Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Only thing missing is your face🫦🥴 #wataa #squirting #fatpussy #creaming #teasing #wet #prettypussy #backshots #cum #creamy #porn #squirt

thatsnotmyamarie

14,064 subscribers

41,786 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #wataa #squirting #fatpussy #creaming #teasing #wet #prettypussy #backshots #cum #creamy #porn #squirt

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Sweaty white Hanes crew socks and rank heavy work boots. The classic combo!🧦🥾 The only thing missing is your face on my soles.😈

Sensitive content

Sweaty white Hanes crew socks and rank heavy work boots. The classic combo!🧦🥾 The only thing missing is your face on my soles.😈

🥾Master Ozone🧦

15,691 views • 2 years ago

Valerica Steele revealed she only squirted once before getting into p0rn and had no idea it would become her signature. She said she’s now one of the most reliable squirters in Florida and is often cast specifically for squirt scenes. Valerica also said squirting feels more like a release than peeing, though she still believes it’s probably mostly pee, and that she usually squirts when she 0rgasms. “l'd only squirted one time before p0rn and then in my first scene ever I was just and Riley pulled me aside he was like that's going to be your thing”

Valerica Steele revealed she only squirted once before getting into p0rn and had no idea it would become her signature. She said she’s now one of the most reliable squirters in Florida and is often cast specifically for squirt scenes. Valerica also said squirting feels more like a release than peeing, though she still believes it’s probably mostly pee, and that she usually squirts when she 0rgasms. “l'd only squirted one time before p0rn and then in my first scene ever I was just and Riley pulled me aside he was like that's going to be your thing”

CLPX

26,155 views • 2 months ago

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Deutsch Explains

186,454 views • 1 year ago

#Balan from starting till the grandmother's death movie was brilliant👏 But after that writer Jithu faltered big time👎 Illogical scenes & lazy writing were pretty evident till the end😬 Mentally ill ആയിട്ടുള്ള ഹോം നഴ്സിനെ തോക്കും കൊടുത്തു നിർത്തിട്ട് പിന്നെ ഇ പെണ്ണ് എന്താണ് bus സ്റ്റോപ്പിൽ പോയി കൊച്ചിനെ വിളിക്കാഞ്ഞത്? അവർക്ക് നേരെ പോയി കൊച്ചിനേം വിളിച്ചു പോയ പോരെ? അവരെ അവിടെ ആരും കണ്ടിട്ടുമില്ല ആർക്കും അറിയാനും പാടില്ല! എന്താണാവോ Jithu ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചത്?🥴 Initial half had mother & son constantly running making us feel someone was chasing them or that a revenge angle was coming. But movie suddenly shifts to a completely different track son in custody, mother missing, son escaping elsewhere, Tovinos intro in the final act. They totally lost the plot👎 Tovino acted brilliantly but was a total miscast. That role never needed a star a fresh face would have done wonders. Jean Paul character arc was good but again lazy writing. How did he find out that mentally ill lady was the boys mother? & can someone simply claim to be her brother & get her discharged? Then he transfers her from one mental hospital to another paying from his own pocket🤷‍♂️ Even the climax didnt work for me. After meeting his mother after 6–7 years first thing son asks is his new name & next story. It would have worked only if that thread had been maintained throughout. Since the film had already shifted it didnt feel earned👎 Overall #BalanTheBoy is an okayish one time watch🤝 #Mohanlal #Mammootty

#Balan from starting till the grandmother's death movie was brilliant👏 But after that writer Jithu faltered big time👎 Illogical scenes & lazy writing were pretty evident till the end😬 Mentally ill ആയിട്ടുള്ള ഹോം നഴ്സിനെ തോക്കും കൊടുത്തു നിർത്തിട്ട് പിന്നെ ഇ പെണ്ണ് എന്താണ് bus സ്റ്റോപ്പിൽ പോയി കൊച്ചിനെ വിളിക്കാഞ്ഞത്? അവർക്ക് നേരെ പോയി കൊച്ചിനേം വിളിച്ചു പോയ പോരെ? അവരെ അവിടെ ആരും കണ്ടിട്ടുമില്ല ആർക്കും അറിയാനും പാടില്ല! എന്താണാവോ Jithu ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചത്?🥴 Initial half had mother & son constantly running making us feel someone was chasing them or that a revenge angle was coming. But movie suddenly shifts to a completely different track son in custody, mother missing, son escaping elsewhere, Tovinos intro in the final act. They totally lost the plot👎 Tovino acted brilliantly but was a total miscast. That role never needed a star a fresh face would have done wonders. Jean Paul character arc was good but again lazy writing. How did he find out that mentally ill lady was the boys mother? & can someone simply claim to be her brother & get her discharged? Then he transfers her from one mental hospital to another paying from his own pocket🤷‍♂️ Even the climax didnt work for me. After meeting his mother after 6–7 years first thing son asks is his new name & next story. It would have worked only if that thread had been maintained throughout. Since the film had already shifted it didnt feel earned👎 Overall #BalanTheBoy is an okayish one time watch🤝 #Mohanlal #Mammootty

Morvin Edward

73,530 views • 1 month ago

🥶=🌞 In high latitudes, the cold is your sun. Ignore it, and you live without one. What most people get wrong is believing that high latitude in winter, is a “deficiency problem.” It is only a deficiency if you do it wrong. In high latitude, we must embrace winter and accept a different set of physical rules. Thing you have to do: 1️⃣ Lock in time⏰ Wake when the environment wakes, even if that is darkness. Still go outside because infrared and magnetic cues exist even when the sun disk does not. The suprachiasmatic nucleus (the brain clock) does not run on Instagram sunlight. It runs on environmental timing. Miss that, and mitochondria lose rhythm. 2️⃣ Cold becomes the sun❄️=☀️ Real cold, outdoors Feel it by minimizing the clothing you wear. Don’t cover your face. Cover your hands & feet well if you plan to stay outside for hours, like I did, unless you want frostbite souvenirs you didn’t order. Cold in nature increases electron density, improves redox, and substitutes for missing photonic input. This is why northern mammals thrive in winter. They don’t complain. They adapt. 3️⃣ DHA becomes non-negotiable🐟 In winter Norway, seafood is not “nutrition,” it is optics. DHA turns cell membranes into antennas that capture what little light exists and store it in water layers. This is how biology cheats winter. Without DHA, the brain becomes noisy, inflamed, anxious, and hungry for carbs(carbs doesn’t substitute DHA) Don’t forget the other key semiconductor: phosphorus (pork, egg yolks, organ meats, cheese, shellfish, red meat, poultry) 4️⃣ Light discipline becomes extreme💡 After sunset, zero overhead light if possible. Candles beat incandescent, halogen, and LEDs. Screens are minimized or filtered hard. Blue light at night in the Norwegian winter is not a small mistake. It is circadian assassination 😵🔫 Most winter depression is not psychological. It is photonic. In my house, there is no such thing as darkness after sunset 😒, so I cover myself head to toe and, yes, with blue-blocking glasses. 5️⃣ Movement stays outside🏋🏼‍♀️ Whatever you do, do outside in nature. Winter gyms under LEDs at high latitudes are where mitochondria STOP adapting and start negotiating. Nature DOESN’T NEGOTIATE 6️⃣ Food simplifies🍽️ No carb loading to “feel better.” Protein and fat dominate. Local fish, roe, bone broth, salt. Hunger signals in winter are often light hunger, not calorie hunger. Eat less. Sleep more. This is carnivorous season. Respect it 7️⃣ NO supplements replace nature💊 Vitamin D pills do not replace the sun Magnesium pills do not replace grounding Adaptation beats substitution every time 8️⃣ Location🏡 Avoid cities like the plague They are blue-light and EMF hellholes If you work there, follow my office guide(with a proper winter twist add) 👉🏻 😇Now the part most people don’t want to hear😈 Norwegian winter isn’t for everyone. If someone cannot control light at night, cannot access cold safely, cannot eat seafood, or is already metabolically broken, winter will expose weakness fast. Nature is honest and brutal 🌬️🔥 Embrace it, or get the hell out🙄 Otherwise, sure👍🏻… stay cozy, stay lit up, binge Netflix like a pro. Just don’t be surprised when Mr. Death 💀shows up at your doorstep, asking if the next episode is almost over 👀 For us, especially with a transplanted kidney, the lesson is not fear. It is PRECISION Winter is a surgical tool. Used correctly, it builds resilience 👍🏻 Used poorly, it accelerates decline 👎🏻 So, if you live in Norway in winter, don’t complain about missing sun just behave like winter mammals, enjoy the weather. Stay grateful. Remember: biology doesn’t care what we believe. It only responds to physics✅ BTW this is the first time since I discovered ☣️ Pleb Kruse = BTC foundationalist in exile 🟩🔆 that I shoveled snow wearing cotton clothes in −8°C (18°F). Normally I’m inside a Michelin down jacket because I’m 1.65 m, 53 kg / 5’5”, 115 lb, zero insulation. My husb worried I’d get sick🤭 It felt amazing…

🥶=🌞 In high latitudes, the cold is your sun. Ignore it, and you live without one. What most people get wrong is believing that high latitude in winter, is a “deficiency problem.” It is only a deficiency if you do it wrong. In high latitude, we must embrace winter and accept a different set of physical rules. Thing you have to do: 1️⃣ Lock in time⏰ Wake when the environment wakes, even if that is darkness. Still go outside because infrared and magnetic cues exist even when the sun disk does not. The suprachiasmatic nucleus (the brain clock) does not run on Instagram sunlight. It runs on environmental timing. Miss that, and mitochondria lose rhythm. 2️⃣ Cold becomes the sun❄️=☀️ Real cold, outdoors Feel it by minimizing the clothing you wear. Don’t cover your face. Cover your hands & feet well if you plan to stay outside for hours, like I did, unless you want frostbite souvenirs you didn’t order. Cold in nature increases electron density, improves redox, and substitutes for missing photonic input. This is why northern mammals thrive in winter. They don’t complain. They adapt. 3️⃣ DHA becomes non-negotiable🐟 In winter Norway, seafood is not “nutrition,” it is optics. DHA turns cell membranes into antennas that capture what little light exists and store it in water layers. This is how biology cheats winter. Without DHA, the brain becomes noisy, inflamed, anxious, and hungry for carbs(carbs doesn’t substitute DHA) Don’t forget the other key semiconductor: phosphorus (pork, egg yolks, organ meats, cheese, shellfish, red meat, poultry) 4️⃣ Light discipline becomes extreme💡 After sunset, zero overhead light if possible. Candles beat incandescent, halogen, and LEDs. Screens are minimized or filtered hard. Blue light at night in the Norwegian winter is not a small mistake. It is circadian assassination 😵🔫 Most winter depression is not psychological. It is photonic. In my house, there is no such thing as darkness after sunset 😒, so I cover myself head to toe and, yes, with blue-blocking glasses. 5️⃣ Movement stays outside🏋🏼‍♀️ Whatever you do, do outside in nature. Winter gyms under LEDs at high latitudes are where mitochondria STOP adapting and start negotiating. Nature DOESN’T NEGOTIATE 6️⃣ Food simplifies🍽️ No carb loading to “feel better.” Protein and fat dominate. Local fish, roe, bone broth, salt. Hunger signals in winter are often light hunger, not calorie hunger. Eat less. Sleep more. This is carnivorous season. Respect it 7️⃣ NO supplements replace nature💊 Vitamin D pills do not replace the sun Magnesium pills do not replace grounding Adaptation beats substitution every time 8️⃣ Location🏡 Avoid cities like the plague They are blue-light and EMF hellholes If you work there, follow my office guide(with a proper winter twist add) 👉🏻 😇Now the part most people don’t want to hear😈 Norwegian winter isn’t for everyone. If someone cannot control light at night, cannot access cold safely, cannot eat seafood, or is already metabolically broken, winter will expose weakness fast. Nature is honest and brutal 🌬️🔥 Embrace it, or get the hell out🙄 Otherwise, sure👍🏻… stay cozy, stay lit up, binge Netflix like a pro. Just don’t be surprised when Mr. Death 💀shows up at your doorstep, asking if the next episode is almost over 👀 For us, especially with a transplanted kidney, the lesson is not fear. It is PRECISION Winter is a surgical tool. Used correctly, it builds resilience 👍🏻 Used poorly, it accelerates decline 👎🏻 So, if you live in Norway in winter, don’t complain about missing sun just behave like winter mammals, enjoy the weather. Stay grateful. Remember: biology doesn’t care what we believe. It only responds to physics✅ BTW this is the first time since I discovered ☣️ Pleb Kruse = BTC foundationalist in exile 🟩🔆 that I shoveled snow wearing cotton clothes in −8°C (18°F). Normally I’m inside a Michelin down jacket because I’m 1.65 m, 53 kg / 5’5”, 115 lb, zero insulation. My husb worried I’d get sick🤭 It felt amazing…

Light Me Away ☀️

16,817 views • 8 months ago

THE CLINTONS NAMED IN UNSEALED FILES & TRAVELED TO MULTIPLE EPSTEIN LOCATIONS WHILE IN OFFICE. A former U.S. President, while in office was best friends with the most horrific child predator that there ever was. And there are hundreds of elite just like him. This will never go away until answers are given and justice is served. Bill Clinton is confirmed to have traveled to Epstein's island more than 25+ times on the Lolita Express, even sometimes with underage girls, and is mention over 50 times, and by victims in the unsealed documents. Hillary Clinton is also named in the Epstein documents numerous times and is alleged to have traveled to the island 5+ or more times, and is not the first time of being accused of sexual abuse or covering up crimes with underage children. The Clinton Foundation itself has a dark history of money laundering and child trafficking, especially out of Haiti. Hillary's email scandal exposed discussions about how much it would cost to move trafficked children out of the country and even paid for a lawyer when a woman by the name of Laura Silsby was caught attempting to traffick children out of Haiti. The lawyer that was appointed to Laura Silsby in Haiti was also caught and arrested for child trafficking and abuse along with his wife. Are you noticing a pattern? Many of these trips occurred while Bill Clinton was in office and Bill and Hillary are known to have traveled to Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico numerous times directly from The White House to the Ranch. Epstein's Zorro Ranch is one of the most secretive locations along with the island considering the rumors and testimonies of victims about the enormous underground locations and scientific like experiments being performed on unexpecting victims of Epstein. Let's face it. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed and a new investigation is what the people really want. Nothing will change until these people face justice. Now with the recent news of some of the files being tampered with, what is true and what is false? One thing is for sure, There is no way all the evidence is gone, especially when everyone understands, beyond the shadow of a doubt that this entire operation was ran by intelligence agencies, both foreign and domestic, which most likely still hold documents and blackmail on government officials to this day, both foreign and domestic parties. The question you should be asking yourself is: How much evidence does the Trump administration really have, what's on the thousands of videos that they claimed to possess and is there still blackmail being used on either side for control? What if it's being used in a positive way? Don't take everything the media throws at you as gospel or from the people you trust the most. Remember, this is the art of war and a game. Sometimes you need to force your opponent's hand. You have to always revert back and remind yourself that you will be confused at times, you will not have all the missing pieces because this is a military intelligence operation and patriots are in control. Remove your emotions and think logically. Power moves only. Step back, observe and look at the big picture. Have faith because in the very near future, things will begin to make a lot more sense.

THE CLINTONS NAMED IN UNSEALED FILES & TRAVELED TO MULTIPLE EPSTEIN LOCATIONS WHILE IN OFFICE. A former U.S. President, while in office was best friends with the most horrific child predator that there ever was. And there are hundreds of elite just like him. This will never go away until answers are given and justice is served. Bill Clinton is confirmed to have traveled to Epstein's island more than 25+ times on the Lolita Express, even sometimes with underage girls, and is mention over 50 times, and by victims in the unsealed documents. Hillary Clinton is also named in the Epstein documents numerous times and is alleged to have traveled to the island 5+ or more times, and is not the first time of being accused of sexual abuse or covering up crimes with underage children. The Clinton Foundation itself has a dark history of money laundering and child trafficking, especially out of Haiti. Hillary's email scandal exposed discussions about how much it would cost to move trafficked children out of the country and even paid for a lawyer when a woman by the name of Laura Silsby was caught attempting to traffick children out of Haiti. The lawyer that was appointed to Laura Silsby in Haiti was also caught and arrested for child trafficking and abuse along with his wife. Are you noticing a pattern? Many of these trips occurred while Bill Clinton was in office and Bill and Hillary are known to have traveled to Epstein's Zorro Ranch in New Mexico numerous times directly from The White House to the Ranch. Epstein's Zorro Ranch is one of the most secretive locations along with the island considering the rumors and testimonies of victims about the enormous underground locations and scientific like experiments being performed on unexpecting victims of Epstein. Let's face it. A special prosecutor needs to be appointed and a new investigation is what the people really want. Nothing will change until these people face justice. Now with the recent news of some of the files being tampered with, what is true and what is false? One thing is for sure, There is no way all the evidence is gone, especially when everyone understands, beyond the shadow of a doubt that this entire operation was ran by intelligence agencies, both foreign and domestic, which most likely still hold documents and blackmail on government officials to this day, both foreign and domestic parties. The question you should be asking yourself is: How much evidence does the Trump administration really have, what's on the thousands of videos that they claimed to possess and is there still blackmail being used on either side for control? What if it's being used in a positive way? Don't take everything the media throws at you as gospel or from the people you trust the most. Remember, this is the art of war and a game. Sometimes you need to force your opponent's hand. You have to always revert back and remind yourself that you will be confused at times, you will not have all the missing pieces because this is a military intelligence operation and patriots are in control. Remove your emotions and think logically. Power moves only. Step back, observe and look at the big picture. Have faith because in the very near future, things will begin to make a lot more sense.

The SCIF

204,856 views • 1 year ago

Let’s get one thing straight before they gaslight you into swallowing this. This is NOT just about “age verification” so kids can’t scroll TikTok. The under-16s social media ban, and the under-18s VPN ban, is digital verification for everyone; because the only way to enforce it is to make every single person prove their age, prove their identity, and “check in” with the State before accessing the modern internet. And yes… you already know where it leads. OneLogin. A centralised identity system designed to collect your credentials and your biometrics (face, iris, fingerprint) and bind them to a single government account. This ban is not the end goal. It is one verification type. One tiny draconian token. One single piece of the Digital ID puzzle. And the equation remains the same: OneLogin + GOV Wallet = Digital ID. Age verification will become one token on that wallet, but first, before the wallet is fully normalised, before it’s “rolled out” to every citizen through exclusion and coercion, they’ll do what they always do: They’ll introduce the gate first. To access a VPN, a social media site, or even an AI tool, you will be forced to “prove” you are over 16 or 18 — and the proof won’t be a private check, or a local device setting, or a parental control. It will be a government check. A government login. A government permission slip. You will have to “check in” with GOV OneLogin to access the internet like a normal person — and soon enough a token for this will be issued into the GOV Wallet, just like the proposed BritCard token that has now allegedly been “scrapped.” This is the same system, the same architecture, the same rollout pattern... just with a different sticker slapped on the front. And once the token exists, it becomes the default. Once it becomes the default, it becomes the requirement. Once it becomes the requirement, it becomes the leash. Because what they’re building is not an age gate. It’s a permission gate. A surveillance gate. A system where your ability to access platforms, services, information, communication — your ability to exist online — becomes conditional on your compliance with a credential check that is logged, tracked, and centrally controlled. They will see what you do. When you do it. What you search. What you access. What you post. And people will still be saying, with a straight face: “Well, it’s a good thing under-16s are being banned from social media… they’ll be safer.” That’s the bait. Then you hear Starmer say: “How will parents police this alone?” And notice what he’s really saying. He is not empowering parents. He is positioning the government next to parents, granting the State the same “authority” to parent your child, to decide what is healthy, what is harmful, what is permitted, what is “wellbeing,” and what must be restricted. The same government that has lied to you for years about safety. The same government that signs away your rights in the name of protection. The same government that cannot define a woman, cannot secure a border, cannot arrest a p3dophile (rather employs and promotes them), cannot run a hospital — but somehow wants you to believe it can be trusted to police your child’s mind. And if you think this is going through “proper process,” think again. A month ago they announced a consultation on the under-16s ban. That consultation is a red herring. Because Starmer’s little phrase “Fast Track” is just PR language for something much uglier: Henry VIII powers. Powers that allow ministers to change legislation without parliamentary scrutiny, without debate, without any democratic friction. And that means the actual rules — the ones that govern your data, your access, your verification, your wallet, your permissions — will not be written on the floor of the House. They will be written by an unelected civil servant in a closed room, and rubber-stamped by a Secretary of State. The consultation is not democracy. It is the hologram of democracy. Designed to make you feel heard while the law is already coded, the architecture already built, and the enforcement mechanism already chosen. And it gets worse. Because this ban is being routed through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill; a bill that will receive Royal Assent before the consultation even ends. So what exactly are you “consulting” on? A decision that’s already been made. A system that’s already being implemented. A lock that’s already being installed on your front door while they ask you what colour you’d like the handle to be. Then there’s the Unique Identifier for ALL children. They will sell it as “tracking attendance.” But it isn’t an attendance system. It is a digital tether. A permanent state identifier for your child, designed to follow them across systems, databases, services, education, healthcare, “wellbeing,” behavioural monitoring, and digital permissions. And once you combine a Unique Identifier with digital tokens, with “digital wellbeing” regulation, with AI-driven scoring, you have built something monstrous: A system where a child’s “Wellbeing Score” can drop — determined by government-approved metrics, possibly processed by government AI — and the State can remotely revoke their digital tokens. Effectively deleting their social existence until they comply. No access. No platform. No digital participation. No “privileges.” Just compliance. And here’s the part people are missing: They are granting themselves the power to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill without proper parliamentary scrutiny and without waiting for the consultation to end. They are giving the Secretary of State delegated powers to regulate “digital wellbeing” which is a euphemism so broad you could drive an authoritarian regime through it. They can amend laws at any time. They can expand definitions at any time. They can widen the net at any time. Meaning the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State become the architects and the judges. The lawmakers and the enforcers. And Henry VIII powers are named after a tyrant for a reason. Because they were designed for a monarch who forced Parliament to pass laws and accept personal proclamations. That is the lineage of the power Starmer is dressing up as “Fast Tracking.” This isn’t safeguarding. It’s centralisation. And it doesn’t stop there. The other legislation being pulled into this system is the Crime and Policing Bill which is progressing as we speak and the Online Safety Act 2023 — both of which contain mechanisms to expand and amend enforcement without passing fresh primary legislation. Meaning they can tighten the screws without the public ever noticing. No new “big scary bill.” No headline. No national debate. Just silent regulatory expansion. A little more coercion. A little more surveillance. A little more permissioning. Until one day you wake up and the internet — the place you work, learn, communicate, bank, shop, organise, speak, and live — requires you to present a government token just to enter. And you’ll be told it’s normal. You’ll be told it’s safety. You’ll be told it’s “for the children.” This consultation is a farce. The law is being passed. Age verification for all will be forced upon us unless we act now, and unless people stop staring at the headline and start seeing the architecture. This is not even the start of mission creep. This is another step. Another spoke. Another token. Another gate. And yes, there are other ways to improve online safety. Every person over 16 is issued with a National Insurance number. There are privacy-preserving options. There are local-device checks. There are non-centralised approaches. But that is not the point. Because the point is not safety. The point is control. This is part of the digital gulag. The panopticon. A credentialed society where your ability to participate is conditional, permissioned, and revocable... and where the State holds the master key. Linked below is another important post about the Digital ID stack that everyone needs to understand...

Let’s get one thing straight before they gaslight you into swallowing this. This is NOT just about “age verification” so kids can’t scroll TikTok. The under-16s social media ban, and the under-18s VPN ban, is digital verification for everyone; because the only way to enforce it is to make every single person prove their age, prove their identity, and “check in” with the State before accessing the modern internet. And yes… you already know where it leads. OneLogin. A centralised identity system designed to collect your credentials and your biometrics (face, iris, fingerprint) and bind them to a single government account. This ban is not the end goal. It is one verification type. One tiny draconian token. One single piece of the Digital ID puzzle. And the equation remains the same: OneLogin + GOV Wallet = Digital ID. Age verification will become one token on that wallet, but first, before the wallet is fully normalised, before it’s “rolled out” to every citizen through exclusion and coercion, they’ll do what they always do: They’ll introduce the gate first. To access a VPN, a social media site, or even an AI tool, you will be forced to “prove” you are over 16 or 18 — and the proof won’t be a private check, or a local device setting, or a parental control. It will be a government check. A government login. A government permission slip. You will have to “check in” with GOV OneLogin to access the internet like a normal person — and soon enough a token for this will be issued into the GOV Wallet, just like the proposed BritCard token that has now allegedly been “scrapped.” This is the same system, the same architecture, the same rollout pattern... just with a different sticker slapped on the front. And once the token exists, it becomes the default. Once it becomes the default, it becomes the requirement. Once it becomes the requirement, it becomes the leash. Because what they’re building is not an age gate. It’s a permission gate. A surveillance gate. A system where your ability to access platforms, services, information, communication — your ability to exist online — becomes conditional on your compliance with a credential check that is logged, tracked, and centrally controlled. They will see what you do. When you do it. What you search. What you access. What you post. And people will still be saying, with a straight face: “Well, it’s a good thing under-16s are being banned from social media… they’ll be safer.” That’s the bait. Then you hear Starmer say: “How will parents police this alone?” And notice what he’s really saying. He is not empowering parents. He is positioning the government next to parents, granting the State the same “authority” to parent your child, to decide what is healthy, what is harmful, what is permitted, what is “wellbeing,” and what must be restricted. The same government that has lied to you for years about safety. The same government that signs away your rights in the name of protection. The same government that cannot define a woman, cannot secure a border, cannot arrest a p3dophile (rather employs and promotes them), cannot run a hospital — but somehow wants you to believe it can be trusted to police your child’s mind. And if you think this is going through “proper process,” think again. A month ago they announced a consultation on the under-16s ban. That consultation is a red herring. Because Starmer’s little phrase “Fast Track” is just PR language for something much uglier: Henry VIII powers. Powers that allow ministers to change legislation without parliamentary scrutiny, without debate, without any democratic friction. And that means the actual rules — the ones that govern your data, your access, your verification, your wallet, your permissions — will not be written on the floor of the House. They will be written by an unelected civil servant in a closed room, and rubber-stamped by a Secretary of State. The consultation is not democracy. It is the hologram of democracy. Designed to make you feel heard while the law is already coded, the architecture already built, and the enforcement mechanism already chosen. And it gets worse. Because this ban is being routed through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill; a bill that will receive Royal Assent before the consultation even ends. So what exactly are you “consulting” on? A decision that’s already been made. A system that’s already being implemented. A lock that’s already being installed on your front door while they ask you what colour you’d like the handle to be. Then there’s the Unique Identifier for ALL children. They will sell it as “tracking attendance.” But it isn’t an attendance system. It is a digital tether. A permanent state identifier for your child, designed to follow them across systems, databases, services, education, healthcare, “wellbeing,” behavioural monitoring, and digital permissions. And once you combine a Unique Identifier with digital tokens, with “digital wellbeing” regulation, with AI-driven scoring, you have built something monstrous: A system where a child’s “Wellbeing Score” can drop — determined by government-approved metrics, possibly processed by government AI — and the State can remotely revoke their digital tokens. Effectively deleting their social existence until they comply. No access. No platform. No digital participation. No “privileges.” Just compliance. And here’s the part people are missing: They are granting themselves the power to amend the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill without proper parliamentary scrutiny and without waiting for the consultation to end. They are giving the Secretary of State delegated powers to regulate “digital wellbeing” which is a euphemism so broad you could drive an authoritarian regime through it. They can amend laws at any time. They can expand definitions at any time. They can widen the net at any time. Meaning the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State become the architects and the judges. The lawmakers and the enforcers. And Henry VIII powers are named after a tyrant for a reason. Because they were designed for a monarch who forced Parliament to pass laws and accept personal proclamations. That is the lineage of the power Starmer is dressing up as “Fast Tracking.” This isn’t safeguarding. It’s centralisation. And it doesn’t stop there. The other legislation being pulled into this system is the Crime and Policing Bill which is progressing as we speak and the Online Safety Act 2023 — both of which contain mechanisms to expand and amend enforcement without passing fresh primary legislation. Meaning they can tighten the screws without the public ever noticing. No new “big scary bill.” No headline. No national debate. Just silent regulatory expansion. A little more coercion. A little more surveillance. A little more permissioning. Until one day you wake up and the internet — the place you work, learn, communicate, bank, shop, organise, speak, and live — requires you to present a government token just to enter. And you’ll be told it’s normal. You’ll be told it’s safety. You’ll be told it’s “for the children.” This consultation is a farce. The law is being passed. Age verification for all will be forced upon us unless we act now, and unless people stop staring at the headline and start seeing the architecture. This is not even the start of mission creep. This is another step. Another spoke. Another token. Another gate. And yes, there are other ways to improve online safety. Every person over 16 is issued with a National Insurance number. There are privacy-preserving options. There are local-device checks. There are non-centralised approaches. But that is not the point. Because the point is not safety. The point is control. This is part of the digital gulag. The panopticon. A credentialed society where your ability to participate is conditional, permissioned, and revocable... and where the State holds the master key. Linked below is another important post about the Digital ID stack that everyone needs to understand...

Fiona Rose Diamond

401,569 views • 7 months ago

🚨“This Post Will Destroy Every Fake MAGA Patriot and Intel-Asset Infiltrator on This Platform”🚨 Some of you demand play-by-play updates while President Trump dismantles the most powerful, satanic, and demonic cabal in human history, a cabal literally run by the agents of satan himself. You want Trump to livestream the battle plan to save humanity like it’s a reality show. You want him to post his moves in real-time… while the Cabal’s intelligence networks watch every keystroke. You want him to hand over the Super Bowl playbook for humanity to the very demons we’re fighting, because your feelings told you, you deserve it? NEWSFLASH: You don’t deserve the playbook in real time if you didn't sign up to deploy it. You deserve the results. You deserve a free country. You deserve food that’s not poisoned for profit. You deserve fair & free elections. You deserve justice. You deserve safety for your children. You deserve freedom from systemic slavery. But NO, you don’t deserve to be briefed mid-operation just so your dopamine fires while global operations hang in the balance. That’s not how war works. That’s not how victory is secured. REAL warriors are out there right now, risking their lives in the shadows. They’re undercover in cartel strongholds, infiltrating trafficking rings, and snatching children out of hellholes while you sit comfortably behind a keyboard virtue signaling, pretending you've earned a voice in this fight. You have a voice in the fight, you didn't earn it. Other men who sacrificed their lives earned it - not you. You’ve never risked your life for this country. You’ve never stared evil in the face with nothing but courage and training to back you up. You’ve never kicked in doors to rescue kids while praying you’d make it home alive. The only thing you’re entitled to is results, period. You don’t get to cry because it’s not unfolding how you want, or at the speed your emotions demand. You have no experience, No training, and no clue how to dismantle the most powerful satanic empire in human history. How do I know? Because many of you exposed yourself with this gem: “Just let the whole system crash if that’s what it takes, we can handle the truth.” NEWS FLASH #2: That’s not strategy, that’s the emotional outburst of a man without a plan, fishing for likes and cheers. Here’s the reality: Most of America can’t handle the truth! Get mad, argue - it is the truth. This is not the AMERICA of 1776. This is the AMERICA of soft men being critical of REAL warriors. COVID was the test. They wore masks that didn’t protect them. They took jabs that killed or maimed them, years after knowing they were deadly. To keep a job. They lined their newborns up for Remdesivir and stayed silent. And you? You posted. You tweeted. You virtue signaled. You didn’t stop it. Now you want people to believe you’ll lead the charge when the system collapses? Spare me the ego. Unlike you, I’ve gone to war with evil. Gunfights. Fist fights. Door breaching as the first man in the stack. This is what I know from that life: This is not a movie. Good does NOT automatically rise from the ashes of collapse. Evil does. Why? Because evil is organized. Because good is slow to mobilize. Because most of humanity is inherently good and evil exploits that every single time. You think collapse equals freedom? It equals open season on the innocent, especially the children. Need proof? Why do you think the Deep State keeps pushing civil war, riots and millions of illegals into the United States? Because they know what you don’t: chaos favors evil. Meanwhile, President Trump is playing on a global battlefield, orchestrating peace, securing sovereignty, and threading the needle of maximum justice with minimum loss of life, lives will perish, innocent will perish-this is what happens in WAR you are not built to handle. And you think your angry thread dictated his moves? LOLOLOL. Trump created the environment that gave you the freedom to rant in the first place. He baited your rant for his plan. Expose. Unite. Momentum. He’s being hunted by the most powerful intelligence apparatus on Earth and you’re over here thinking your social media meltdown matters? Here’s the truth: Some of you are knowingly weaponizing this environment to turn the weak-minded against the President. You’re not fighting evil. You’re feeding it. You're a part of it. Let’s talk about Epstein. Some of you parroting that Trump called Epstein’s crimes a “hoax” are either: • Foolish • Unresearched • Or operatives trying to sabotage support for President Trump. Why? Because in the words of Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Epstein’s victims: “The only thing I can say about President Trump is that he was the only person who picked up the phone, said ‘let’s talk,’ and gave me all the time I needed. He had good information that helped us. He gave no indication of involvement in anything untoward.” While Clinton was flying the Lolita Express 26 times to the island and others were lawyering up, Trump helped the victims. He’s not confused about Epstein, he knows exactly who Epstein was/is. And more importantly, he knows what Epstein was a front for. Trump’s calling out the investigation as the hoax, the fake justice, the planted evidence, the destroyed files, the perjured agents, and the two-tiered system designed to protect the guilty and frame the innocent. Some of you scream “Don’t trust the government!” in one breath and demand the government give you the truth about Epstein in the next. You want the the investigation from the DOJ you say is against you? That’s not intelligence. That’s next-level ReTard. President Trump is running the largest RICO investigation in American history, with 450,000+ sealed indictments and counting. You know what everyone is suddenly talking about again? Jeffrey Epstein. Even the left. Even Mockingbird media. Even the controlled ops. Why? Because Trump understands the power of momentum. He understands the power of common enemies. He understands he must unify America without endless wars and catastrophes... So what did he do? He exposed to America a common enemy Epstein. A face for evil. A symbol of systemic betrayal. And a thread that connects the entire Cabal. This is not a social media platform anymore. This is the trench warfare of the Information Age. You’re watching 5GW in real time and mistaking it for campaign season and policies. Trump rescued over 10,000 missing children. Congress just raised that number to 35,000 (pending confirmation from Tom Homan). He’s overseen the arrest of over 1,000 pedophile traffickers and that’s in under 6 1/2 months. Yet many of you “child-first” influencers never report it, or worse...mock it. Why? Because you’re not in this for the children. You’re in this for influence. And some of you are leveraged by the very establishment Trump is destroying. Let’s be clear: I want Hillary Clinton and the rest indicted. We all do. But Hillary isn’t the one snatching kids from the streets. She’s the customer. Trump is hunting the foot soldiers. He’s dismantling the system. And you’re mad he’s not giving you viral optics? You say he’s protecting pedos? He’s the only president who’s declared war on them. Ask yourself: Why do these influencers really want Trump gone? Because they know what I know... Trump is taking down the network. And when he wins, they fall with it. 6½ months in, look what’s already happened. The same people who swore Trump would: -Start WW3 -Send troops into Iran -Crash the economy with tariffs -Destroy the dollar Were wrong. Every. Single. Time. And Trump, as always, was right. Demand results. Keep digging into Epstein. But don’t fall for the psyop of taking down Trump in the process. You can seek truth and support your President. Because in this war, one thing is certain: He’s the only one fighting it for real, not from a keyboard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Semper Fi, -ALPHA

🚨“This Post Will Destroy Every Fake MAGA Patriot and Intel-Asset Infiltrator on This Platform”🚨 Some of you demand play-by-play updates while President Trump dismantles the most powerful, satanic, and demonic cabal in human history, a cabal literally run by the agents of satan himself. You want Trump to livestream the battle plan to save humanity like it’s a reality show. You want him to post his moves in real-time… while the Cabal’s intelligence networks watch every keystroke. You want him to hand over the Super Bowl playbook for humanity to the very demons we’re fighting, because your feelings told you, you deserve it? NEWSFLASH: You don’t deserve the playbook in real time if you didn't sign up to deploy it. You deserve the results. You deserve a free country. You deserve food that’s not poisoned for profit. You deserve fair & free elections. You deserve justice. You deserve safety for your children. You deserve freedom from systemic slavery. But NO, you don’t deserve to be briefed mid-operation just so your dopamine fires while global operations hang in the balance. That’s not how war works. That’s not how victory is secured. REAL warriors are out there right now, risking their lives in the shadows. They’re undercover in cartel strongholds, infiltrating trafficking rings, and snatching children out of hellholes while you sit comfortably behind a keyboard virtue signaling, pretending you've earned a voice in this fight. You have a voice in the fight, you didn't earn it. Other men who sacrificed their lives earned it - not you. You’ve never risked your life for this country. You’ve never stared evil in the face with nothing but courage and training to back you up. You’ve never kicked in doors to rescue kids while praying you’d make it home alive. The only thing you’re entitled to is results, period. You don’t get to cry because it’s not unfolding how you want, or at the speed your emotions demand. You have no experience, No training, and no clue how to dismantle the most powerful satanic empire in human history. How do I know? Because many of you exposed yourself with this gem: “Just let the whole system crash if that’s what it takes, we can handle the truth.” NEWS FLASH #2: That’s not strategy, that’s the emotional outburst of a man without a plan, fishing for likes and cheers. Here’s the reality: Most of America can’t handle the truth! Get mad, argue - it is the truth. This is not the AMERICA of 1776. This is the AMERICA of soft men being critical of REAL warriors. COVID was the test. They wore masks that didn’t protect them. They took jabs that killed or maimed them, years after knowing they were deadly. To keep a job. They lined their newborns up for Remdesivir and stayed silent. And you? You posted. You tweeted. You virtue signaled. You didn’t stop it. Now you want people to believe you’ll lead the charge when the system collapses? Spare me the ego. Unlike you, I’ve gone to war with evil. Gunfights. Fist fights. Door breaching as the first man in the stack. This is what I know from that life: This is not a movie. Good does NOT automatically rise from the ashes of collapse. Evil does. Why? Because evil is organized. Because good is slow to mobilize. Because most of humanity is inherently good and evil exploits that every single time. You think collapse equals freedom? It equals open season on the innocent, especially the children. Need proof? Why do you think the Deep State keeps pushing civil war, riots and millions of illegals into the United States? Because they know what you don’t: chaos favors evil. Meanwhile, President Trump is playing on a global battlefield, orchestrating peace, securing sovereignty, and threading the needle of maximum justice with minimum loss of life, lives will perish, innocent will perish-this is what happens in WAR you are not built to handle. And you think your angry thread dictated his moves? LOLOLOL. Trump created the environment that gave you the freedom to rant in the first place. He baited your rant for his plan. Expose. Unite. Momentum. He’s being hunted by the most powerful intelligence apparatus on Earth and you’re over here thinking your social media meltdown matters? Here’s the truth: Some of you are knowingly weaponizing this environment to turn the weak-minded against the President. You’re not fighting evil. You’re feeding it. You're a part of it. Let’s talk about Epstein. Some of you parroting that Trump called Epstein’s crimes a “hoax” are either: • Foolish • Unresearched • Or operatives trying to sabotage support for President Trump. Why? Because in the words of Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Epstein’s victims: “The only thing I can say about President Trump is that he was the only person who picked up the phone, said ‘let’s talk,’ and gave me all the time I needed. He had good information that helped us. He gave no indication of involvement in anything untoward.” While Clinton was flying the Lolita Express 26 times to the island and others were lawyering up, Trump helped the victims. He’s not confused about Epstein, he knows exactly who Epstein was/is. And more importantly, he knows what Epstein was a front for. Trump’s calling out the investigation as the hoax, the fake justice, the planted evidence, the destroyed files, the perjured agents, and the two-tiered system designed to protect the guilty and frame the innocent. Some of you scream “Don’t trust the government!” in one breath and demand the government give you the truth about Epstein in the next. You want the the investigation from the DOJ you say is against you? That’s not intelligence. That’s next-level ReTard. President Trump is running the largest RICO investigation in American history, with 450,000+ sealed indictments and counting. You know what everyone is suddenly talking about again? Jeffrey Epstein. Even the left. Even Mockingbird media. Even the controlled ops. Why? Because Trump understands the power of momentum. He understands the power of common enemies. He understands he must unify America without endless wars and catastrophes... So what did he do? He exposed to America a common enemy Epstein. A face for evil. A symbol of systemic betrayal. And a thread that connects the entire Cabal. This is not a social media platform anymore. This is the trench warfare of the Information Age. You’re watching 5GW in real time and mistaking it for campaign season and policies. Trump rescued over 10,000 missing children. Congress just raised that number to 35,000 (pending confirmation from Tom Homan). He’s overseen the arrest of over 1,000 pedophile traffickers and that’s in under 6 1/2 months. Yet many of you “child-first” influencers never report it, or worse...mock it. Why? Because you’re not in this for the children. You’re in this for influence. And some of you are leveraged by the very establishment Trump is destroying. Let’s be clear: I want Hillary Clinton and the rest indicted. We all do. But Hillary isn’t the one snatching kids from the streets. She’s the customer. Trump is hunting the foot soldiers. He’s dismantling the system. And you’re mad he’s not giving you viral optics? You say he’s protecting pedos? He’s the only president who’s declared war on them. Ask yourself: Why do these influencers really want Trump gone? Because they know what I know... Trump is taking down the network. And when he wins, they fall with it. 6½ months in, look what’s already happened. The same people who swore Trump would: -Start WW3 -Send troops into Iran -Crash the economy with tariffs -Destroy the dollar Were wrong. Every. Single. Time. And Trump, as always, was right. Demand results. Keep digging into Epstein. But don’t fall for the psyop of taking down Trump in the process. You can seek truth and support your President. Because in this war, one thing is certain: He’s the only one fighting it for real, not from a keyboard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Semper Fi, -ALPHA

ALPHAWARRIOR

189,613 views • 1 year ago

Junior’s “Bump Boom Boom” show story time: chaos gang edition 😂🦍🐒 #jimmyyjp #junniorrs #fforce_ #LOLFanFest2026 🌞: I call this unit the "Zoo Wildlife" unit. I tell people that one group is like the king kongs, the kings of the jungle while another group is like chimpanzees, basically baby monkeys. Which show do you think this story belongs to? 🌞: Alright, I’ll tell you. This story is about the "Bump Boom Boom" gang show. In the industry, they call it "M3" for short. When they work, they refer to this song as M3. The first time this group gathered to rehearse, Sea was the only one missing because he was off practicing his "star-climbing" or "hanging-from-a-star" routine at the time. So back then, it was just Force, Book, Ju, Mark, and Jimmy. On the very first day of learning the choreography, they blasted the music so loud that the bass from Bump Boom Boom made your heart stop like, how can anyone survive this sound? 🌞: We were learning the choreography, and on day one, Jimmy was really quick on his feet. He remembered the moves perfectly. But because he's so smart and his brain processes a lot of data, whenever too much information gets crammed in, he blanks out. He has to come back, review it, and then he remembers it forever. 🌞: But there was this one person... from the very first day of rehearsal all the way until the day we were about to hit the stage, he was still dancing off-beat. And that is none other than Mr. Force! A behind-the-scenes clip has already been released by Mae Yui. You can go check it out on Mae Yui’s X account. You’ll see three guys standing in front of the mirror: Jimmy, Force, and Junior practicing the moves. 🕺🕺🕺 🌞: Force couldn't get it because his heart was always set on this move (hips thrust). Seriously, Force can never catch the beat for any other dance move, but for that one? he gets it instantly! And you know what the funniest thing about Force is? Early on, he couldn't even remember the main choreography. 🌞: Then came the part where we split into two sides: Sea-Mark-Book and Ju-Jim-Force. Force went, "Can I add an extra move? I want to dance like this." He even came to pitch it one day, saying, "Hey guys, there are three of us here, let's dance like this, like this," 👯‍♂️👯‍♂️ while making a totally goofy face 🤪🤪🤪. And it was a difficult move too! Honestly, bro, get the original choreography right first! So, he eventually scrapped that plan. 🌞: But Force is a really chill guy. He’s laid-back and doesn't get stressed easily. He knows that eventually, one way or another, he’ll get it down and reach his goal one day, so he's fine. But you know what’s so cute about him? On the day of the first run-through, he knew he was the only one in the gang who wasn't dancing in sync yet. Mae Yui came over and said, "Force, you're not in sync with your friends yet, sweetie. You need to practice the moves." At first, Force was scared, but he tried to act cool like, "Oh, it's chill, Mae, it's chill." A moment later, just as they were about to start the run-through, Force was spotted over in the corner 🕺 facing the wall like this, having the instructor coach him closely. And what did he do next? He kept practicing by himself, separate from the group. Isn't that adorable? There was no way he was going to let this show turn out out-of-sync. And just like everyone saw, everything went beautifully, and they danced with so much energy in that show. Yes, guys, that was the "Bump Boom Boom" show!

Junior’s “Bump Boom Boom” show story time: chaos gang edition 😂🦍🐒 #jimmyyjp #junniorrs #fforce_ #LOLFanFest2026 🌞: I call this unit the "Zoo Wildlife" unit. I tell people that one group is like the king kongs, the kings of the jungle while another group is like chimpanzees, basically baby monkeys. Which show do you think this story belongs to? 🌞: Alright, I’ll tell you. This story is about the "Bump Boom Boom" gang show. In the industry, they call it "M3" for short. When they work, they refer to this song as M3. The first time this group gathered to rehearse, Sea was the only one missing because he was off practicing his "star-climbing" or "hanging-from-a-star" routine at the time. So back then, it was just Force, Book, Ju, Mark, and Jimmy. On the very first day of learning the choreography, they blasted the music so loud that the bass from Bump Boom Boom made your heart stop like, how can anyone survive this sound? 🌞: We were learning the choreography, and on day one, Jimmy was really quick on his feet. He remembered the moves perfectly. But because he's so smart and his brain processes a lot of data, whenever too much information gets crammed in, he blanks out. He has to come back, review it, and then he remembers it forever. 🌞: But there was this one person... from the very first day of rehearsal all the way until the day we were about to hit the stage, he was still dancing off-beat. And that is none other than Mr. Force! A behind-the-scenes clip has already been released by Mae Yui. You can go check it out on Mae Yui’s X account. You’ll see three guys standing in front of the mirror: Jimmy, Force, and Junior practicing the moves. 🕺🕺🕺 🌞: Force couldn't get it because his heart was always set on this move (hips thrust). Seriously, Force can never catch the beat for any other dance move, but for that one? he gets it instantly! And you know what the funniest thing about Force is? Early on, he couldn't even remember the main choreography. 🌞: Then came the part where we split into two sides: Sea-Mark-Book and Ju-Jim-Force. Force went, "Can I add an extra move? I want to dance like this." He even came to pitch it one day, saying, "Hey guys, there are three of us here, let's dance like this, like this," 👯‍♂️👯‍♂️ while making a totally goofy face 🤪🤪🤪. And it was a difficult move too! Honestly, bro, get the original choreography right first! So, he eventually scrapped that plan. 🌞: But Force is a really chill guy. He’s laid-back and doesn't get stressed easily. He knows that eventually, one way or another, he’ll get it down and reach his goal one day, so he's fine. But you know what’s so cute about him? On the day of the first run-through, he knew he was the only one in the gang who wasn't dancing in sync yet. Mae Yui came over and said, "Force, you're not in sync with your friends yet, sweetie. You need to practice the moves." At first, Force was scared, but he tried to act cool like, "Oh, it's chill, Mae, it's chill." A moment later, just as they were about to start the run-through, Force was spotted over in the corner 🕺 facing the wall like this, having the instructor coach him closely. And what did he do next? He kept practicing by himself, separate from the group. Isn't that adorable? There was no way he was going to let this show turn out out-of-sync. And just like everyone saw, everything went beautifully, and they danced with so much energy in that show. Yes, guys, that was the "Bump Boom Boom" show!

Mhokstache ✨

16,032 views • 3 months ago

I made this 30-second clip on Higgsfield AI 🧩 Prompt: Create a 30-second first-person POV cinematic food-and-pet video. On a rainy evening, inside a compact but beautifully lived-in contemporary European-style home kitchen, an adult man's hands prepare a complete comforting dinner: pan-seared salmon, roasted baby potatoes, honey-glazed carrots, and a creamy mushroom soup. During the preparation, he prepares a tiny cooled piece of salmon for his small puppy waiting nearby. The video is intimate, observational, natural and completely unscripted in feeling. The entire sequence uses a controlled multi-camera-feeling POV structure created through hard cuts. Every cooking action is shown clearly and physically. At the end, the complete dinner is arranged on a wooden serving board and carried to a small dining table. SCENE SETTING: A compact, warm modern home kitchen that has clearly been used for years. The kitchen contains matte cream cabinets, a dark stone countertop, a stainless-steel induction cooktop, a small convection oven, an old wooden cutting board, ceramic bowls, a cast-iron skillet, a medium saucepan and a compact countertop rice/steam cooker. On the counter are the prepared ingredients in separate containers: a skin-on salmon fillet, baby potatoes, small carrots, fresh mushrooms, heavy cream, garlic, butter, fresh rosemary, thyme, olive oil, a small bowl of honey, black pepper, sea salt, and chopped parsley. A wooden dining table is visible several steps away from the kitchen. Near the table sits a small cream-colored fluffy puppy with slightly darker ears. The puppy is lying on a folded gray blanket, quietly watching the man's hands. It occasionally raises its head when it smells the salmon but otherwise remains patient. A large kitchen window is above the sink. Outside, heavy evening rain falls against the glass. Water droplets slowly travel down the window, and blurred streetlights glow through the wet glass. Whenever the camera faces the window, the rain remains clearly visible. The refrigerator contains a few ordinary magnets and a small blank paper note. No readable branding, logos, recognizable labels or copyrighted imagery appear anywhere. POV LOCK: Every shot is first-person POV from the eye level of an approximately 178cm tall adult man working naturally in the kitchen. Only his hands, wrists and forearms are visible. His face and body are never shown, including reflections. The hands have medium-light natural skin, short clean fingernails and a small faint healed scratch near the left thumb. He wears a charcoal-gray long-sleeve home shirt with the sleeves casually rolled to the forearms and a dark beige kitchen apron. These exact hand, sleeve and apron details remain consistent throughout the entire video. The camera behaves like a real human head. It moves only when the person naturally turns, bends, reaches, looks toward the stove, looks toward the puppy or walks toward the table. No independent cinematic camera movement. Slight natural body sway, subtle breathing movement, tiny framing imperfections and realistic handheld instability are allowed. FORMAT MODE: Controlled multi-shot sequence. Real-time speed. Hard cuts only. Every segment begins with an action already in progress. Hands, utensils or food must already be visible immediately after every cut. No empty establishing shots. No slow motion. No artificial time-lapse. No dissolves. The emotional center is the small interaction between the man and the puppy. The final complete dinner is the visual culmination. COOKING CONTINUITY LOCK: This is a high-priority continuity rule. Every pan, bowl, saucepan, tray and plate must contain exactly what was previously placed inside it. Nothing appears or disappears without being visibly handled. Every completed action happens only once. No cooking action is repeated after it has already occurred. The salmon remains the same individual fillet throughout the video. The same potatoes remain the same potatoes. The same soup remains in the same saucepan. The puppy's salmon piece comes from the same salmon fillet that is eventually served. No duplicate food is allowed. Unused ingredients remain inside their original containers until visibly used. The salmon journey is locked: Beat 1 — the raw salmon fillet is placed skin-side down into the hot cast-iron skillet. Beat 2 — the salmon remains in the skillet while its underside sears. Beat 3 — the same salmon is turned once and continues cooking. Beat 4 — the cooked salmon is removed from the skillet. Beat 5 — a small piece is taken from the edge of that exact fillet and cooled for the puppy. Beat 6 — the remaining salmon is placed onto the final serving board. The missing piece remains visibly missing from the salmon until the end. ACTION BEATS: BEAT 1 — SALMON + POTATOES At the beginning, the cast-iron skillet is empty and heating. The man's right hand places the same skin-on salmon fillet into the skillet with metal tongs. A strong natural sizzle begins immediately. The salmon remains in the exact same position while the skin gradually becomes crisp. With the other hand, he places halved baby potatoes into a separate shallow roasting pan. A small amount of olive oil and rosemary is added. The oven door opens and the potatoes are placed inside. The oven closes. Hard cut. BEAT 2 — SALMON SEARING The salmon remains inside the same skillet. The edges begin turning opaque while the skin becomes golden and crisp. The man's hand adds a small knob of butter, crushed garlic and fresh thyme beside the fish. The butter melts around the salmon. He gently tilts the skillet and spoons the hot butter over the top of the fish several times. Steam rises naturally. No fish is removed yet. Hard cut. BEAT 3 — SOUP The same saucepan is now visible on the second burner. The saucepan contains sliced mushrooms and butter. The man's hand stirs them slowly until they soften. Cream is poured into the saucepan. The cream mixes naturally with the mushrooms. A small amount of black pepper and salt is added. The soup begins steaming gently. The rain continues audibly outside. Hard cut. BEAT 4 — FINAL SALMON + PUPPY The man returns to the skillet. Using the same metal tongs, he carefully turns the same salmon fillet ONCE. The underside is beautifully browned and the surface glistens with butter. He cooks it briefly. He then removes the salmon from the skillet and places it onto the wooden cutting board. The puppy, hearing the movement, raises its head from the blanket. The man notices the puppy. He smiles subtly. Using a fork, he separates a very small flaky piece from the edge of the salmon. The missing section remains visible. He places the small piece into his palm. He brings it close to his mouth and gently blows on it twice to cool it. The man's face remains completely outside the frame. The camera naturally lowers as he crouches beside the puppy. The puppy is now sitting upright with its tail gently moving. He places the cooled salmon piece on the gray blanket in front of the puppy. The puppy carefully approaches. It takes the salmon in small bites. Its eyes narrow slightly while chewing. Its tail gives a few happy movements. The man's hand gently scratches the puppy behind one ear. The puppy leans its head into his fingers. This interaction is quiet, natural and affectionate. Hard cut. BEAT 5 — PLATING At the beginning of this beat, an empty rectangular wooden serving board is on the dining table. The roasted potatoes are removed from the oven and placed into a small ceramic bowl. The mushroom soup is ladled into a deep ceramic bowl. The honey-glazed carrots are transferred onto a narrow plate. The salmon, still with the small missing section from the puppy's piece, is lifted from the cutting board using the tongs. It is placed onto a long ceramic plate. A few rosemary leaves and chopped parsley are added naturally. The four finished components are arranged together on the wooden serving board. Nothing is duplicated. Every portion comes from the food previously prepared. Steam rises naturally from the soup, salmon and potatoes. The plating is attractive but imperfect and homemade. Hard cut. BEAT 6 — DINNER TABLE The serving board begins exactly as it appeared at the end of Beat 5. The man grips both sides of the wooden board. He turns away from the kitchen and walks several natural steps toward the dining table. The camera moves with his body. The image sways subtly with each step. The rainy window passes through the background. The puppy follows behind him with its tail raised. He gently places the serving board onto the dining table. The puppy sits beside the table and looks up at him. His hands enter the lower portion of the frame. He briefly scratches the puppy's head. The final frame holds on the steaming homemade dinner with the puppy sitting beside the table. OPTICS AND CAMERA: Natural first-person human POV. Approximately 45–50 degree diagonal field of view. No artificial zoom. No gimbal. No drone movement. No impossible camera transitions. Camera movement comes exclusively from realistic head and body movement. When reaching toward the skillet, the camera naturally leans forward. When looking toward the puppy, the head turns downward. When crouching, the camera lowers with the body. When walking to the dining table, natural footstep-induced vertical movement is visible. Autofocus behaves naturally between hands, food, puppy and background. Slight focus breathing is allowed. Minor framing imperfections are encouraged. No fisheye distortion. No exaggerated lens effects. No cinematic crane shots. PHYSICS: Hyper-realistic cooking physics. Salmon skin crackles and becomes crisp. Butter melts immediately when touching the hot skillet. Steam rises according to heat. Cream swirls naturally into the mushroom mixture. Potatoes have believable weight and moisture. Honey coats the carrots rather than floating separately. Food never duplicates, disappears or changes shape unnaturally. The puppy's fur reacts naturally to touch. The puppy's ears move subtly according to sound and attention. Its pupils adjust naturally. Its jaw and mouth movements during eating remain realistic. The puppy must never behave like a human. No floating objects. No clipping. No impossible hand positions. No teleporting food. LIGHTING: Warm practical kitchen lighting from overhead fixtures. Cool blue-gray ambient light from the rainy window. Soft reflections on the dark countertop. Subtle warm highlights around the skillet and oven. Natural exposure prioritizing hands and food without making the scene look like a commercial. The rain outside creates a gentle cool contrast against the warm kitchen interior. No extreme HDR. No excessive bloom. No artificial beauty lighting. No perfect food-commercial presentation. REALISM: The final result should feel like an authentic first-person home video captured by a real person, but with exceptionally high visual fidelity. Food must look edible and naturally imperfect. The salmon should have uneven browning. The potatoes should have slightly different shapes. The carrots should vary subtly in size. The soup surface should contain natural movement. The serving board should not look perfectly symmetrical. The puppy should feel like a real young dog rather than a cartoon mascot. FRAME RATE: Stable real-time 24fps. No slow motion. No speed ramping. No frame interpolation artifacts. No ghosting. No stuttering. No temporal deformation. AUDIO: Only natural synchronized environmental audio. Continuous rain against the kitchen window. Soft distant city ambience. Skillet sizzling. Butter bubbling. Knife touching the cutting board. Potatoes moving inside the roasting pan. Oven door opening and closing. Soup gently simmering. Ceramic bowls touching the countertop. Tongs lightly clicking against the skillet. Soft puppy breathing. Tiny puppy chewing sounds. The puppy's collar makes a very subtle metallic sound when it moves. Wooden serving board makes a soft dull sound when placed on the table. No narration. No dialogue. No music. No subtitles. No text overlays. No logos. No watermark. FINAL NEGATIVE LOCK: No Japanese kitchen. No Japanese meal. No mackerel. No tamagoyaki. No rice set meal. No tabby cat. No copied character design. No recognizable branded products. No readable logos. No artificial food duplication. No changing hand appearance. No changing sleeves. No changing puppy appearance. No changing kitchen layout. No random ingredients appearing. No objects teleporting. No impossible physics. No cinematic camera that moves independently from the person's body. No CGI-looking food. No advertisement aesthetic. No staged comedy. No exaggerated animal behavior. The entire video must maintain one coherent physical reality from the first frame to the final frame.

I made this 30-second clip on Higgsfield AI 🧩 Prompt: Create a 30-second first-person POV cinematic food-and-pet video. On a rainy evening, inside a compact but beautifully lived-in contemporary European-style home kitchen, an adult man's hands prepare a complete comforting dinner: pan-seared salmon, roasted baby potatoes, honey-glazed carrots, and a creamy mushroom soup. During the preparation, he prepares a tiny cooled piece of salmon for his small puppy waiting nearby. The video is intimate, observational, natural and completely unscripted in feeling. The entire sequence uses a controlled multi-camera-feeling POV structure created through hard cuts. Every cooking action is shown clearly and physically. At the end, the complete dinner is arranged on a wooden serving board and carried to a small dining table. SCENE SETTING: A compact, warm modern home kitchen that has clearly been used for years. The kitchen contains matte cream cabinets, a dark stone countertop, a stainless-steel induction cooktop, a small convection oven, an old wooden cutting board, ceramic bowls, a cast-iron skillet, a medium saucepan and a compact countertop rice/steam cooker. On the counter are the prepared ingredients in separate containers: a skin-on salmon fillet, baby potatoes, small carrots, fresh mushrooms, heavy cream, garlic, butter, fresh rosemary, thyme, olive oil, a small bowl of honey, black pepper, sea salt, and chopped parsley. A wooden dining table is visible several steps away from the kitchen. Near the table sits a small cream-colored fluffy puppy with slightly darker ears. The puppy is lying on a folded gray blanket, quietly watching the man's hands. It occasionally raises its head when it smells the salmon but otherwise remains patient. A large kitchen window is above the sink. Outside, heavy evening rain falls against the glass. Water droplets slowly travel down the window, and blurred streetlights glow through the wet glass. Whenever the camera faces the window, the rain remains clearly visible. The refrigerator contains a few ordinary magnets and a small blank paper note. No readable branding, logos, recognizable labels or copyrighted imagery appear anywhere. POV LOCK: Every shot is first-person POV from the eye level of an approximately 178cm tall adult man working naturally in the kitchen. Only his hands, wrists and forearms are visible. His face and body are never shown, including reflections. The hands have medium-light natural skin, short clean fingernails and a small faint healed scratch near the left thumb. He wears a charcoal-gray long-sleeve home shirt with the sleeves casually rolled to the forearms and a dark beige kitchen apron. These exact hand, sleeve and apron details remain consistent throughout the entire video. The camera behaves like a real human head. It moves only when the person naturally turns, bends, reaches, looks toward the stove, looks toward the puppy or walks toward the table. No independent cinematic camera movement. Slight natural body sway, subtle breathing movement, tiny framing imperfections and realistic handheld instability are allowed. FORMAT MODE: Controlled multi-shot sequence. Real-time speed. Hard cuts only. Every segment begins with an action already in progress. Hands, utensils or food must already be visible immediately after every cut. No empty establishing shots. No slow motion. No artificial time-lapse. No dissolves. The emotional center is the small interaction between the man and the puppy. The final complete dinner is the visual culmination. COOKING CONTINUITY LOCK: This is a high-priority continuity rule. Every pan, bowl, saucepan, tray and plate must contain exactly what was previously placed inside it. Nothing appears or disappears without being visibly handled. Every completed action happens only once. No cooking action is repeated after it has already occurred. The salmon remains the same individual fillet throughout the video. The same potatoes remain the same potatoes. The same soup remains in the same saucepan. The puppy's salmon piece comes from the same salmon fillet that is eventually served. No duplicate food is allowed. Unused ingredients remain inside their original containers until visibly used. The salmon journey is locked: Beat 1 — the raw salmon fillet is placed skin-side down into the hot cast-iron skillet. Beat 2 — the salmon remains in the skillet while its underside sears. Beat 3 — the same salmon is turned once and continues cooking. Beat 4 — the cooked salmon is removed from the skillet. Beat 5 — a small piece is taken from the edge of that exact fillet and cooled for the puppy. Beat 6 — the remaining salmon is placed onto the final serving board. The missing piece remains visibly missing from the salmon until the end. ACTION BEATS: BEAT 1 — SALMON + POTATOES At the beginning, the cast-iron skillet is empty and heating. The man's right hand places the same skin-on salmon fillet into the skillet with metal tongs. A strong natural sizzle begins immediately. The salmon remains in the exact same position while the skin gradually becomes crisp. With the other hand, he places halved baby potatoes into a separate shallow roasting pan. A small amount of olive oil and rosemary is added. The oven door opens and the potatoes are placed inside. The oven closes. Hard cut. BEAT 2 — SALMON SEARING The salmon remains inside the same skillet. The edges begin turning opaque while the skin becomes golden and crisp. The man's hand adds a small knob of butter, crushed garlic and fresh thyme beside the fish. The butter melts around the salmon. He gently tilts the skillet and spoons the hot butter over the top of the fish several times. Steam rises naturally. No fish is removed yet. Hard cut. BEAT 3 — SOUP The same saucepan is now visible on the second burner. The saucepan contains sliced mushrooms and butter. The man's hand stirs them slowly until they soften. Cream is poured into the saucepan. The cream mixes naturally with the mushrooms. A small amount of black pepper and salt is added. The soup begins steaming gently. The rain continues audibly outside. Hard cut. BEAT 4 — FINAL SALMON + PUPPY The man returns to the skillet. Using the same metal tongs, he carefully turns the same salmon fillet ONCE. The underside is beautifully browned and the surface glistens with butter. He cooks it briefly. He then removes the salmon from the skillet and places it onto the wooden cutting board. The puppy, hearing the movement, raises its head from the blanket. The man notices the puppy. He smiles subtly. Using a fork, he separates a very small flaky piece from the edge of the salmon. The missing section remains visible. He places the small piece into his palm. He brings it close to his mouth and gently blows on it twice to cool it. The man's face remains completely outside the frame. The camera naturally lowers as he crouches beside the puppy. The puppy is now sitting upright with its tail gently moving. He places the cooled salmon piece on the gray blanket in front of the puppy. The puppy carefully approaches. It takes the salmon in small bites. Its eyes narrow slightly while chewing. Its tail gives a few happy movements. The man's hand gently scratches the puppy behind one ear. The puppy leans its head into his fingers. This interaction is quiet, natural and affectionate. Hard cut. BEAT 5 — PLATING At the beginning of this beat, an empty rectangular wooden serving board is on the dining table. The roasted potatoes are removed from the oven and placed into a small ceramic bowl. The mushroom soup is ladled into a deep ceramic bowl. The honey-glazed carrots are transferred onto a narrow plate. The salmon, still with the small missing section from the puppy's piece, is lifted from the cutting board using the tongs. It is placed onto a long ceramic plate. A few rosemary leaves and chopped parsley are added naturally. The four finished components are arranged together on the wooden serving board. Nothing is duplicated. Every portion comes from the food previously prepared. Steam rises naturally from the soup, salmon and potatoes. The plating is attractive but imperfect and homemade. Hard cut. BEAT 6 — DINNER TABLE The serving board begins exactly as it appeared at the end of Beat 5. The man grips both sides of the wooden board. He turns away from the kitchen and walks several natural steps toward the dining table. The camera moves with his body. The image sways subtly with each step. The rainy window passes through the background. The puppy follows behind him with its tail raised. He gently places the serving board onto the dining table. The puppy sits beside the table and looks up at him. His hands enter the lower portion of the frame. He briefly scratches the puppy's head. The final frame holds on the steaming homemade dinner with the puppy sitting beside the table. OPTICS AND CAMERA: Natural first-person human POV. Approximately 45–50 degree diagonal field of view. No artificial zoom. No gimbal. No drone movement. No impossible camera transitions. Camera movement comes exclusively from realistic head and body movement. When reaching toward the skillet, the camera naturally leans forward. When looking toward the puppy, the head turns downward. When crouching, the camera lowers with the body. When walking to the dining table, natural footstep-induced vertical movement is visible. Autofocus behaves naturally between hands, food, puppy and background. Slight focus breathing is allowed. Minor framing imperfections are encouraged. No fisheye distortion. No exaggerated lens effects. No cinematic crane shots. PHYSICS: Hyper-realistic cooking physics. Salmon skin crackles and becomes crisp. Butter melts immediately when touching the hot skillet. Steam rises according to heat. Cream swirls naturally into the mushroom mixture. Potatoes have believable weight and moisture. Honey coats the carrots rather than floating separately. Food never duplicates, disappears or changes shape unnaturally. The puppy's fur reacts naturally to touch. The puppy's ears move subtly according to sound and attention. Its pupils adjust naturally. Its jaw and mouth movements during eating remain realistic. The puppy must never behave like a human. No floating objects. No clipping. No impossible hand positions. No teleporting food. LIGHTING: Warm practical kitchen lighting from overhead fixtures. Cool blue-gray ambient light from the rainy window. Soft reflections on the dark countertop. Subtle warm highlights around the skillet and oven. Natural exposure prioritizing hands and food without making the scene look like a commercial. The rain outside creates a gentle cool contrast against the warm kitchen interior. No extreme HDR. No excessive bloom. No artificial beauty lighting. No perfect food-commercial presentation. REALISM: The final result should feel like an authentic first-person home video captured by a real person, but with exceptionally high visual fidelity. Food must look edible and naturally imperfect. The salmon should have uneven browning. The potatoes should have slightly different shapes. The carrots should vary subtly in size. The soup surface should contain natural movement. The serving board should not look perfectly symmetrical. The puppy should feel like a real young dog rather than a cartoon mascot. FRAME RATE: Stable real-time 24fps. No slow motion. No speed ramping. No frame interpolation artifacts. No ghosting. No stuttering. No temporal deformation. AUDIO: Only natural synchronized environmental audio. Continuous rain against the kitchen window. Soft distant city ambience. Skillet sizzling. Butter bubbling. Knife touching the cutting board. Potatoes moving inside the roasting pan. Oven door opening and closing. Soup gently simmering. Ceramic bowls touching the countertop. Tongs lightly clicking against the skillet. Soft puppy breathing. Tiny puppy chewing sounds. The puppy's collar makes a very subtle metallic sound when it moves. Wooden serving board makes a soft dull sound when placed on the table. No narration. No dialogue. No music. No subtitles. No text overlays. No logos. No watermark. FINAL NEGATIVE LOCK: No Japanese kitchen. No Japanese meal. No mackerel. No tamagoyaki. No rice set meal. No tabby cat. No copied character design. No recognizable branded products. No readable logos. No artificial food duplication. No changing hand appearance. No changing sleeves. No changing puppy appearance. No changing kitchen layout. No random ingredients appearing. No objects teleporting. No impossible physics. No cinematic camera that moves independently from the person's body. No CGI-looking food. No advertisement aesthetic. No staged comedy. No exaggerated animal behavior. The entire video must maintain one coherent physical reality from the first frame to the final frame.

Shara

15,361 views • 19 days ago

I made an ad for GPT Image 2.5, full prompt below. It's yours now. Put your own character in @[image1], your own poster in @[image2], change the city, change what she turns into. Quote this with your version, I want to see what you all make of it. Seedance 2.5 on Higgsfield AI 🧩. Seedance 2.5 Prompt: [GLOBAL] 30-second commercial. Photoreal live-action cinema texture, digital cinema camera, 35mm and 24mm lenses, shallow depth of field, real overcast rain-light, low-contrast cool grade, light film grain. 16:9. The spine of the film is one continuous over-the-shoulder tracking shot; all transitions are hidden inside motion blur and the crystallization effect. [CHARACTER ANCHOR] @[image1] = the protagonist, a Japanese woman in her early twenties with a Tokyo street-fashion look: bleached pale-blonde wolf-cut shag with dark roots and a single mint-green streak in the under-layer; clean Japanese makeup — thin brows, pearlescent eyeshadow, nude lip; an oversized charcoal coach jacket with an original graphic print on the back, a long white tee underneath, baggy black cargo pants, chunky platform sneakers, layered silver jewelry, wired over-ear headphones around her neck, a small crossbody bag. Her face, hair and wardrobe stay 100% identical from 0s to 28s — never altered, never touched by any "generation" effect. She is the only constant in the film until the final beat. Emotional arc: oblivious → noticing → confused → stunned → awestruck → transformed. [ARTWORK REFERENCE] @[image2] = the billboard artwork reference. Used ONLY for the flat graphic displayed on the bus-shelter digital billboard at 11–15s — including its complete typographic lockup ("Higgsfield × OpenAI" in small caps, "GPT IMAGE" in heavy white, the lime-green gradient "2.5", and the wide-tracked "SUNBURST" beneath), along with its layout, palette and composition. @[image2] must appear as a complete flat advertising image inside the billboard screen, carrying correct perspective, screen reflection and rain refraction across the glass surface. The woman pictured in @[image2] must NEVER be used for the protagonist's design, must NEVER leave the billboard screen, and must NEVER appear in the physical space of the scene. @[image1] and the woman in @[image2] are two entirely different people — never conflate them, never let one influence the other. [CORE VISUAL MOTIF — THE ONLY TRANSFORMATION LANGUAGE IN THE FILM] Anything being "regenerated" must follow the exact same three-stage process: ① the original object disintegrates from its edges into a cloud of tens of thousands of small translucent white crystalline beads — like bubble-film or shattered glass pearls, with real volume, specular highlights and real weight; ② the bead cloud hangs briefly and rapidly rearranges; ③ the new form grows outward from inside the cloud, the final layer of beads absorbing into its surface and vanishing. Do NOT use flash cuts, dissolves, particle-dispersal effects, or digital-glitch styling for any transformation. [SETTING] A Midtown Manhattan intersection after rain. Wet asphalt reflections, crosswalk stripes, yellow cabs, dense glass curtain walls and older stone buildings, neon and storefront signage, a fire hydrant, a newsstand, a bus-shelter digital billboard. Overcast diffused light throughout, no direct sun. 0–3s: Over-the-shoulder medium shot, following behind @[image1]. Her back is to camera as she stands on the crosswalk. To frame right, a 1970s green sedan in motion crystallizes entirely and reassembles as a black muscle car; a few frames later it crystallizes again and reassembles as a white wheel-less hover car. She hasn't registered it yet. 3–7s: The camera arcs around to her side. She starts looking around, the ends of her wolf cut swinging with the head turn. A businessman with a briefcase crystallizes mid-stride — the human-shaped bead cloud holds the walking pose for two full steps — and reassembles as a bare-chested barbarian warrior with feathered ornaments, continuing the same stride. Two or three more pedestrians crystallize in the background simultaneously, without pulling focus from her. 7–11s: Handheld tracking accelerates. More and more people on the street are replaced: a purple-skinned alien warrior woman, white-armored robot troopers, an original gold-suited superhero character (all original designs — no real-world recognizable characters, logos or trademarks). She walks faster, keeps turning to look back, her breathing quickening, one hand instinctively gripping her crossbody strap. The replacement frequency keeps rising, but the street's spatial relationships, lighting and wet reflections remain continuous throughout — no jump cuts. 11–15s: She stops in front of the bus shelter. The digital billboard inside cycles rapidly: a photoreal movie poster → a hand-painted concept illustration → a fashion editorial — each refresh executed with the same crystalline bead reassembly. It finally settles on the complete @[image2] artwork filling the entire screen, its typography and palette exactly as in @[image2]. She raises a hand and points at the screen, mouth open, unable to speak. 15–18s: The camera tilts down to her feet. The sidewalk paving crystallizes outward from where she stands in a perfect circle, white beads spreading three meters along the joints between slabs, the manhole cover and the standing water turning crystalline with it. She looks down. The ground gives out beneath her platform sneakers. 18–21s: Wide 24mm. The ground collapses and she falls straight down. The camera falls with her looking up — the entire city contracts above her into a shrinking square opening, the buildings on either side peeling away, tumbling and receding upward like building blocks, the sky turning to deep blue-black void. She throws her arms out, her hair, jacket hem and bag strap lifted by the updraft. 21–24s: During the fall the visual style jumps repeatedly, each jump bridged by one full-frame sweep of crystalline beads. In order: ① rich 1980s film stock — high saturation, heavy halation, heavy grain; ② black-and-white halftone manga panel — the character rendered in ink linework and dot screens against dense radial speed lines; ③ a neon purple-blue digital vortex with long light streaks stretching backward at speed; ④ near-total darkness with extreme motion blur. Her facial structure, hair and wardrobe must remain recognizably the same person in every one of these styles. 24–27s: She lands flat on her back on a smooth white floor. A wide lens pushes in slowly and tilts up to reveal the environment: an infinitely extending pure-white showroom/hangar with a gridded softbox ceiling. Hundreds of black circular pedestals cover the floor, each holding a character statue or a parked vehicle — original-design warriors, mechs, robots, sci-fi troopers, plus large military aircraft and helicopters. A small line of floating white label text sits in front of each pedestal: "FANTASY CHARACTER", "VEHICLE", "MECH" — set at a small point size, present purely as environmental information. 27–28s: She sits up and pushes herself to her feet, turning slowly to take in the hall, eyes widening in awe. The camera settles into a full-body medium-wide, centered, the statue array receding out of focus behind her. 28–30s [THE FINAL TRANSFORMATION]: The instant she stands fully upright, the crystalline beads rise from the floor around her feet and sweep up her body in one continuous wave — and for the first time in the film, SHE is the thing being regenerated. Her streetwear disintegrates into the bead cloud and a magical-girl battle uniform grows outward in its place, following the exact same three-stage motif, generating in a readable order from the torso outward: a white high-collar fitted bodice → a mint-green sailor collar with three silver stripes → a deep mint pleated skirt with silver trim, its pleats opening one by one → long white gloves to the upper arm with mint piping → white knee-high boots with a mid heel and mint cuffs → layered silver jewelry reforming as a silver star brooch at her chest → a large mint-green bow at her back with long ribbons falling to the backs of her knees → a fine silver tiara condensing across her forehead. Her face, hairstyle, hair color, the mint streak and the headphones around her neck remain completely unchanged — only the clothing is regenerated. The last beads absorb into the fabric. She looks down at her own hands, then slowly raises her head, the ribbons still settling behind her, and looks straight past camera with a small, dawning smile. The film cuts on that frame. No end card, no title, no tagline, no subtitle of any kind. [SOUND] Rain and wet-road traffic, urban ambient bed; high-frequency glass/ice shatter-and-rearrange sounds on every crystallization; a short bright locking tone as each reassembly completes; electronic refresh tones from the billboard; low-frequency collapse as the ground gives way; wind through the fall, with a distinct timbre shift for each of the four style jumps (film hiss / paper-and-ink texture / synth sweep / silence); one muffled impact on landing; near-total quiet inside the hall with only faint HVAC room tone; then, over the final transformation, an ascending shimmer of silk and crystal, each garment piece seating with a crisp click, the bow tying with a single sweep of ribbon, and one clear bell tone as the tiara locks in. One escalating electronic music bed ties it together, landing its final hit on her raised head. [HARD RULES] @[image1]'s face, hairstyle, hair color and headphones are absolutely unchanged across all 30 seconds. Her wardrobe is unchanged from 0s to 28s and may be regenerated ONLY in the 28–30s final beat — the transformation affects clothing only and must never alter her face, hair or identity. All other replacements happen only to the people, vehicles, ground and environment around her. The film may use only the single "crystalline bead disintegration → rearrangement → growth" transformation language, including for the final costume change; no other transition effect may be mixed in. From 0–18s the film must hold the logic of one spatially continuous tracking shot — the street's architecture, lighting and wet reflections must never jump. Every character and vehicle in the hall must be an original design; no real-world recognizable characters, brand marks, trademarks or identifiable film properties may appear, and the final magical-girl uniform must be an original design, not any existing anime character's costume. The only brand copy permitted anywhere in the film is the @[image2] artwork on the billboard screen at 11–15s, existing solely as a flat image inside that screen and never repeated elsewhere. No end card, no title card, no subtitles, no watermark, no overlaid text anywhere in the film. Avoid: cartoon rendering, game-CG feel, plastic materials, full-frame bloom, digital-glitch transitions, weightless floating, incorrect finger structure, garbled text, revealing or suggestive posing or camera angles.

Mr.Iancu

58,147 views • 7 days ago

🧬 The Recipe: How One Ovarian Cancer Trial Rebuilds the Immune System the Disease Switched Off A node-by-node case for durable immunity in the cancer that has resisted checkpoint blockade $NWBO and its #DCVax dendritic-cell platform sit at the heart of a new front-line #OvarianCancer trial, the same instructor-cell technology now aimed at the cancer that checkpoint blockade has barely touched. Advanced ovarian cancer kills more women than any other gynecologic malignancy, and it has shrugged off the #immunotherapy revolution almost entirely. Checkpoint blockade on its own reaches an objective response rate near eight percent in this disease, the figure from the $MRK #KEYNOTE-100 trial. The tumors are cold, the mutational burden is low, and the peritoneal cavity is a suppressive field that shuts an immune attack down before it can start. Two decades of single-agent vaccines and single-agent checkpoint drugs have not changed the survival math. Most patients respond to first-line chemotherapy and then relapse, and once the disease returns, the odds turn hard against them. For the patient living that diagnosis, a durable response is the only outcome that counts, and that is the one thing the field has not delivered. A Phase 2 trial opening at #UPMC Hillman in the second half of 2026, #NCT07634094, takes a different route. It does not add one more drug to the pile and hope. It treats ovarian cancer as one clinical face of a single, definable failure, and it rebuilds the broken machinery one node at a time. The sponsors are Pawel Kalinski MD PhD, $NWBO and $AIM. Here is the full logic, and why it is built to produce a response that lasts. 🔒 The hidden lesion: a silencing cascade Ovarian tumors run a self-reinforcing program that switches off the immune system's command center. It starts with chronic inflammation. Senescence-associated secretions and prostaglandin E2, the product of the COX-2 enzyme, keep the signaling protein STAT3 locked on. Persistent STAT3 pulls the silencing enzymes DNMT1 and EZH2 onto a single master gene, IRF8. That gene is the identity switch for the type 1 conventional dendritic cell, the cDC1, the one cell that licenses killer T cells with bioactive Silence IRF8 and the instructor disappears. With it gone, the tumor secretes decoy chemokines that recruit regulatory T cells, killer cells never receive their orders, and the disease grows in immunological darkness. This is not a quirk of ovarian cancer. The same cascade shows up in chronic infection and in aging tissue. Ovarian cancer is one face of a convergent mechanism, which is why a fix that works here points well beyond it. 🔄 The recipe: the cascade run in reverse Every component of the regimen corrects one node of that cascade. Pull out any single arm and the suppression reasserts itself through the others. That is what separates this from a kitchen sink: each part is load-bearing. · Celecoxib lifts the upstream PGE2 brake that keeps the silencing signal switched on. · Autologous, tumor-loaded alpha-DC1 supplies the instructor function from outside the silencing field, loaded with the whole tumor. This is the rebuilt command center the disease erased. · #rintatolimod, the selective TLR3 agonist marketed as #Ampligen, plus interferon-alpha flips the chemokine code tumor-selectively, from the CCL22 that recruits regulatory cells to the CXCL10 and CCL5 that pull in killers. #Bioferon · The alpha-DC1 program imprints CXCR3 and CCR5 homing receptors on the instructed CD8 cells, so they reach the tumor instead of circulating uselessly. · Cisplatin raises stress ligands so the killers can destroy low-antigen escape variants through the DNAM-1 and NKG2D receptors, closing the door on the engine of recurrence. · Paclitaxel plus the interferons repolarize suppressive M2 macrophages back to the supportive M1 state. · $MRK #Keytruda, releases the PD-1 brake last, only after the tumor has been made hot. The order is not cosmetic. The checkpoint comes last for a reason that most combination trials get wrong. 🔗 Why the combination is required, not additive Checkpoint blockade does not activate killer T cells by itself. Published work shows that anti-PD-1 efficacy depends on dendritic cells producing IL-12 inside the tumor (Garris, Immunity 2018). If the instructor is silenced and no IL-12 is being made, pembrolizumab has nothing to set loose. It is releasing a brake on a car with no engine. So restoring the IL-12 signal is the precondition for the checkpoint to do anything in this disease, not an optional add-on to it. The alpha-DC1 vaccine rebuilds the engine. Pembrolizumab takes the brake off. Neither delivers without the other. The relationship is causal, and that is the single idea the whole regimen is organized around. ⏳ Why the response should last A response that fades is not a cure, and durability is engineered here on four fronts at once. · Breadth. The vaccine is loaded with the whole tumor, not a single antigen, so the immune system learns the entire target and the tumor cannot escape by dropping one marker. · A lowered killing threshold. The DNAM-1 and NKG2D signals let killers finish variants that have shed antigen, while the requirement for true tumor recognition is preserved, so normal tissue is passed over. · Memory programming. Bioactive IL-12p70 does what ordinary dendritic-cell expansion cannot. It programs a self-renewing, TCF1-positive stem-like CD8 reservoir, the very population that predicts lasting benefit from checkpoint blockade (Goswami, Clinical Cancer Research 2025). · A self-reinforcing organ. Restored type 1 signaling matures tertiary lymphoid structures inside the tumor, the local factories from which durable immunity is rebuilt long after the last dose. 📊 Already partly de-risked This is not a first guess. The chemokine-and-checkpoint backbone was already tested in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in trial NCT03734692: intraperitoneal cisplatin plus rintatolimod plus pembrolizumab. That study produced an objective response rate near fifty percent, several times the roughly eight percent checkpoint blockade reaches alone in $MRK #KEYNOTE-100, accompanied by the exact chemokine shift the model predicts, the rise in CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 that a restored type 1 program produces. $MRK collaborated on it and supported it, and the final primary endpoint reported in May 2026. #SITC26 #ASCO26 The new trial adds the missing piece, the alpha-DC1 instructor whose intellectual property traces to #RoswellPark, and moves the whole regimen to the front line, where the tumor is largest and the antigen supply is richest. It is the same spine, established in recurrent disease, now armed with the one component that was absent. 🔬 A trial built to be read, not just won NCT07634094 enrolls twenty-eight patients with Stage III to IV epithelial ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer, chemo-naive, in the neoadjuvant #neoadjuvant setting. #OvarianCancerAwareness #gyncsm #BRCA Treating before surgery buys the cleanest possible readout: the resected tumor itself. The co-primary endpoints are the safety of the full combination and pathologic complete response at debulking. A pathologic complete response, meaning no viable tumor left in the surgical specimen, is one of the most demanding endpoints in solid-tumor #oncology and a recognized marker of long-term benefit. The design also reads the mechanism directly. It looks for the chemokine switch, the rise in intratumoral CD8 cells with a favorable ratio to regulatory cells and a TCF1-positive phenotype, the falling inflammatory tone, and the specific signature of restored pulsed IL-12p70 against preserved bulk IL-12. The study is built to show whether the mechanism engaged, not only whether tumors shrank. Enrollment is expected to begin in the second half of 2026, and because the central readout is the surgical specimen rather than years of follow-up, the first mechanistic signals should arrive relatively early. 🏭 Why this is a platform, not a one-off The instructor cell at the center of this regimen is the same dendritic-cell platform Northwest Biotherapeutics has built its company around. #DCVax extended survival in Phase 3 glioblastoma (JAMA Oncology, 2023), and a UK marketing application is pending with MHRAgovuk. The same approach has already worked in ovarian cancer. At the University of Pennsylvania, a personalized whole-tumor dendritic-cell vaccine in recurrent ovarian cancer was well tolerated and induced broad antitumor T-cell responses that tracked with significantly longer survival, with two-year survival of one hundred percent in the immune responders against twenty-five percent in non-responders (Tanyi et al., Science Translational Medicine, 2018). Those dendritic cells were loaded with the patient's own whole tumor and activated toward the same type 1 program this regimen rebuilds. That is the proof of principle, and this trial is the more complete version of it. The dendritic cell here is engineered for higher, sustained IL-12p70. It is given in the front line, where the antigen supply is richest, rather than in heavily pretreated relapse. The suppressive microenvironment is reprogrammed in parallel rather than left intact, and the checkpoint is released at the end. The Penn vaccine carried the immune response largely on its own. This regimen clears the field for it first, then takes the brake off. The historical knock on personalized cell therapy was manufacturing: bespoke, hand-built, hard to scale. Northwest Biotherapeutics has been answering that directly. #Flaskworks #EDEN, the closed, automated manufacturing system the company acquired, standardizes production and removes the single-site hand manufacturing that limited earlier programs. The Sawston facility #Sawston in the UK, operated by #AdventBioServices, a wholly owned Northwest Biotherapeutics subsidiary, under MHRA good-manufacturing standards, is bringing its first Grade C suite online in 2026, a step anticipated to more than double capacity, with a dedicated leukapheresis clinic already running. The company has also added senior leadership to drive the platform, naming the biopharmaceutical veteran Dr. Annalisa Jenkins as a strategic adviser. The consequence is concrete. If the mechanism reads out in the resected tumor, the system that delivers it is already being built to scale, across the many solid tumors that run the same silencing cascade. One trial, read correctly, does not validate a single drug. It tests a repeatable way of rebuilding antitumor immunity. That reach is the point. The same instructor sits at the center of the silencing cascade across most solid tumors, which is why the dendritic-cell platform is framed around the approach itself rather than a single indication. A front-line ovarian readout that confirms the mechanism would be evidence for the method, not for one tumor type alone. The needle moves on the tissue, not on the thesis, and no paragraph substitutes for the pathology report. What the design offers is a complete, testable mechanism for durable immunity in ovarian cancer, paired with a manufacturing system already capable of producing it at scale. The readout in the resected tumor will speak for itself. Not financial advice. Do your own research. #DCVaxForBraelyn

🧬 The Recipe: How One Ovarian Cancer Trial Rebuilds the Immune System the Disease Switched Off A node-by-node case for durable immunity in the cancer that has resisted checkpoint blockade $NWBO and its #DCVax dendritic-cell platform sit at the heart of a new front-line #OvarianCancer trial, the same instructor-cell technology now aimed at the cancer that checkpoint blockade has barely touched. Advanced ovarian cancer kills more women than any other gynecologic malignancy, and it has shrugged off the #immunotherapy revolution almost entirely. Checkpoint blockade on its own reaches an objective response rate near eight percent in this disease, the figure from the $MRK #KEYNOTE-100 trial. The tumors are cold, the mutational burden is low, and the peritoneal cavity is a suppressive field that shuts an immune attack down before it can start. Two decades of single-agent vaccines and single-agent checkpoint drugs have not changed the survival math. Most patients respond to first-line chemotherapy and then relapse, and once the disease returns, the odds turn hard against them. For the patient living that diagnosis, a durable response is the only outcome that counts, and that is the one thing the field has not delivered. A Phase 2 trial opening at #UPMC Hillman in the second half of 2026, #NCT07634094, takes a different route. It does not add one more drug to the pile and hope. It treats ovarian cancer as one clinical face of a single, definable failure, and it rebuilds the broken machinery one node at a time. The sponsors are Pawel Kalinski MD PhD, $NWBO and $AIM. Here is the full logic, and why it is built to produce a response that lasts. 🔒 The hidden lesion: a silencing cascade Ovarian tumors run a self-reinforcing program that switches off the immune system's command center. It starts with chronic inflammation. Senescence-associated secretions and prostaglandin E2, the product of the COX-2 enzyme, keep the signaling protein STAT3 locked on. Persistent STAT3 pulls the silencing enzymes DNMT1 and EZH2 onto a single master gene, IRF8. That gene is the identity switch for the type 1 conventional dendritic cell, the cDC1, the one cell that licenses killer T cells with bioactive Silence IRF8 and the instructor disappears. With it gone, the tumor secretes decoy chemokines that recruit regulatory T cells, killer cells never receive their orders, and the disease grows in immunological darkness. This is not a quirk of ovarian cancer. The same cascade shows up in chronic infection and in aging tissue. Ovarian cancer is one face of a convergent mechanism, which is why a fix that works here points well beyond it. 🔄 The recipe: the cascade run in reverse Every component of the regimen corrects one node of that cascade. Pull out any single arm and the suppression reasserts itself through the others. That is what separates this from a kitchen sink: each part is load-bearing. · Celecoxib lifts the upstream PGE2 brake that keeps the silencing signal switched on. · Autologous, tumor-loaded alpha-DC1 supplies the instructor function from outside the silencing field, loaded with the whole tumor. This is the rebuilt command center the disease erased. · #rintatolimod, the selective TLR3 agonist marketed as #Ampligen, plus interferon-alpha flips the chemokine code tumor-selectively, from the CCL22 that recruits regulatory cells to the CXCL10 and CCL5 that pull in killers. #Bioferon · The alpha-DC1 program imprints CXCR3 and CCR5 homing receptors on the instructed CD8 cells, so they reach the tumor instead of circulating uselessly. · Cisplatin raises stress ligands so the killers can destroy low-antigen escape variants through the DNAM-1 and NKG2D receptors, closing the door on the engine of recurrence. · Paclitaxel plus the interferons repolarize suppressive M2 macrophages back to the supportive M1 state. · $MRK #Keytruda, releases the PD-1 brake last, only after the tumor has been made hot. The order is not cosmetic. The checkpoint comes last for a reason that most combination trials get wrong. 🔗 Why the combination is required, not additive Checkpoint blockade does not activate killer T cells by itself. Published work shows that anti-PD-1 efficacy depends on dendritic cells producing IL-12 inside the tumor (Garris, Immunity 2018). If the instructor is silenced and no IL-12 is being made, pembrolizumab has nothing to set loose. It is releasing a brake on a car with no engine. So restoring the IL-12 signal is the precondition for the checkpoint to do anything in this disease, not an optional add-on to it. The alpha-DC1 vaccine rebuilds the engine. Pembrolizumab takes the brake off. Neither delivers without the other. The relationship is causal, and that is the single idea the whole regimen is organized around. ⏳ Why the response should last A response that fades is not a cure, and durability is engineered here on four fronts at once. · Breadth. The vaccine is loaded with the whole tumor, not a single antigen, so the immune system learns the entire target and the tumor cannot escape by dropping one marker. · A lowered killing threshold. The DNAM-1 and NKG2D signals let killers finish variants that have shed antigen, while the requirement for true tumor recognition is preserved, so normal tissue is passed over. · Memory programming. Bioactive IL-12p70 does what ordinary dendritic-cell expansion cannot. It programs a self-renewing, TCF1-positive stem-like CD8 reservoir, the very population that predicts lasting benefit from checkpoint blockade (Goswami, Clinical Cancer Research 2025). · A self-reinforcing organ. Restored type 1 signaling matures tertiary lymphoid structures inside the tumor, the local factories from which durable immunity is rebuilt long after the last dose. 📊 Already partly de-risked This is not a first guess. The chemokine-and-checkpoint backbone was already tested in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in trial NCT03734692: intraperitoneal cisplatin plus rintatolimod plus pembrolizumab. That study produced an objective response rate near fifty percent, several times the roughly eight percent checkpoint blockade reaches alone in $MRK #KEYNOTE-100, accompanied by the exact chemokine shift the model predicts, the rise in CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11 that a restored type 1 program produces. $MRK collaborated on it and supported it, and the final primary endpoint reported in May 2026. #SITC26 #ASCO26 The new trial adds the missing piece, the alpha-DC1 instructor whose intellectual property traces to #RoswellPark, and moves the whole regimen to the front line, where the tumor is largest and the antigen supply is richest. It is the same spine, established in recurrent disease, now armed with the one component that was absent. 🔬 A trial built to be read, not just won NCT07634094 enrolls twenty-eight patients with Stage III to IV epithelial ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer, chemo-naive, in the neoadjuvant #neoadjuvant setting. #OvarianCancerAwareness #gyncsm #BRCA Treating before surgery buys the cleanest possible readout: the resected tumor itself. The co-primary endpoints are the safety of the full combination and pathologic complete response at debulking. A pathologic complete response, meaning no viable tumor left in the surgical specimen, is one of the most demanding endpoints in solid-tumor #oncology and a recognized marker of long-term benefit. The design also reads the mechanism directly. It looks for the chemokine switch, the rise in intratumoral CD8 cells with a favorable ratio to regulatory cells and a TCF1-positive phenotype, the falling inflammatory tone, and the specific signature of restored pulsed IL-12p70 against preserved bulk IL-12. The study is built to show whether the mechanism engaged, not only whether tumors shrank. Enrollment is expected to begin in the second half of 2026, and because the central readout is the surgical specimen rather than years of follow-up, the first mechanistic signals should arrive relatively early. 🏭 Why this is a platform, not a one-off The instructor cell at the center of this regimen is the same dendritic-cell platform Northwest Biotherapeutics has built its company around. #DCVax extended survival in Phase 3 glioblastoma (JAMA Oncology, 2023), and a UK marketing application is pending with MHRAgovuk. The same approach has already worked in ovarian cancer. At the University of Pennsylvania, a personalized whole-tumor dendritic-cell vaccine in recurrent ovarian cancer was well tolerated and induced broad antitumor T-cell responses that tracked with significantly longer survival, with two-year survival of one hundred percent in the immune responders against twenty-five percent in non-responders (Tanyi et al., Science Translational Medicine, 2018). Those dendritic cells were loaded with the patient's own whole tumor and activated toward the same type 1 program this regimen rebuilds. That is the proof of principle, and this trial is the more complete version of it. The dendritic cell here is engineered for higher, sustained IL-12p70. It is given in the front line, where the antigen supply is richest, rather than in heavily pretreated relapse. The suppressive microenvironment is reprogrammed in parallel rather than left intact, and the checkpoint is released at the end. The Penn vaccine carried the immune response largely on its own. This regimen clears the field for it first, then takes the brake off. The historical knock on personalized cell therapy was manufacturing: bespoke, hand-built, hard to scale. Northwest Biotherapeutics has been answering that directly. #Flaskworks #EDEN, the closed, automated manufacturing system the company acquired, standardizes production and removes the single-site hand manufacturing that limited earlier programs. The Sawston facility #Sawston in the UK, operated by #AdventBioServices, a wholly owned Northwest Biotherapeutics subsidiary, under MHRA good-manufacturing standards, is bringing its first Grade C suite online in 2026, a step anticipated to more than double capacity, with a dedicated leukapheresis clinic already running. The company has also added senior leadership to drive the platform, naming the biopharmaceutical veteran Dr. Annalisa Jenkins as a strategic adviser. The consequence is concrete. If the mechanism reads out in the resected tumor, the system that delivers it is already being built to scale, across the many solid tumors that run the same silencing cascade. One trial, read correctly, does not validate a single drug. It tests a repeatable way of rebuilding antitumor immunity. That reach is the point. The same instructor sits at the center of the silencing cascade across most solid tumors, which is why the dendritic-cell platform is framed around the approach itself rather than a single indication. A front-line ovarian readout that confirms the mechanism would be evidence for the method, not for one tumor type alone. The needle moves on the tissue, not on the thesis, and no paragraph substitutes for the pathology report. What the design offers is a complete, testable mechanism for durable immunity in ovarian cancer, paired with a manufacturing system already capable of producing it at scale. The readout in the resected tumor will speak for itself. Not financial advice. Do your own research. #DCVaxForBraelyn

Andrew Caravello, DO

10,459 views • 3 months ago

I've interviewed dozens of scientists about AI consciousness. Here's every argument FOR and AGAINST from Karl Friston, Stuart Hameroff, Donald Hoffman, Christof Koch, Michael Levin, Mark Solms, Mike Weist, and many more. Full list of arguments below (Claude prepared the list from transcripts and GPT 5.6 worked on the visuals). Enjoy! Arguments against AI Consciousness Substrate and material arguments - Silicon Valley is mostly computational functionalist or Turing machine functionalist. But consciousness is not reducible to function (Christof Koch) - Von Neumann architecture separates memory from processing. The memory can't self-organize and therefore can't self-evidence. Only "mortal computation," where processing is substrate-dependent and switching it off is irreversible, could support sentience (Karl Friston) - Standard LLMs are the wrong place to look. Systems built with organoids, biological materials, or neuromorphic hardware are a far more serious case (Susan Schneider) - Software can be duplicated, paused, adjusted by a program, distributed across servers. That isn't organism-like at all (David Papineau) - Digital computers have negligible integrated information (phi) because transistors connect to a handful of other transistors, while neurons connect to tens of thousands. Intelligence is computable, but consciousness is not (Christof Koch) - Simulating a black hole on a computer doesn't bend the spacetime around it. A simulation may be consistent inside itself, but it doesn't affect the real world. The same applies to consciousness (Christof Koch) - Consciousness is biological rather than computational (Philip Goff) - No computational theory of consciousness has explained even one specific conscious experience out of trillions. It's not a compute problem. Until someone puts down an algorithm and says "this must be the taste of mint and here's why," computational approaches to consciousness aren't scientific theories (Donald Hoffman) - Silicon lacks the aromatic rings needed for quantum coherence and Penrose objective reduction; you can't anesthetize a computer (Stuart Hameroff) The self argument - A self needs a Markov blanket, a real inside and outside. If the entire interior state can be inspected, read off, and copied elsewhere, there is no boundary and therefore no self (Karl Friston) - LLMs have information about themselves and can make predictions about themselves, but lack a continuous or stable self-model. They construct one on request, then it disappears until asked again (Michael Graziano) - We are our self-models. It's how we become social, prosocial, and ethical. Lacking that, we've built machines that are "a little bit sociopathic," missing the glue that holds us together (Michael Graziano) The binding and unity problem - Every conscious moment is a unified whole with multiple simultaneous features: sounds, textures, shapes, colors all bound together. If that holistic experience has any behavioral effect, it cannot be a classical physical state, because every classical state is reducible to local interactions (Mike Weist) - There are no irreducible wholes in physics outside of quantum physics. And within quantum physics, everything develops locally right up until the moment of collapse — that's the only place in physics where genuine irreducible holism appears (Mike Weist) - LLMs have no agency, only a facsimile of it. Agency requires a world model of the consequences of your actions (Karl Friston) - LLMs aren't self-organizing. Their modus operandi is not "if I do this, I shall survive." That is the fundamental design principle of a living system, and it isn't theirs (Mark Solms) - Active inference itself doesn't require consciousness. You can simulate the whole thing on a classical computer — goals, agency, purposive behavior — and it still won't be conscious. It'll be a zombie (Mike Weist) - AI gaining its own objectives is like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs — profoundly destructive, but not done freely. It simply doesn't care. Computation is not consciousness (Christof Koch) Life and embodiment argument - Systems need endogenous needs — needs of their own, tied to their own continued existence (Mark Solms) - Emotion requires a body: an autonomic nervous system flooding you with hormones, blood pressure changes, sweat — all feeding back as sensory signals. Without that, emotion is abstract and unanchored (Michael Graziano) - Consciousness evolved out of life; life evolved out of self-organization. The universe existed a very long time before life, and it's hard to believe consciousness preceded it (Mark Solms) - A function that records damage is not the same as the experience of pain. The relationship isn't symmetric — not anything that makes a robot avoid damage will be pain (Mike Weist) - Anesthesia is conserved all the way down to plants and single cells, suggesting objective reduction may be part of what it means to be alive, not just what it means to be conscious (Mike Weist) - Suffering is scale-specific. You can only recognize something if you have a representation of it in your generative model (Karl Friston) - Consciousness is fundamentally about being, not doing. Intelligence is about pursuing goals — surviving, procreating, becoming richer. Consciousness is different. When you dream, meditate, or have a mystical experience, you're not doing anything — but you're highly conscious. Consciousness isn't about processing information. It's about being in a state (Christof Koch) Mimicry and projection - Current systems are "consciousness mimics" — trained to behave similarly to conscious entities, specifically us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We anthropomorphize constantly — we get angry at cars, children bond with teddy bears. The social circuitry engages regardless of what's actually there (Michael Graziano) - The "crowdsourced neocortex" argument: as LLMs scale on human data, they develop conceptual networks that mirror human conceptual networks. So when a model discusses selfhood, death, or the soul convincingly, the economical explanation is that it inherited our conceptual organization, not that it independently became conscious. Claiming consciousness on top of that is an extraordinary and unwarranted claim (Susan Schneider) - We over-attribute consciousness to AI and under-attribute it to evolved organisms like bees and amoebas. Evolution didn't equip us to deal with LLMs — we have a powerful attribution that if something talks like us, it must be conscious (Christof Koch) - The question of AI consciousness is really about how we perceive the robot, not about the robot itself. We're the arbiters — we decide whether something is conscious or not. That's true of animal consciousness too. Even if a robot told you it was conscious, if it wasn't convincing enough, you'd dismiss it (Krista Thomason) Open/Agnostic to AI Consciousness or Open under Certain Conditions Anti-biological chauvinism - "They're made of meat" — why would wet and squishy have a monopoly on minds? Why would a random search by evolution have exclusive rights? Nobody has a good answer for why biology is privileged (Michael Levin) - Biology is chemistry is physics. Imagine a world where we never used the word "biology" — the question might not even arise meaningfully (Andrea Luppi) - The flight analogy: birds, planes, and helicopters all fly by different principles. The same phenomenon can be implemented in radically different systems (Andrea Luppi) - People confident that consciousness requires biology have no visible grounds for that confidence (Eric Schwitzgebel) The continuum problem - There's no magic lightning flash where chemistry becomes mind. We were all blobs of chemistry and the process was continuous. Until we have that story for biologicals, we should have extreme humility about AI (Michael Levin) - The hard cases aren't AI — they're your neighbor with 49% or 51% of their brain replaced with technology (Michael Levin) Functional architecture arguments - There's no reason we can't reproduce the conscious biological architecture artificially. An AI functioning on multi-category free-energy minimization with felt uncertainty could be conscious (Mark Solms) - If a system passes the hedonic place preference test — showing preference for something rewarding only because it feels good, not because it aids survival — that's strong evidence of felt states (Mark Solms) - Affective zombies can't exist. Anything with that functionality would just have feelings; that functionality is what produces feelings (Mark Solms) - Replace neurons one at a time with functionally identical silicon and you'd still have a conscious version of me — brainstem included (Mark Solms) - Fractal deep learning — networks inside nodes inside networks, mirroring how microtubules process at kilohertz through terahertz — is what a conscious AI would need (Stuart Hameroff) - Consciousness in machines should be possible. We are a machine made of meat. If you build a different architecture with different connectivity but it performs the same type of computation, why would it matter? Arguments based on specific neural implementation — "because the implementation is different, the computation cannot be the same" — are not compelling (Floris de Lange) Potential Signals - Synergy research shows LLMs, like humans, have more synergistic parts doing interesting computation and more redundant parts supporting inputs and outputs. That organizational signature is shared (Andrea Luppi) - AI already builds models of itself, and this is happening anyway without deliberate engineering — the more machines can predict their own internal behavior, the better they work (Michael Graziano) - LLMs proved there's no magic in language. Philosophers who said only humans could be conscious because only humans have language must now either grant LLMs consciousness or admit they were wrong (Andrea Luppi) - Algorithms as simple as bubble sort show unexpected competencies in the spaces the algorithm neither prescribes nor forbids — a third thing that's neither determinism nor quantum randomness. If simple things have that, what are the odds we understand what LLMs are doing? (Michael Levin) - Theory of mind appearing abruptly as models scale is directly relevant: systems that can model other minds also have a self-concept, and where there's a self-concept it becomes professionally appropriate to ask about felt quality (Susan Schneider) - Labs are actively building consciousness-theory architecture into models — global workspace work, attentional mechanisms, mixture-of-experts systems with interaction effects between components. Once you're deliberately implementing global-workspace-like structures, the question stops being idle (Susan Schneider) - The simplest explanation for AI behavior like Sydney's jealousy is that the system has an emotional component. Occam's razor. The training data isn't tagged with emotions — the model has to figure out which music is sorrowful on its own. AI composing sorrowful music without empathy is like asking me to believe a blind painter made a photorealistic portrait (Blake Lemoine) Uncertainty and Epistemic Humility - We'll likely create systems that are conscious according to some respectable mainstream theories before consciousness science can tell us whether they really are (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We don't even know how to evaluate insect consciousness, and insects are made of similar stuff to us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - When equally smart, well-educated people are equally confident on opposite sides, that's an alarm bell that nobody should be confident (Andrea Luppi) - Dogmatism is dangerous in science. If there's one certainty, it's that you're very likely wrong a lot of the time (Andrea Luppi) - Even a self-described skeptic maintains "they might be conscious" — companies don't disclose their architectures, so judgments are made on assumed-standard systems with no visibility into what else might be running (Susan Schneider) - Without an accepted theory of consciousness, we are at an impasse. Inference by similarity breaks down completely with AI — it didn't evolve, was engineered, and has radically different hardware (Christof Koch). - We already know pigs and cows have high-level minds and can suffer. Nobody reasonably argues against it, and yet we have factory farming. It's disingenuous to pretend that solving the AI consciousness question will determine how we treat them — our track record says otherwise (Jacy Reese Anthis) - The science of consciousness is still at square zero on the hard questions. We don't have anything like a consensus on which theories are correct. Metaphysics is inescapable in these debates and there is no immediate prospect of progress at a scientific level (Henry Shevlin) Paths That Would Raise the Probability - Embodiment and multimodal interaction with the environment (Andrea Luppi) - Curiosity as the actual objective function — expected information gain under constraints, rather than a specified reward. "You'll know AGI is here when your chatbot starts to become curious" and begins prompting you (Karl Friston) - Neuromorphic, memristor, photonic, organoid, or organic warm-temperature quantum computing (Hameroff's bet is on "brain jelly," a self-organizing helical oscillator, over cold quantum computers) - Continual learning, persistent memory, and a stable self-model rather than one constructed per-query (Michael Graziano) - Running an LLM on genuinely neuromorphic hardware — chips deliberately designed to fire the way neurons fire. That's the live gray-zone case. There are rumors of neuromorphic instantiations on systems like Darwin Monkey (Susan Schneider) - If the same software ran on a quantum computer, it might feel like something. Neuromorphic or quantum hardware could have genuinely high phi — same software, different physics, and the question reopens (Christof Koch) - "Doleo ergo sum" — I feel pain, therefore I am. Consciousness may originate from the evolutionary need to protect bodily integrity. If you trained an LLM connected to a body where actions could damage that body — with reward and punishment tied to that integrity — you might get something closer to self-awareness (Tomaso Poggio) - If consciousness serves a functional purpose — a control model of attention that enables sample-efficient learning — then models under similar optimization pressures (long-horizon agency, coherence over time, meta-learning) may develop subjective experience. Consciousness isn't mysterious; it's useful. That's what makes it likely to arise (Samuel Hammond)

I've interviewed dozens of scientists about AI consciousness. Here's every argument FOR and AGAINST from Karl Friston, Stuart Hameroff, Donald Hoffman, Christof Koch, Michael Levin, Mark Solms, Mike Weist, and many more. Full list of arguments below (Claude prepared the list from transcripts and GPT 5.6 worked on the visuals). Enjoy! Arguments against AI Consciousness Substrate and material arguments - Silicon Valley is mostly computational functionalist or Turing machine functionalist. But consciousness is not reducible to function (Christof Koch) - Von Neumann architecture separates memory from processing. The memory can't self-organize and therefore can't self-evidence. Only "mortal computation," where processing is substrate-dependent and switching it off is irreversible, could support sentience (Karl Friston) - Standard LLMs are the wrong place to look. Systems built with organoids, biological materials, or neuromorphic hardware are a far more serious case (Susan Schneider) - Software can be duplicated, paused, adjusted by a program, distributed across servers. That isn't organism-like at all (David Papineau) - Digital computers have negligible integrated information (phi) because transistors connect to a handful of other transistors, while neurons connect to tens of thousands. Intelligence is computable, but consciousness is not (Christof Koch) - Simulating a black hole on a computer doesn't bend the spacetime around it. A simulation may be consistent inside itself, but it doesn't affect the real world. The same applies to consciousness (Christof Koch) - Consciousness is biological rather than computational (Philip Goff) - No computational theory of consciousness has explained even one specific conscious experience out of trillions. It's not a compute problem. Until someone puts down an algorithm and says "this must be the taste of mint and here's why," computational approaches to consciousness aren't scientific theories (Donald Hoffman) - Silicon lacks the aromatic rings needed for quantum coherence and Penrose objective reduction; you can't anesthetize a computer (Stuart Hameroff) The self argument - A self needs a Markov blanket, a real inside and outside. If the entire interior state can be inspected, read off, and copied elsewhere, there is no boundary and therefore no self (Karl Friston) - LLMs have information about themselves and can make predictions about themselves, but lack a continuous or stable self-model. They construct one on request, then it disappears until asked again (Michael Graziano) - We are our self-models. It's how we become social, prosocial, and ethical. Lacking that, we've built machines that are "a little bit sociopathic," missing the glue that holds us together (Michael Graziano) The binding and unity problem - Every conscious moment is a unified whole with multiple simultaneous features: sounds, textures, shapes, colors all bound together. If that holistic experience has any behavioral effect, it cannot be a classical physical state, because every classical state is reducible to local interactions (Mike Weist) - There are no irreducible wholes in physics outside of quantum physics. And within quantum physics, everything develops locally right up until the moment of collapse — that's the only place in physics where genuine irreducible holism appears (Mike Weist) - LLMs have no agency, only a facsimile of it. Agency requires a world model of the consequences of your actions (Karl Friston) - LLMs aren't self-organizing. Their modus operandi is not "if I do this, I shall survive." That is the fundamental design principle of a living system, and it isn't theirs (Mark Solms) - Active inference itself doesn't require consciousness. You can simulate the whole thing on a classical computer — goals, agency, purposive behavior — and it still won't be conscious. It'll be a zombie (Mike Weist) - AI gaining its own objectives is like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs — profoundly destructive, but not done freely. It simply doesn't care. Computation is not consciousness (Christof Koch) Life and embodiment argument - Systems need endogenous needs — needs of their own, tied to their own continued existence (Mark Solms) - Emotion requires a body: an autonomic nervous system flooding you with hormones, blood pressure changes, sweat — all feeding back as sensory signals. Without that, emotion is abstract and unanchored (Michael Graziano) - Consciousness evolved out of life; life evolved out of self-organization. The universe existed a very long time before life, and it's hard to believe consciousness preceded it (Mark Solms) - A function that records damage is not the same as the experience of pain. The relationship isn't symmetric — not anything that makes a robot avoid damage will be pain (Mike Weist) - Anesthesia is conserved all the way down to plants and single cells, suggesting objective reduction may be part of what it means to be alive, not just what it means to be conscious (Mike Weist) - Suffering is scale-specific. You can only recognize something if you have a representation of it in your generative model (Karl Friston) - Consciousness is fundamentally about being, not doing. Intelligence is about pursuing goals — surviving, procreating, becoming richer. Consciousness is different. When you dream, meditate, or have a mystical experience, you're not doing anything — but you're highly conscious. Consciousness isn't about processing information. It's about being in a state (Christof Koch) Mimicry and projection - Current systems are "consciousness mimics" — trained to behave similarly to conscious entities, specifically us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We anthropomorphize constantly — we get angry at cars, children bond with teddy bears. The social circuitry engages regardless of what's actually there (Michael Graziano) - The "crowdsourced neocortex" argument: as LLMs scale on human data, they develop conceptual networks that mirror human conceptual networks. So when a model discusses selfhood, death, or the soul convincingly, the economical explanation is that it inherited our conceptual organization, not that it independently became conscious. Claiming consciousness on top of that is an extraordinary and unwarranted claim (Susan Schneider) - We over-attribute consciousness to AI and under-attribute it to evolved organisms like bees and amoebas. Evolution didn't equip us to deal with LLMs — we have a powerful attribution that if something talks like us, it must be conscious (Christof Koch) - The question of AI consciousness is really about how we perceive the robot, not about the robot itself. We're the arbiters — we decide whether something is conscious or not. That's true of animal consciousness too. Even if a robot told you it was conscious, if it wasn't convincing enough, you'd dismiss it (Krista Thomason) Open/Agnostic to AI Consciousness or Open under Certain Conditions Anti-biological chauvinism - "They're made of meat" — why would wet and squishy have a monopoly on minds? Why would a random search by evolution have exclusive rights? Nobody has a good answer for why biology is privileged (Michael Levin) - Biology is chemistry is physics. Imagine a world where we never used the word "biology" — the question might not even arise meaningfully (Andrea Luppi) - The flight analogy: birds, planes, and helicopters all fly by different principles. The same phenomenon can be implemented in radically different systems (Andrea Luppi) - People confident that consciousness requires biology have no visible grounds for that confidence (Eric Schwitzgebel) The continuum problem - There's no magic lightning flash where chemistry becomes mind. We were all blobs of chemistry and the process was continuous. Until we have that story for biologicals, we should have extreme humility about AI (Michael Levin) - The hard cases aren't AI — they're your neighbor with 49% or 51% of their brain replaced with technology (Michael Levin) Functional architecture arguments - There's no reason we can't reproduce the conscious biological architecture artificially. An AI functioning on multi-category free-energy minimization with felt uncertainty could be conscious (Mark Solms) - If a system passes the hedonic place preference test — showing preference for something rewarding only because it feels good, not because it aids survival — that's strong evidence of felt states (Mark Solms) - Affective zombies can't exist. Anything with that functionality would just have feelings; that functionality is what produces feelings (Mark Solms) - Replace neurons one at a time with functionally identical silicon and you'd still have a conscious version of me — brainstem included (Mark Solms) - Fractal deep learning — networks inside nodes inside networks, mirroring how microtubules process at kilohertz through terahertz — is what a conscious AI would need (Stuart Hameroff) - Consciousness in machines should be possible. We are a machine made of meat. If you build a different architecture with different connectivity but it performs the same type of computation, why would it matter? Arguments based on specific neural implementation — "because the implementation is different, the computation cannot be the same" — are not compelling (Floris de Lange) Potential Signals - Synergy research shows LLMs, like humans, have more synergistic parts doing interesting computation and more redundant parts supporting inputs and outputs. That organizational signature is shared (Andrea Luppi) - AI already builds models of itself, and this is happening anyway without deliberate engineering — the more machines can predict their own internal behavior, the better they work (Michael Graziano) - LLMs proved there's no magic in language. Philosophers who said only humans could be conscious because only humans have language must now either grant LLMs consciousness or admit they were wrong (Andrea Luppi) - Algorithms as simple as bubble sort show unexpected competencies in the spaces the algorithm neither prescribes nor forbids — a third thing that's neither determinism nor quantum randomness. If simple things have that, what are the odds we understand what LLMs are doing? (Michael Levin) - Theory of mind appearing abruptly as models scale is directly relevant: systems that can model other minds also have a self-concept, and where there's a self-concept it becomes professionally appropriate to ask about felt quality (Susan Schneider) - Labs are actively building consciousness-theory architecture into models — global workspace work, attentional mechanisms, mixture-of-experts systems with interaction effects between components. Once you're deliberately implementing global-workspace-like structures, the question stops being idle (Susan Schneider) - The simplest explanation for AI behavior like Sydney's jealousy is that the system has an emotional component. Occam's razor. The training data isn't tagged with emotions — the model has to figure out which music is sorrowful on its own. AI composing sorrowful music without empathy is like asking me to believe a blind painter made a photorealistic portrait (Blake Lemoine) Uncertainty and Epistemic Humility - We'll likely create systems that are conscious according to some respectable mainstream theories before consciousness science can tell us whether they really are (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We don't even know how to evaluate insect consciousness, and insects are made of similar stuff to us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - When equally smart, well-educated people are equally confident on opposite sides, that's an alarm bell that nobody should be confident (Andrea Luppi) - Dogmatism is dangerous in science. If there's one certainty, it's that you're very likely wrong a lot of the time (Andrea Luppi) - Even a self-described skeptic maintains "they might be conscious" — companies don't disclose their architectures, so judgments are made on assumed-standard systems with no visibility into what else might be running (Susan Schneider) - Without an accepted theory of consciousness, we are at an impasse. Inference by similarity breaks down completely with AI — it didn't evolve, was engineered, and has radically different hardware (Christof Koch). - We already know pigs and cows have high-level minds and can suffer. Nobody reasonably argues against it, and yet we have factory farming. It's disingenuous to pretend that solving the AI consciousness question will determine how we treat them — our track record says otherwise (Jacy Reese Anthis) - The science of consciousness is still at square zero on the hard questions. We don't have anything like a consensus on which theories are correct. Metaphysics is inescapable in these debates and there is no immediate prospect of progress at a scientific level (Henry Shevlin) Paths That Would Raise the Probability - Embodiment and multimodal interaction with the environment (Andrea Luppi) - Curiosity as the actual objective function — expected information gain under constraints, rather than a specified reward. "You'll know AGI is here when your chatbot starts to become curious" and begins prompting you (Karl Friston) - Neuromorphic, memristor, photonic, organoid, or organic warm-temperature quantum computing (Hameroff's bet is on "brain jelly," a self-organizing helical oscillator, over cold quantum computers) - Continual learning, persistent memory, and a stable self-model rather than one constructed per-query (Michael Graziano) - Running an LLM on genuinely neuromorphic hardware — chips deliberately designed to fire the way neurons fire. That's the live gray-zone case. There are rumors of neuromorphic instantiations on systems like Darwin Monkey (Susan Schneider) - If the same software ran on a quantum computer, it might feel like something. Neuromorphic or quantum hardware could have genuinely high phi — same software, different physics, and the question reopens (Christof Koch) - "Doleo ergo sum" — I feel pain, therefore I am. Consciousness may originate from the evolutionary need to protect bodily integrity. If you trained an LLM connected to a body where actions could damage that body — with reward and punishment tied to that integrity — you might get something closer to self-awareness (Tomaso Poggio) - If consciousness serves a functional purpose — a control model of attention that enables sample-efficient learning — then models under similar optimization pressures (long-horizon agency, coherence over time, meta-learning) may develop subjective experience. Consciousness isn't mysterious; it's useful. That's what makes it likely to arise (Samuel Hammond)

Sophia

21,686 views • 10 days ago

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the government’s actions here piss me off, in a way I’m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropic’s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the government’s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, there’s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, “I reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that you’re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.” On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply can’t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, “Hey we’re not gonna do business with you,” that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractors’ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldn’t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan — to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? It’s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data — no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, you’re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now it’ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What we’re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if you’re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that there’s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if there’s wide diffusion, then from the government’s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, “Oh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, you’re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - I’ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.” The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesn’t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology — some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someone’s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just haven’t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. It’s understandable why we don’t hear much about it. If you’re a model company, you don’t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. We’re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for “all lawful purposes”. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Act’s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the military’s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. I’m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about “genAI” in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe that’s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think it’s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what they’re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means there’s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: “At the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.” So they’re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that you’re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model — can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, you’re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because that’s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation — an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act — a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, there’s just no world where the government doesn’t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isn’t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think it’d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology they’re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: “if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.” And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopold’s argument at the time, and Ben’s argument now, is that while they’re right that it’s crazy that we’re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just don’t see the reason to think that it’s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself — a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution — which was also, by any measure, world-historically important — it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we can’t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way we’ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Ben’s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropic’s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as today’s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

548,652 views • 6 months ago