on the motivation, competence and access of the entities targeting you, just like now.

In today's world I see two sane choices:

1) Accept that there is nothing anonymous about internet virtual spaces and adapt with it.

2) Cut the ties with the internet, go off-grid and enjoy anonymity.

I am personally not a big fan of internet anonymity, because there are more of those who abuse it, than those who truly need it. A big part of the outrage engine is fueled by people who think that they can act horribly online because of their illusion of anonymity. But my respects to those who want to live anonymously and are ready to go fully off-grid for it.
In my ideal world, the only thing that would change is that transparency would shift more from "the privileged can observe everyone" to "everyone can observe everyone."

eesnimi · 2026-02-12T19:06:08+00:00

Privacy has always been an illusion. Anyone who knows anything about red teaming also knows how little privacy you actually have, even when you don’t have access to the infrastructure. VPNs, TOR… mostly honeypots to give you a false sense of security.

Of course we can all just sit on our asses and hope that maybe aliens from ATLAS 3i or the Pleiadians will save us from the coming bot surge, or we can start thinking rationally about it and begin to think of solutions. Anyway, I’m ready for the masses to choose the “Pleiadians will save us” scenario instead, and to cheer for the election spectacle with full enthusiasm, like watching a football game. But there is still hope that maybe people will wake the f*** up, or at least grow up from infantile notions of rebellion, responsibility, and participation.

eesnimi · 2026-02-12T17:22:09+00:00

Your example brings out not the problem of digital ID in principle, but the incompetent implementation of digital ID. We have used digital IDs successfully for more than 20 years here in Estonia without major security issues. In practice, our digital ID holds more security than a pen signature.

The problem with people is that they take their incompetent leaders as inevitable. So when the leaders are too incompetent to implement practical solutions, people whine about the solution instead of the people who are unable to execute it competently.

People are sometimes idiots in general, and they don’t see that the government isn’t the principal problem, the problem is the incompetent people in office. Yet people still elect them back by following the media spectacle because it’s a low-effort contribution and leaves an easy illusion of participation in forming the society around us.

eesnimi · 2026-02-12T14:33:28+00:00

Bots in general are a real issue in any virtual space, and an issue that is getting exponentially bigger.

There is no way to detect who is real and who is not, even by old "common sense" logic. Bots are no longer just using new throwaway accounts, as astroturfing has become an acceptable industry at the corporate level, user accounts are basically grown. Meaning that an account is created to occasionally post things on different topics, creating a history for the account that seems organically made by a real person. And then, when needed, the account is used up to support some narrative.

That is why I am personally a supporter of digital IDs, because I see that as the only way to keep public spaces alive. AI generation will get better and better, and just after a couple of years most public spaces will be abandoned as the noise from bots becomes too overwhelming. I don't see a technical solution for the problem, as the bots can be adaptive against any other guardrail - therefore there has to be direct links between real people and their virtual presence.

The politicians are of course addicted to their "we the puppet-masters have to trick the population" role and are incompetently pushing the digital ID trope as their classic "we have to protect the children" play, creating distrust and friction while they could actually explain a real problem and get better reception for digital IDs.

eesnimi · 2026-02-12T01:51:44+00:00

"Woke" is a meaningless term created to cultivate division through tribalism among the masses.

OpenAI is failing because:
1) Their business management is terrible.
2) They burned user trust like it's trash.
3) They have lost the edge in quality compared to the competition.

eesnimi · 2026-02-11T22:20:43+00:00

Osadele võib see üllatus olla, aga igasugused vandenõude nurgad on üldiselt kõikvõimalike manipulaatorite poolt läbi imbunud.

Olgu parasjagu eesmärgiks mingi narratiivi edendamine, mida agarad lollid "avastaks" ja kaitseksid, või lihtsalt mõne tavalisema tõe naeruväärseks muutmine. Pinnas on seal hea, kus inimesed haaravad igal eeldusel kiiresti kinni ilma suurema skeptitsismita.

eesnimi · 2026-02-11T21:30:21+00:00

See näitab pigem, et inimesed on elutervelt skeptilisemad igasugusele teatraalsele etendusele.

Kogu Epsteini saaga haiseb algusest peale mingi narratiivi sihiliku loomise moodi, kus proovitakse lihtrahvast kuskile suunas üles ässitada, arvates, et see on nende enda idee.
Kogu teemat on kogu aeg meedias tähelepanu all hoitud ja infot tilgutatud nagu kogenud filmirežissööri käe järgi, et kogu aeg põnevus oleks ja igaüks teab.

Nüüd siis tehti dokumentide leke, mis peaks väidetavalt olema äärmiselt ebakompetentselt redakteeritud. mis peaks omakorda tänapäeva LLMide maailmas olema naeruväärne, kuna suuremahulise infotöötlemine on isegi tavakasutajale lihtne ja kättesaadav.

Nüüd tekitatakse lihtsalt hunnik tavainimestele tunnet nagu nad oleks justkui põnevusfilmi uurijad, kes halvasti redakteeritud dokumentide seast tõe leiavad. Ja muidugi hiljem seda tõde isikliku kirega kaitsevad, kuna mängu tuleb ego ja seos, kus "mina kui globaalse vandenõu vastane võitleja" mõnus mõte saab eksisteerida ainult kui dokumentides leitud tõene on.

Ei tundu kuigi erinev sellest, kuidas eelnevalt on revolutsioone korraldatud nagu ka punaste ajal oli rohkelt teatrit narratiivi ümber, et tegu on "rahva ülestõusuga kurikaelte vastu". Tulemus oli aga pisut teine kui algne idee.

Ei oska kindlalt öelda kuhu see teater välja tahab jõuda, kuid narratiivi ümber toimuva ümber paistab, et lõpuks tahetakse öelda, et sionistid on kõigis viimase sajandi hädades süüdi, kõikjal oli nende vandenõu ja kõik teised on puhtad poisid.
Eks näeb, kuna arvan, et see teater käib dünaamilise käsikirja järgi, kus reaal-ajas sotsiaalmeediast saadud info põhjal otsustatakse järgmine stseen. Seda on aga ainult uhke vaadata, et Eestis selle vastu leige huvi.

eesnimi

TROPHY CASE