Anyone saw Gemini announcement videos? No normal persona can differentiate between AI generated video and authentic video anymore. Full stop. There is no way social media can exist, without cryptographic signatures in posts and in media, without humanity going down the toilet.

Something that I have sensed a year ago, is slowly observable anywhere you look: ChatGPT averagism. Leaders of large organizations share with me how their team are creating presentations using ChatGPT – and they are good, but average. Average in the sense that presentations have no particular flaw, they are not bad in any assessable way – but average in a way that the uniqueness is gone. It turns into a presentation that could be made by any organization and be valid for any organization, you just need to change the logo. I work with multiple business partners, who send me emails, strategies, or vision statements that are clearly the output of ChatGPT. Again, not bad in any particular way – but ferociously average. You can hardly describe what is missing, but when you read it you know that something is incomplete. It goes on: emails, LinkedIn posts, website copy. Whether it is pitching a product or service, often it feels generic. Recently published science papers, books, YouTube videos, all begin to feel lifeless. Am I anti AI? The complete opposite. I still believe AI, including LLMs, are extremely powerful tools if used correctly. But people skip the most important steps. AI is omnipresent; for many the first app or tab they open when they should actually open an empty text file, a paper notebook, or scribble on a whiteboard in a meeting room. Don’t skip the spiritual part of your work.

If you didn't believe it before, yes UFO'S, OVNIS exist. ETs exist. Read: lawofone.info

"prediction is very close to intelligence" Prediction is intelligent as long as things unfold exactly as they did in the past. For surprisingly many fields this is true; which is why LLMs are more valuable than most people realize (and want to admit). However, at the same time, paradigm shifts cannot be predicted. When you truly go from zero to one, invent a new genre, come up with formulas that cannot be inferred or explained by historical data, you never predict - you always create. Which means there are at least two types of intelligence: logic + intuition. Experiential intuition is logic, real intuition is inner knowing, original knowledge that the subconscious mind retrieves directly from a universal quantum field containing all possible information about the past, present, and future. It cannot be logically deduced from past experiences, rahter it is pure "knowing" which surfaces as a sudden realization or gut feeling during brief moments when the rational mind temporarily relaxes its constant analysis and control. This is why I believe these three statements to be true: LLMs are extremely powerful and they are already on an exponential curve to outcompete every single human being and every collective of humans on the logical/rational intelligence. For the near- and medium-term future at least, artificial intelligence can never achieve what humans — because we are conscious — can access on the intuitive side of intelligence. If we fuse the strengths and power of all current forms of AI – including LLMs – with our uniquely human ability to access fields of information (and therefore invent, create, decide) we can create a future that is beyond the beauty of our wildest dreams. The real problem is: most humans, almost all organizations operate entirely on a rational / logical / data-based level (that's why AI, big data, etc. are such a money-making industry). Very very few trust what they know to be true, even though all data, and AI disagrees. This courage, to go against "predictive" intelligence, is what will separate creation from average. Everyone will have access to the same powerful AI systems. Most have access to the same or the least very similar data. Your level of consciousness is the unique difference.

AI automates the generalist. The middle is dead. ​Value will bifurcate to two poles: 1. ​Genesis: Create unmapped paradigms. 2. ​Liability: Absorb absolute risk. ​Forget skill acquisition. Monopolize accountability.

If your bowel movement takes longer than 30 seconds, you are eating the wrong food.

Magyar is not the anti-Orbán. He is Orbán without the corruption. So Hungary just voted. I didn’t really care about this election, but tonight – when I saw Péter Magyar winning a landslide (projected two-thirds majority) – I got interested in what he stands for. It seems Péter Magyar ran on Orbán’s forgeign policy minus the graft. Same stance on migration, same Ukraine caution, same 2035 Russia-energy timeline. So any previous Orbán voter who – this time – voted for Magyar got the same conviction on sovereignty and security but without a tolerance for theft. Orbán didn’t lose the argument, but he lost the trust. Magyar now sells the identical argument, now supermajority backed. What seemingly everyone in the EU (and mainstream media) overlooks is Tisza’s EP voting record and Péter Magyar’s explicit red lines (no migration pact, no fast-track Ukraine accession, no immediate Russia break. Hungarian voters clearly chose continuity, Brussels now got the rule-of-law photo-op (and cashflow). But Hungary will retain every veto that mattered in the past. The “pro-European reset” seems marketing when in reality Orbán built the walls, and what Magyar is doing is firing the corrupt guards. Anyone in the EU who thought they got a full pivot will discover they got the same product, only cleaner. Orbán did not lose Hungary on borders, migration, or sovereignty but he lost to a credible challenger – young and seemingly very charismatic – who offered the same societal red lines with cleaner hands, better state capacity, less oligarchic leakage. Ergo, my read: same nationalism -> lower corruption tolerance -> coalition portability This – ironically – matters beyond Hungary, because the right-populists now have a more dangerous competitor: a cleaner nationalist alternative with EU-acceptable state capacity.

This is actual art. I'm impressed.

84h fast. Only water, tea, coffee. Join me if you want.

The USA's problem is they wrongly believe that they're in a superior position BECAUSE they've Palantir. Ironically this war will show that pure logical big data AI systems are worth little, because human intelligence handles irrationality + human intuition for what you cannot know

Don't use AI first, use it when you reached your own insight, when you reached 80% of your intention. Only then use AI to make it happen, to make it better. After that, step back. Listen to your intuiton, move forward manually. Then return to AI to make it happen, better, ...

What took me a long time to understand is that you have to differentiate sharply between the formal rules of a state and the actual real-world freedoms available to an individual living within it. "Good governance" is actually incompatible with personal sovereignity, because by nature it means rules – whether you like them or not – are efficiently and strictly enforced. For example; a state with low corrpution and a clean legal system will impose severe penalties for minor infractions, wheras a "broken" country allows significant autonomy in daily life simply because rules are weakly enforced or not at all. So a state with institutional liberty but zero tolerance for deviation is a fail for personal liberty. In that sense, you also need to look at corruption in a more nuanced way: you must avoid states with predatory corruption at all cost (avoid even traveling there), while corruption as administrative slack can actually improve personal sovereignity. Example: a state with benign non-enforcement of laws (for example through small bribes or informal connections) can grant you more personal freedom because you bypass bureaucratic hurdles. However if freedom depends on bribery – predatory corrpution – you severely destroy personal sovereignity and create an environment of fear and unpredictability. With that being said: the highest degree of individual sovereignity is NOT found in the most orderly and legally "perfect" systems, but in those that grant individuals the biggest leeway to live according to their own choices. A seriously autonomy-minded individual, the most robust framework might be to seek legal protection of a strong state for one's capital, and a weak state for one's life.

If a human uses AI wrongly, AI lowers the human. If a human uses AI rightly, AI multiplies the human.

Serious question: how do you use technology in a healthy way? Phones, media, social media, etc.? What is the ideal balance?

It feels as if everyone became extremely stupid. It started with Covid 19? But I don't think everyone suddenky became stupid per se, but somehow social algorithms, pure propaganda mass media, and increasingly AI eradicated the ability for people to think critically for themselves (or think at all). That's why now everyone sounds like a parrot; without any real idea what they are saying. The more time you spent yourself consuming algorithmic media or asking censored AI for opinion, the higher risk you are at becoming an NPC retard.

Something is incredibly off in the world – and we all feel it. But nobody has an idea what to do about it.

I wonder why nobody in the music industry tried an Audible model. Pay $15 a month, select 15 songs or 1 album, and own it forever – even if you cancel.

The ideal leader of a nation is 30 to 50 years old and has children. Not younger, not older. If you see your child growing up – full of potential, a life in front of him – you act differently. Your decisions will be better aligned with humanity.

The world has changed forever and it feels as if nobody has an idea what the next stage should be. If we cannot collectively define that, it will be defined by an elite that is not elected.