Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Peeing while getting hard😮‍💨 #nsfwtwtًًًٌٌٍِّ #pee #peekink #piss #grower #bbc #kinks #bigblackdick #hung #solo

Icymad3it's profile picture

Icy

3,177 subscribers

12,763 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#nsfwtwtًًًٌٌٍِّ#pee#peekink#piss#grower#bbc#kinks#bigblackdick#hung#solo
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

It's a bad idea to nap with full bladder 🤭💦 Full video: ❤️ #omo #omorashi #bladder #piss #pissing #pee #peeing #desperate #pissinggirl #wetmyself #wetting #yogapants #leggins #kink #pisskink #peekink #solo #hot #bedwetting #ass #feet #fullbladder
0:30

Sensitive content

It's a bad idea to nap with full bladder 🤭💦 Full video: ❤️ #omo #omorashi #bladder #piss #pissing #pee #peeing #desperate #pissinggirl #wetmyself #wetting #yogapants #leggins #kink #pisskink #peekink #solo #hot #bedwetting #ass #feet #fullbladder

Plum loves pee 💦 and yaoi 💕 | Find me on Fansly

81,484 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Peeing on my feet 😜💦 ★ More of my videos: ★ - #omo #omorashi #bladder #piss #pissing #pee #peeing #desperate #pissinggirl #wetmyself #soaking #wetting #bladder #goldenshover #feetworshi̇p #feet #kink #solo #hot
0:21

Peeing on my feet 😜💦 ★ More of my videos: ★ - #omo #omorashi #bladder #piss #pissing #pee #peeing #desperate #pissinggirl #wetmyself #soaking #wetting #bladder #goldenshover #feetworshi̇p #feet #kink #solo #hot

Plum loves pee 💦 and yaoi 💕 | Find me on Fansly

11,624 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

CALM DOWN! It’s just an ass right? No need to worship and tribute. You see ass like this everyday right?!!! #bigass #bbc #menofcolor #bigblackdick #respectme #talldarkhandsome #tribute #toiletslave #spit #worship #repost #latin #latina #cbt #piss #pee #toiletslave #ass #fart #goddess #findom #whaleslave #paypig #loser #onlyfans #latina #slave #goddess #queen #superior #Domme #femdom #interracial #queenofspades #facesitting #cuckold #bigass #boobs #bustylatina #bigasslatina #RETWEEET
0:26

Sensitive content

CALM DOWN! It’s just an ass right? No need to worship and tribute. You see ass like this everyday right?!!! #bigass #bbc #menofcolor #bigblackdick #respectme #talldarkhandsome #tribute #toiletslave #spit #worship #repost #latin #latina #cbt #piss #pee #toiletslave #ass #fart #goddess #findom #whaleslave #paypig #loser #onlyfans #latina #slave #goddess #queen #superior #Domme #femdom #interracial #queenofspades #facesitting #cuckold #bigass #boobs #bustylatina #bigasslatina #RETWEEET

Mature Dominat Latina

13,171 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

1v4~ vs Demons
1:12

1v4~ vs Demons

Nick

36,175 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

What happened to the Game we all Loved?😪 Gears of War E-DAY please be good🙂
0:54

What happened to the Game we all Loved?😪 Gears of War E-DAY please be good🙂

Nick

71,864 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Winning $100k vs Defeating Margit in Elden Ring
0:42

Winning $100k vs Defeating Margit in Elden Ring

Nick

41,334 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Haven't really played this game in years, was cool to play Execution again. Had fun subbing in today🤓
2:26

Haven't really played this game in years, was cool to play Execution again. Had fun subbing in today🤓

Nick

33,633 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

BREAKING NEWS: 🇺🇸 US Senators just put Trump’s Son-in-Law Jared Kushner under Investigation for getting Billions From Middle East While Shaping U.S. Foreign Policy. First the BBC insider allegation against the administration for insider trading. Now Trump's son-in-law and top negotiator is under direct pressure. The pattern is getting hard to ignore. Who's actually profiting from these policy decisions?
0:22

BREAKING NEWS: 🇺🇸 US Senators just put Trump’s Son-in-Law Jared Kushner under Investigation for getting Billions From Middle East While Shaping U.S. Foreign Policy. First the BBC insider allegation against the administration for insider trading. Now Trump's son-in-law and top negotiator is under direct pressure. The pattern is getting hard to ignore. Who's actually profiting from these policy decisions?

Crypto Rover

854,012 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

1v3 + 1v2 🤓
0:59

1v3 + 1v2 🤓

Nick

18,368 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

It has been a month and y'all are not only hung up, but STILL misunderstanding the entire depth argument. Then enter my domain of fighting games for a comparison?? Let's break it down for Wuwa players as this is the last time I'm speaking on this, cause atp I'm just gonna assume it's some kind of mental illness. The pinnacle of skill, the HIGHEST form of mastery in Wuthering Waves, is solo Danjin. You're own community worships them as gods because you lack the skill to consistently react to a bosses moveset even if you already memorized it. Guess what you do as solo Danjin? Dodge and parry. That is the ONLY mechanic in the enitre game that matters. Everything else as you and myself have said is COMPLEXITY. Elements, kits, rotations, etc, DO NOT change how the game is played. You brought up SF to discredit my argument, using "press buttons and memorizing" as a defense. When ANYBODY in the FGC knows that just memorizing combos is easy af and is the skillfloor of almost every casual player, right next to SP spam. Yet in Wuthering Waves, it is worshipped as the most skillful thing in the game to memorize the enemy moves and beat them without being hit on a character that does the same attack string over and over. Corner pressure, meaty, hard knockdown, restand, jailing, mix-ups, wake ups, delays, resets, and many more terms are used in the FGC because there is SO much more depth than just "memorizing the combo" it is why many characters can go from F tier to S+ must pick by simply understanding how to abuse aspects of their kits to completely change how others would normally interact with them. The only people who genuinely think Wuwa is hard or "high skill" are people who lack skill in general which is why they only play gacha games designed to have flashy, piss easy combat to keep players from leaving so they spend more. And that goes for EVERY GACHA. You can beat EVERYTHING IN WUWA with 1 character if you just memorize the moves. You will beat 0 even slightly competent players in any fighting game if all you did was lab 3 or 4 combos. I encourage not just Wuwa, but gacha players to actually play other games before engaging in a conversation they can't even grasp that they start talking about a completely different subject.
1:17

It has been a month and y'all are not only hung up, but STILL misunderstanding the entire depth argument. Then enter my domain of fighting games for a comparison?? Let's break it down for Wuwa players as this is the last time I'm speaking on this, cause atp I'm just gonna assume it's some kind of mental illness. The pinnacle of skill, the HIGHEST form of mastery in Wuthering Waves, is solo Danjin. You're own community worships them as gods because you lack the skill to consistently react to a bosses moveset even if you already memorized it. Guess what you do as solo Danjin? Dodge and parry. That is the ONLY mechanic in the enitre game that matters. Everything else as you and myself have said is COMPLEXITY. Elements, kits, rotations, etc, DO NOT change how the game is played. You brought up SF to discredit my argument, using "press buttons and memorizing" as a defense. When ANYBODY in the FGC knows that just memorizing combos is easy af and is the skillfloor of almost every casual player, right next to SP spam. Yet in Wuthering Waves, it is worshipped as the most skillful thing in the game to memorize the enemy moves and beat them without being hit on a character that does the same attack string over and over. Corner pressure, meaty, hard knockdown, restand, jailing, mix-ups, wake ups, delays, resets, and many more terms are used in the FGC because there is SO much more depth than just "memorizing the combo" it is why many characters can go from F tier to S+ must pick by simply understanding how to abuse aspects of their kits to completely change how others would normally interact with them. The only people who genuinely think Wuwa is hard or "high skill" are people who lack skill in general which is why they only play gacha games designed to have flashy, piss easy combat to keep players from leaving so they spend more. And that goes for EVERY GACHA. You can beat EVERYTHING IN WUWA with 1 character if you just memorize the moves. You will beat 0 even slightly competent players in any fighting game if all you did was lab 3 or 4 combos. I encourage not just Wuwa, but gacha players to actually play other games before engaging in a conversation they can't even grasp that they start talking about a completely different subject.

💮Plume of Death💮

47,814 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

250724 #ATEEZ #Hongjoong about Seonghwa’s hand after the incident, TOKTOQ pop (voice) live (rough translation): I saw in the comments that many of you are curious about Seonghwa’s hand, and actually, I noticed it yesterday too - in the messages on Fromm. To be honest, I wasn’t sure how Seonghwa himself wanted to talk about it, and he knows better than I do about the extent of his injury, so I didn’t want to speak on his behalf, which is why I deliberately didn’t mention it earlier. But I saw today that Seonghwa talked about it yesterday, so I think I can say a little now. Actually, it happened right before my solo stage, so during the performance I wasn’t fully aware of what had happened, and I found out only later. When members get injured on stage, it’s always tough. Of course, we feel it physically ourselves, but it’s also hard to know how it comes across to those watching, and that’s why it’s not easy to talk about these things publicly. Still, I talked to Seonghwa after the performance and saw how he was doing. While there’s nothing fortunate about getting injured - and it was one of those unpredictable situations where no one was at fault - it seems like the emergency response was handled well. And Seonghwa was even smiling when talking about it, so it doesn’t seem to be anything extremely serious. But I think what worries ATINY - and me too - is not just the pain, but the fact that burns or sparks like that can leave scars easily. We really don’t want any lasting marks on Seonghwa’s hands, or anywhere on his body. Thankfully, our care team is doing a great job making sure he’s being looked after properly. Of course, there’s not much I can personally do, but we’ll keep communicating well with the members, the stage production team, and the on-site staff so that accidents like this don’t happen again. Since this isn’t directly about me, it feels a bit awkward to talk about it at length, but I know a lot of you are concerned and curious, so I wanted to share. video cr. m0men1_s2
2:48

250724 #ATEEZ #Hongjoong about Seonghwa’s hand after the incident, TOKTOQ pop (voice) live (rough translation): I saw in the comments that many of you are curious about Seonghwa’s hand, and actually, I noticed it yesterday too - in the messages on Fromm. To be honest, I wasn’t sure how Seonghwa himself wanted to talk about it, and he knows better than I do about the extent of his injury, so I didn’t want to speak on his behalf, which is why I deliberately didn’t mention it earlier. But I saw today that Seonghwa talked about it yesterday, so I think I can say a little now. Actually, it happened right before my solo stage, so during the performance I wasn’t fully aware of what had happened, and I found out only later. When members get injured on stage, it’s always tough. Of course, we feel it physically ourselves, but it’s also hard to know how it comes across to those watching, and that’s why it’s not easy to talk about these things publicly. Still, I talked to Seonghwa after the performance and saw how he was doing. While there’s nothing fortunate about getting injured - and it was one of those unpredictable situations where no one was at fault - it seems like the emergency response was handled well. And Seonghwa was even smiling when talking about it, so it doesn’t seem to be anything extremely serious. But I think what worries ATINY - and me too - is not just the pain, but the fact that burns or sparks like that can leave scars easily. We really don’t want any lasting marks on Seonghwa’s hands, or anywhere on his body. Thankfully, our care team is doing a great job making sure he’s being looked after properly. Of course, there’s not much I can personally do, but we’ll keep communicating well with the members, the stage production team, and the on-site staff so that accidents like this don’t happen again. Since this isn’t directly about me, it feels a bit awkward to talk about it at length, but I know a lot of you are concerned and curious, so I wanted to share. video cr. m0men1_s2

Irene | AhgaTiny

50,330 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

The BBC wrote an objective article (For Once) about Prince William and how he weathered this year to come back on top. Drawing similarities from 1992, his grandmother Queen Elizabeth II own "Annus Horribilis"; as there were multiple marriage breakdowns within the family and a major fire at Windsor🔥 Now 32 years later, Interestingly set in the backdrop of Windsor as well, Prince William faced his own Sombre Year full of turmoil and Health crisis for both his wife and father. The Article reads: "It was a year in which certain aspects of Prince William's approach were cemented: family came first, the school run was prioritised. For the Prince of Wales, this time of turbulence appears to have reinforced what matters to him most."🔥 Indeed you cannot describe Prince William without calling him a "Family Man"❤️ The article quotes a friend of the Prince commenting: "I think what was remarkable was just how hard it was for the Prince of Wales at the start of the year; His wife had gone in for major surgery and it became worse than expected. Then there was, 'How do I tell my three children that Mummy is ill?'" "At a time when he was trying to protect his wife and children, he had that terrible thought that that if his father dies then everything changes,"💔 "He was having to operate against the backdrop of the entire world questioning what was happening to his wife." Indeed in the end, when one face something as serious as a Cancer diagnosis with a young family, the last thing someone should face is public harrassment and pressure to take pictures and wave🤡 Yet as the BBC noted, William's maturity in dealing with such a stressful situation offered a great insight into "Prince William's way of doing things". The article states: "Yes, he understood that his was a life where duty and service are expected. But for him, a man who had experienced immense loss at a young age, his wife and children were most important of all." The Article continues: "There were two other important factors at home that helped the Prince of Wales support his wife and children: his in-laws, the Middletons and living in Windsor."🔥 Indeed, Windsor provided a privacy they could not have had if they still lived in KP, London while the steadfast support and loyalty of the Middletons, allowed them a circle of trust and support to operate within. A support that was later acknowledged by Prince Louis when he wrote on his christmas card: "Thank you to Grannie and Grandpa for playing games with me"❤️ Ultimately, as humans we all face, sooner or later, our own "annus Horribilis". For all of us, that period becomes a life-changing test that either breaks us or makes us stronger. This Crisis has definitely strengthened William and Catherine as Individuals and as a couple. It is when faced with adversity that we can truly measure what we are made of and who genuinely stands by our side🔥 Well and so, the lesson here is that Every "annus horribilis" may start as such but ultimately becomes a significant victory when we focus on getting ahead rather than on crying about the present challenges. Thus, those four videos represent the Year 2024 for the Wales and how they hang on and persevered to change their story from "Annus horribilis" to "Annus Victores"🥂☕️ #PrinceandPrincessofWales
0:36

The BBC wrote an objective article (For Once) about Prince William and how he weathered this year to come back on top. Drawing similarities from 1992, his grandmother Queen Elizabeth II own "Annus Horribilis"; as there were multiple marriage breakdowns within the family and a major fire at Windsor🔥 Now 32 years later, Interestingly set in the backdrop of Windsor as well, Prince William faced his own Sombre Year full of turmoil and Health crisis for both his wife and father. The Article reads: "It was a year in which certain aspects of Prince William's approach were cemented: family came first, the school run was prioritised. For the Prince of Wales, this time of turbulence appears to have reinforced what matters to him most."🔥 Indeed you cannot describe Prince William without calling him a "Family Man"❤️ The article quotes a friend of the Prince commenting: "I think what was remarkable was just how hard it was for the Prince of Wales at the start of the year; His wife had gone in for major surgery and it became worse than expected. Then there was, 'How do I tell my three children that Mummy is ill?'" "At a time when he was trying to protect his wife and children, he had that terrible thought that that if his father dies then everything changes,"💔 "He was having to operate against the backdrop of the entire world questioning what was happening to his wife." Indeed in the end, when one face something as serious as a Cancer diagnosis with a young family, the last thing someone should face is public harrassment and pressure to take pictures and wave🤡 Yet as the BBC noted, William's maturity in dealing with such a stressful situation offered a great insight into "Prince William's way of doing things". The article states: "Yes, he understood that his was a life where duty and service are expected. But for him, a man who had experienced immense loss at a young age, his wife and children were most important of all." The Article continues: "There were two other important factors at home that helped the Prince of Wales support his wife and children: his in-laws, the Middletons and living in Windsor."🔥 Indeed, Windsor provided a privacy they could not have had if they still lived in KP, London while the steadfast support and loyalty of the Middletons, allowed them a circle of trust and support to operate within. A support that was later acknowledged by Prince Louis when he wrote on his christmas card: "Thank you to Grannie and Grandpa for playing games with me"❤️ Ultimately, as humans we all face, sooner or later, our own "annus Horribilis". For all of us, that period becomes a life-changing test that either breaks us or makes us stronger. This Crisis has definitely strengthened William and Catherine as Individuals and as a couple. It is when faced with adversity that we can truly measure what we are made of and who genuinely stands by our side🔥 Well and so, the lesson here is that Every "annus horribilis" may start as such but ultimately becomes a significant victory when we focus on getting ahead rather than on crying about the present challenges. Thus, those four videos represent the Year 2024 for the Wales and how they hang on and persevered to change their story from "Annus horribilis" to "Annus Victores"🥂☕️ #PrinceandPrincessofWales

Canellecitadelle

136,236 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

And that’s a wrap on First Stand !! Incoming “I ain't reading that, happy for u, or sorry that happened” post xD First Stand Gameplay - Was pretty happy with how the lane swaps and adjustments to Atakhan worked out. Don’t know the exact number), but it felt like mostly Ruinous with games of Voracious where it made sense and no lane swaps - There was a good amount of AD/AP squishy and tank mix in each role with omega gigachad Zeka pulling out the Sylas Ahri and Akali where it made sense 🙃 - Skarner and Kalista were the outliers on priority, but teams didn’t seem particularly effective with Kalista… - Skarner on the other hand; will discuss with the team about larger work on him when we get back; he’s too effective at too many things, while also being impotent for regular players - As announced yesterday by Greeley, we’re hoping to see adaptive drafts continue with Fearless for the rest of the year, I think diversity will continue to increase as teams get better at finding lines to draft that make certain counterpick/situational champs god tier after certain champs are out; it will evolve into more of a TFT/Chess style “find the optimal line to draft with the pieces given”, which the prospects are really exciting - An improvement point feels like how long it takes to end if a team gets a significant early lead; part of this is how optimal boringly slowly choking the opponent out is over 15 min, rather than changing the incentive structure so that ahead teams can make major decisive play and can end the game swiftly - Maybe an opportunity space for the future… but interested in hearing peoples’ thoughts on this First Stand Experience - It was amazing and inspiring seeing how many fans were coming out to support the teams without tickets - Not only the KC fans who flew from Europe to do a meetup watch party and it was great chatting to a few, but also what felt like an unstoppable number of college girls coming out to support HLE. I think I counted about 100 wearing HLE jackets on finals day, but it was a reminder of how integrated and mainstream popular League feels in the East - As soon as the entry to the cheerfuls (signs) opened, they all charged in to go and start drawing their cards, it was honestly quite shocking the level of dedication and enthusiasm that some of these fans had, but also awesome - I can’t possibly imagine something like that happening in the West… - We also had the honor to play in a mini Arena tournament with a bunch of LCK Legends that have I've been watching for 15 years and didn’t do too shabby; went 6th, 3rd, 2nd, but Mingyo and Sangho were too good… - It will be the first and last time I get to say I killed Pray, Smeb, Kuro, Madlife, Shy on repeat :D and the players watching on stream were surprised to see the Devs were actually pretty decent LOL, which felt nice - A fan came out specifically to play with Kuro, wearing a ROX Tigers jersey and seeing the joy of getting to meet and play with your hero, she was laughing, smiling, it must have been the time of her life; it’s just a reminder of how meaningful League can be and just makes us really inspired to keep working hard to make the game good Solo Q Experience and Balance - Outside of the work obligations, had some time to slam 20 Solo Q games; was pleasantly surprised by my level this time around, feels like I’m playing around solidly KR D2/D1 level, which is quite shocking, because it’s not like I’m Masters level on NA right now and haven’t been able to play more than 50 games in the last 6 months due to life. Probably would've won more if I wasn't such a kda player xD - Main character syndrome still feels really peak here, the person either goes 8-0 or 0-8 and is spam FF’ing repeatedly, so minimizing my enemy laner impact, scaling and playing defensively to support my jungler feels most effective even though I’m playing Ori who feels like a dog champ on this server, since it’s so hard to actually land QW on anyone due to their mechanics and it’s risky to walk in river and so easy to die to ganks - Moving to help jungler in lost fights to avoid mental boom is the only thing that I’m finding annoying, some of these fight selections feel extremely perplexing, like Zac wanting to fight Lee at first scuttle with no prio and I end up having to sac my lane half the time to prevent them from AFK’ing or soft inting because I didn’t move, it’s super annoying… - Every post game chat also feels like at least 3 players are writing their PhD thesis, which is somewhat amusing, but also really unfortunate… - It feels like Lee Sin or Viego are in every game with a 30% pickrate, so if you can prevent the team from throwing and always follow them around and play secondary, they can carry, whereas on NA, Lee Sins in Diamond can't carry and suck relatively (ping hurts as well), so it’s not like you can play around them reliably - It was interesting to feel again for myself just how different these champs feel in their balance state across servers, indeed in one of the press conferences there was a question about balancing decisions making no sense for the state of the champ on KR server. I can see why KR players get angry when we buff Lee because the other regions suck at him, he unironically feels 2-3% winrate stronger on KR server, same with Jayce who has a monstrous pickrate here as well - We even almost buffed Lee Sin for First Stand because he’s been pretty absent from Pro, so I’m actually not quite sure what we’re meant to do about that… - The other thing that I forgot was how good it was to play on 2ms ping. I’m not sure whether it’s net positive for the person dodging or the person hitting, but since I mostly play immobile mages, it feels like I can dodge line skillshots and range leash people more effectively, which makes Mages feel so much better, though it also means it’s extremely hard to QW tag someone in a teamfight as Ori, let alone hit them with R - I’m curious if any people have done any analysis on this - I also attached typical KR Lee Sin penta 😅 Anyway, back to NA tmrw, lots of work to do
0:51

And that’s a wrap on First Stand !! Incoming “I ain't reading that, happy for u, or sorry that happened” post xD First Stand Gameplay - Was pretty happy with how the lane swaps and adjustments to Atakhan worked out. Don’t know the exact number), but it felt like mostly Ruinous with games of Voracious where it made sense and no lane swaps - There was a good amount of AD/AP squishy and tank mix in each role with omega gigachad Zeka pulling out the Sylas Ahri and Akali where it made sense 🙃 - Skarner and Kalista were the outliers on priority, but teams didn’t seem particularly effective with Kalista… - Skarner on the other hand; will discuss with the team about larger work on him when we get back; he’s too effective at too many things, while also being impotent for regular players - As announced yesterday by Greeley, we’re hoping to see adaptive drafts continue with Fearless for the rest of the year, I think diversity will continue to increase as teams get better at finding lines to draft that make certain counterpick/situational champs god tier after certain champs are out; it will evolve into more of a TFT/Chess style “find the optimal line to draft with the pieces given”, which the prospects are really exciting - An improvement point feels like how long it takes to end if a team gets a significant early lead; part of this is how optimal boringly slowly choking the opponent out is over 15 min, rather than changing the incentive structure so that ahead teams can make major decisive play and can end the game swiftly - Maybe an opportunity space for the future… but interested in hearing peoples’ thoughts on this First Stand Experience - It was amazing and inspiring seeing how many fans were coming out to support the teams without tickets - Not only the KC fans who flew from Europe to do a meetup watch party and it was great chatting to a few, but also what felt like an unstoppable number of college girls coming out to support HLE. I think I counted about 100 wearing HLE jackets on finals day, but it was a reminder of how integrated and mainstream popular League feels in the East - As soon as the entry to the cheerfuls (signs) opened, they all charged in to go and start drawing their cards, it was honestly quite shocking the level of dedication and enthusiasm that some of these fans had, but also awesome - I can’t possibly imagine something like that happening in the West… - We also had the honor to play in a mini Arena tournament with a bunch of LCK Legends that have I've been watching for 15 years and didn’t do too shabby; went 6th, 3rd, 2nd, but Mingyo and Sangho were too good… - It will be the first and last time I get to say I killed Pray, Smeb, Kuro, Madlife, Shy on repeat :D and the players watching on stream were surprised to see the Devs were actually pretty decent LOL, which felt nice - A fan came out specifically to play with Kuro, wearing a ROX Tigers jersey and seeing the joy of getting to meet and play with your hero, she was laughing, smiling, it must have been the time of her life; it’s just a reminder of how meaningful League can be and just makes us really inspired to keep working hard to make the game good Solo Q Experience and Balance - Outside of the work obligations, had some time to slam 20 Solo Q games; was pleasantly surprised by my level this time around, feels like I’m playing around solidly KR D2/D1 level, which is quite shocking, because it’s not like I’m Masters level on NA right now and haven’t been able to play more than 50 games in the last 6 months due to life. Probably would've won more if I wasn't such a kda player xD - Main character syndrome still feels really peak here, the person either goes 8-0 or 0-8 and is spam FF’ing repeatedly, so minimizing my enemy laner impact, scaling and playing defensively to support my jungler feels most effective even though I’m playing Ori who feels like a dog champ on this server, since it’s so hard to actually land QW on anyone due to their mechanics and it’s risky to walk in river and so easy to die to ganks - Moving to help jungler in lost fights to avoid mental boom is the only thing that I’m finding annoying, some of these fight selections feel extremely perplexing, like Zac wanting to fight Lee at first scuttle with no prio and I end up having to sac my lane half the time to prevent them from AFK’ing or soft inting because I didn’t move, it’s super annoying… - Every post game chat also feels like at least 3 players are writing their PhD thesis, which is somewhat amusing, but also really unfortunate… - It feels like Lee Sin or Viego are in every game with a 30% pickrate, so if you can prevent the team from throwing and always follow them around and play secondary, they can carry, whereas on NA, Lee Sins in Diamond can't carry and suck relatively (ping hurts as well), so it’s not like you can play around them reliably - It was interesting to feel again for myself just how different these champs feel in their balance state across servers, indeed in one of the press conferences there was a question about balancing decisions making no sense for the state of the champ on KR server. I can see why KR players get angry when we buff Lee because the other regions suck at him, he unironically feels 2-3% winrate stronger on KR server, same with Jayce who has a monstrous pickrate here as well - We even almost buffed Lee Sin for First Stand because he’s been pretty absent from Pro, so I’m actually not quite sure what we’re meant to do about that… - The other thing that I forgot was how good it was to play on 2ms ping. I’m not sure whether it’s net positive for the person dodging or the person hitting, but since I mostly play immobile mages, it feels like I can dodge line skillshots and range leash people more effectively, which makes Mages feel so much better, though it also means it’s extremely hard to QW tag someone in a teamfight as Ori, let alone hit them with R - I’m curious if any people have done any analysis on this - I also attached typical KR Lee Sin penta 😅 Anyway, back to NA tmrw, lots of work to do

Matt Leung-Harrison

151,855 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I've spent hours and hours thinking about how AI is going to change writing. This is a 90-minute distillation of everything I've learned. Some things I believe: 1. The combination of LLM-driven humor and image generation means that we're about to enter the golden age of memes. 2. The best writers will be fine. Robert Caro and Dostoevsky aren’t about to be disrupted by ChatGPT. 3. What are the different models like? ChatGPT is your friend who makes a lot of good points, but it’s kinda boring, Claude is your hippie friend who loves to get vulnerable but takes the whole “express yourself” thing a little too far, and Grok is your unhinged friend who leans a little too hard into tinfoil hat theories, but is always a trip to jam on ideas with. 4. People who say that AI writing is low-quality aren’t realizing that quality exists along two dimensions: (1) the absolute quality of the writing and (2) how tailored the writing is to your interests at the time. 5. I’ll tell you this: What writers are doing with AI behind closed doors is a long way ahead of what's publicly understood. I don't expect this to change anytime soon because of the social stigma associated with AI-enhanced writing. Because of that, if you want to see the cutting edge, you're gonna have to piece things together through private conversations and group chats. 6. If you want to follow what's happening in AI, remember this quote from William Gibson: “The future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet.” You can get a glimpse of the future by looking at how a small percentage of writers are already using AI. 7. I’m bearish on writers who are currently using AI to write for them, and bullish on writers who are currently using AI to write with them. 8. What kinds of writing will continue to be written by humans? Ones that speak to our humanity. People are interested in people. Their stories, their struggles, their emotions, their drama. 9. Almost all utilitarian writing, where the goal is to convey information, not do it beautifully, will be written by AI. 10. In some ways, AI is the end of slop. So many Google search results are slop. LinkedIn posts are slop. The way Twitter got taken over by Threadbois in 2021 was also slop. AI-generated writing is already better than all of those things, so why would you read them now? 11. AI will be tougher on writers than readers. Readers will be exposed to some slop, but the Internet will be good about filtering it out. Writers, though, are now competing against ever-improving LLMs, which are getting better and better by the month. 12. Humans will contribute with unique data or perspectives. The famous Peter Thiel interview question doubles as a good writing prompt: “What very important truth do few people agree with you on?” 13. New technologies breed new kinds of art. Ever notice how flat 13th or 14th century Medieval art looks? And how different that art looks from the Renaissance art created in the 15th and 16th centuries? Technical innovations like the camera obscura and perspective grids are behind this. Similarly profound changes will come to the writing world because of AI (credit to Justin Murphy for the idea here). 14. Satya Nadella says: “The new workflow for me is I think with AI and work with my colleagues.” When it comes to discovering ideas, I've also found that jamming with an LLM is more productive than doing it with most people I know (save for a few giga-brain conversationalists). 15. Thought experiment: Will AI-writing be more like music or chess? With music, we don't care how a song is made. We just want it to be good. With chess, there's a huge market for watching human beings play even though the computers are already better. I think non-fiction writing will go the way of music. People won’t care how it was made. They’ll just care that it’s good. 16. AI has flipped the rules of tech adoption. Seasoned managers usually drag their feet with adopting new technology, but the ones I know love AI, while frontline workers struggle to see the point. My theory is that AI matches how managers already operate. Management has always been a kind of prompt engineering: set a vision, delegate, give feedback, iterate. But LLMs remove the drama that used to come with having a team. No 1-on-1s. No emotional tangles. It's like management without the headache. For frontline employees, things are different. They aren't as accustomed to setting a vision and giving feedback, so LLM prompting is a daunting and unfamiliar kind of work for them. 17. AI editors are already quite good. Sure, they aren’t as good as the world’s best editors, but they’re a fraction of the cost, they’ll instantly give you 80th percentile feedback, and they work 24/7. As a novelist recently said to me: “Paying an editor to review my novel costs me $7,000 and a 4-6 week turnaround time, whereas Claude costs me $1.25 and gets me results a few minutes later.” The edits definitely aren’t as good, but there’s a virtue to speed (and this guy isn’t a chump writer). 18. The way AI-skeptics hate on LLMs while using old models is like driving a ‘92 Honda while hating on a self-driving Tesla. 19. AI-generated fiction makes people very upset. A friend insists it’s like having sex with a robot. Doesn’t matter how good it is. It ain’t human-generated, and there’s something uniquely repulsive about that. I’ve shared the full conversation below. It’s a solo-episode of me riffing on what I’ve learned about AI for ~90 minutes. If you’d rather watch it on YouTube or listen on Apple or Spotify, I’ve shared the links in the reply tweets. And if you have any questions, I’ll be extra active in the replies for this episode.
1:29:31

I've spent hours and hours thinking about how AI is going to change writing. This is a 90-minute distillation of everything I've learned. Some things I believe: 1. The combination of LLM-driven humor and image generation means that we're about to enter the golden age of memes. 2. The best writers will be fine. Robert Caro and Dostoevsky aren’t about to be disrupted by ChatGPT. 3. What are the different models like? ChatGPT is your friend who makes a lot of good points, but it’s kinda boring, Claude is your hippie friend who loves to get vulnerable but takes the whole “express yourself” thing a little too far, and Grok is your unhinged friend who leans a little too hard into tinfoil hat theories, but is always a trip to jam on ideas with. 4. People who say that AI writing is low-quality aren’t realizing that quality exists along two dimensions: (1) the absolute quality of the writing and (2) how tailored the writing is to your interests at the time. 5. I’ll tell you this: What writers are doing with AI behind closed doors is a long way ahead of what's publicly understood. I don't expect this to change anytime soon because of the social stigma associated with AI-enhanced writing. Because of that, if you want to see the cutting edge, you're gonna have to piece things together through private conversations and group chats. 6. If you want to follow what's happening in AI, remember this quote from William Gibson: “The future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet.” You can get a glimpse of the future by looking at how a small percentage of writers are already using AI. 7. I’m bearish on writers who are currently using AI to write for them, and bullish on writers who are currently using AI to write with them. 8. What kinds of writing will continue to be written by humans? Ones that speak to our humanity. People are interested in people. Their stories, their struggles, their emotions, their drama. 9. Almost all utilitarian writing, where the goal is to convey information, not do it beautifully, will be written by AI. 10. In some ways, AI is the end of slop. So many Google search results are slop. LinkedIn posts are slop. The way Twitter got taken over by Threadbois in 2021 was also slop. AI-generated writing is already better than all of those things, so why would you read them now? 11. AI will be tougher on writers than readers. Readers will be exposed to some slop, but the Internet will be good about filtering it out. Writers, though, are now competing against ever-improving LLMs, which are getting better and better by the month. 12. Humans will contribute with unique data or perspectives. The famous Peter Thiel interview question doubles as a good writing prompt: “What very important truth do few people agree with you on?” 13. New technologies breed new kinds of art. Ever notice how flat 13th or 14th century Medieval art looks? And how different that art looks from the Renaissance art created in the 15th and 16th centuries? Technical innovations like the camera obscura and perspective grids are behind this. Similarly profound changes will come to the writing world because of AI (credit to Justin Murphy for the idea here). 14. Satya Nadella says: “The new workflow for me is I think with AI and work with my colleagues.” When it comes to discovering ideas, I've also found that jamming with an LLM is more productive than doing it with most people I know (save for a few giga-brain conversationalists). 15. Thought experiment: Will AI-writing be more like music or chess? With music, we don't care how a song is made. We just want it to be good. With chess, there's a huge market for watching human beings play even though the computers are already better. I think non-fiction writing will go the way of music. People won’t care how it was made. They’ll just care that it’s good. 16. AI has flipped the rules of tech adoption. Seasoned managers usually drag their feet with adopting new technology, but the ones I know love AI, while frontline workers struggle to see the point. My theory is that AI matches how managers already operate. Management has always been a kind of prompt engineering: set a vision, delegate, give feedback, iterate. But LLMs remove the drama that used to come with having a team. No 1-on-1s. No emotional tangles. It's like management without the headache. For frontline employees, things are different. They aren't as accustomed to setting a vision and giving feedback, so LLM prompting is a daunting and unfamiliar kind of work for them. 17. AI editors are already quite good. Sure, they aren’t as good as the world’s best editors, but they’re a fraction of the cost, they’ll instantly give you 80th percentile feedback, and they work 24/7. As a novelist recently said to me: “Paying an editor to review my novel costs me $7,000 and a 4-6 week turnaround time, whereas Claude costs me $1.25 and gets me results a few minutes later.” The edits definitely aren’t as good, but there’s a virtue to speed (and this guy isn’t a chump writer). 18. The way AI-skeptics hate on LLMs while using old models is like driving a ‘92 Honda while hating on a self-driving Tesla. 19. AI-generated fiction makes people very upset. A friend insists it’s like having sex with a robot. Doesn’t matter how good it is. It ain’t human-generated, and there’s something uniquely repulsive about that. I’ve shared the full conversation below. It’s a solo-episode of me riffing on what I’ve learned about AI for ~90 minutes. If you’d rather watch it on YouTube or listen on Apple or Spotify, I’ve shared the links in the reply tweets. And if you have any questions, I’ll be extra active in the replies for this episode.

David Perell

257,480 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"
14:08

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Farage and the suckers I used to regularly socialise with a group, one of whose number was a financial lawyer. He used to tell us about something that was surprisingly common in his line of work. He would be called in to give advice because someone wanted to spend their life savings on a scheme that was an obvious scam. He said that 99% of the time they could not be talked out of it. Nothing and nobody could persuade them not to do it, because they were convinced that a fortune was there to be made, and they were desperate to pour as much money as they could into the scheme. They would get really angry with anyone (like a spouse, or other family, or friends) who tried to stop them. Why are you stopping me from making a fortune, they would say. “You're ruining my chance of living the life of my dreams,” was their view. This was meant to happen. This was the life they deserved, which had been so cruelly denied to them for so long. Finally reality was going to turn around and favour them for a change. It was the “Shut up and take my money” meme in real life. It wasn’t that they didn't understand about scams. Yes, scams happen, they knew that, but they don’t happen to me. (That, at least, was my friend’s summation of their thinking based on talking to them.) They could barely take seriously the idea that they were a gullible fool who was being tricked. When obvious problems and flaws with the scheme were pointed out, they would come up with far-fetched and implausible explanations to wave the problems away. Any explanation would do, as long as it meant they didn’t have to wake up from the dream. In almost every case the person concerned decided to put their money into the scheme. Hardly anyone decided not to. In every single case they lost all the money. In every one of these cases the mark was completely shocked and stunned when it happened. They never saw it coming, despite so many people around them telling them it was a con. I bring this up because the situation with Nigel Farage is similar. People are desperate to believe that he is going to save the country. I don't blame them for being desperate. The situation *is* desperate. But that means that many people will cling onto anything which is presented to them as the solution. Farage, they are told by the media, is the big, bad anti-immigration, anti-green, anti-PC man. Great, they think. If the media doesn't like him, then he’s the man for me. I'm also against those things. So they buy into him, big time, without a proper examination. Look, they say, he was Mr Anti-EU for decades. He’s Mr Brexit. He released that poster during the Brexit campaign depicting a long line of foreigners trying to get into Britain. The hated MSM attacks him for being anti-immigration, etc. So how can you lose if you trust him? Life will become good again if we all just support Nigel. Sink your emotional life-savings into him, and watch the results pour in once he gets power. So when you tell them to read Farage’s fine-print, like the Reform manifesto (digging into what slogans like “Net Zero immigration” actually mean), or particular things he has publicly said over the years, and what many people who have worked with him say about him, they act exactly like those people who are advised not to invest their life savings into a get-rich-quick scheme. They get angry and offended. Why are you trying to take away my dream of a better life for me, and a better Britain for all of us? Why are you undermining the only man who stands any chance of transforming the country for us, and preventing my life from getting worse and worse? You’re just trying to ruin everything. You’re just a negative Nelly, who is too afraid to take a risk. Maybe you even support Labour, really. And so on. When asked to explain why it is that Farage’s actual positions, and his track record, indicate that he is not remotely the hard-liner they think he is, they act like the wannabe investors who will come up with any excuse, no matter how implausible, to preserve the dream. I know, I've seen many of them in my comments doing this. “He has to pretend to be more mainstream and mild than he really is in order that he doesn’t get bad MSM headlines” is the gist of it. “The BBC would tear him apart and his support would vanish overnight if he said anything stronger at this stage,” they say. In other words, “he has to get his party into a stronger position before he can say anything that might seem radical.” Apparently being neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, having MPs in Parliament, facing rival parties that are collapsing in unprecedented fashion for their adherence to the established ways, having the media hang on your every word, and facing a country crying out for a change in your supposed direction, isn’t a strong enough position for you to lay out your real agenda. You’ve still got to be timid and pretend to differ only slightly from the Conservative Party, lest the British people say, “Reducing mass immigration back to the levels they were in 2000 frightens me, who will cook our kebabs? I’m going to go back to the Tories/Labour/LibDems.” So it’s quite reasonable, apparently, for Farage to delay saying what he really thinks until 2034. Or 2039. Until then, we’ll just twiddle our thumbs and trust him with our support. It never occurs to them as a serious possibility that maybe Farage isn’t “hiding his real power levels,” but just isn’t very radical. In fact, his whole history indicates that not only does he have no interest in supporting robust anti-immigrationism, he is actively opposed to it. He left UKIP because he thought UKIP people were too concerned with Islamic immigration. When he was in charge of UKIP it worked with the intelligence services to weed out anyone who didn’t want Britain being filled up with foreigners. All his public statements going back thirty years indicate that he is a liberal, supply-side Thatcherite, who repudiates nationalism, unless it’s anodyne, flag-waving, Union-Jack-biscuit-tin civic nationalism, where anyone who can vaguely adopt some British cliches (cricket, tea, old Jags, etc.) gets a passport. If he’s playing a game to fool the media, it’s a game that goes back a long, long way. Where is the actual evidence, then, that shows that he is in any way a nativist? What reason is there to believe that he is really is a blood-and-soil nationalist who will suddenly reveal, once in power, his determination to remigrate millions of foreigners, when he’s spent his whole life urging against this? There is no reason to believe this at all, other than people’s desperation to search for a Messiah figure, and the fact that the media (and various hysterical left-wingers) give people the impression that this is Farage’s plan. But they have no evidence for this either, and anyway, why would the media give airtime to someone who genuinely thought this? Wouldn't that devious and tricksy ol’ MSM be more likely to give airtime to someone who was actually rather liberal when it comes down to it, but who can be made to seem like an attractive, anti-establishment rebel, while simultaneously sidelining the real rebels? It's like when the people who want to give away their life savings are shown the long history of bankruptcies that their Svengali has left behind, and they excuse it by saying something like, “Oh, that’s because he never had enough financial support from people. But thanks to me, I can finally give him the money he needs to succeed.” Or whatever excuse they kid themselves with. When asked, “But what evidence is there that he can make you money?”, they reply, “He’s told me his plan, and swears it will work, and it sounds good to me. Look, the rate of return is amazing, I can't pass that chance up, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” and so on. Farage also has a glib, charismatic manner, and is very good at talking in general-enough language that people can read into it what they like. “People on the streets have been talking to me, and they've had enough,” he kept saying during the summer 2024 election campaign, but he was rather vague about what exactly they were fed up with, and even vaguer about what he proposed to do about it, which allowed the sucker, er, supporter to decide that Farage was talking about just the very things the supporter thinks are important, and had in mind the same solutions. The media will admit, though, when it thinks the average Joe isn’t listening, that Farage isn’t anywhere near as bad as they normally make him out to be. This is what’s going on in this video clip of Michael Crick, which was from Times Radio, which the average Joe doesn’t listen to. The point of Crick admitting this is to calm down any naive liberals or leftists who are starting to froth at the mouth at the prospect of Farage getting anywhere. (“Look, we don't like him, but we can live with him, he's tamer than you think, better him than some genuine nationalist party.”) I haven't even talked about the idiocy of thinking that Reform’s support would plummet overnight instead of rising (or at least staying roughly the same) if they started talking tougher. (The Telegraph’s pet hamster Tim Stanley hysterically claimed recently that if Reform decided to do this they would lose 10,000 votes for every “far-Right” voter they courted.) I haven’t said anything about how an anti-establishment party must of necessity drive changes in stateable public opinion, rather than accept the status quo. Nor have I talked about the foolishness of trusting a party that you think is cowardly and constantly lying. Or the problem of how rational it is to believe that a timid party, that said for years that it definitely won't do X, Y and Z, will be capable of doing X, Y and Z when it gets power, especially seeing as it will face the real wrath of the establishment at that point. These are all legitimate topics for discussion, but in this article I have been mainly concerned with the parallels with the self-deluding life-savings investor. The conman doesn’t need that many suckers to be a success. He just needs a few. Similarly, Farage doesn’t need that many people to fall for his shtick. With the other big parties’ support in free fall, he can set Reform up as the rebel outsider party for years on the back of a minority of votes, without ever having to make any hard choices, or commit to any positions which will genuinely set the establishment against him. He also has an advantage over the traditional conman, who operates on the margins and in the shadows, of having the media there to endorse him as the “official” rebel. Their every warning makes him seem more attractive to the dissatisfied: “Don’t vote for that Farage, don’t you know he’s anti-immigration and anti-Net Zero? He’s a maverick who doesn’t do what he’s told.” No wonder Reform’s membership numbers are going through the roof. When one person loses their head to a charismatic phony it’s a private tragedy. When enough voters lose their heads to a political phony, who’s taking away the oxygen that a real opposition needs, it’s a public tragedy. So I say, keep your political life savings in a box under your bed for now. And if you must spend some or all of it on Farage, be demanding. Keep all your receipts, note what he says and doesn’t say, and demand that he clearly articulates the feelings of the people he claims to represent. Don’t let him fob you off with vague and airy platitudes. He’s not Barack Obama. He’s your rebel, so make him speak for you, and if he won’t, find someone else who will.
1:41

Farage and the suckers I used to regularly socialise with a group, one of whose number was a financial lawyer. He used to tell us about something that was surprisingly common in his line of work. He would be called in to give advice because someone wanted to spend their life savings on a scheme that was an obvious scam. He said that 99% of the time they could not be talked out of it. Nothing and nobody could persuade them not to do it, because they were convinced that a fortune was there to be made, and they were desperate to pour as much money as they could into the scheme. They would get really angry with anyone (like a spouse, or other family, or friends) who tried to stop them. Why are you stopping me from making a fortune, they would say. “You're ruining my chance of living the life of my dreams,” was their view. This was meant to happen. This was the life they deserved, which had been so cruelly denied to them for so long. Finally reality was going to turn around and favour them for a change. It was the “Shut up and take my money” meme in real life. It wasn’t that they didn't understand about scams. Yes, scams happen, they knew that, but they don’t happen to me. (That, at least, was my friend’s summation of their thinking based on talking to them.) They could barely take seriously the idea that they were a gullible fool who was being tricked. When obvious problems and flaws with the scheme were pointed out, they would come up with far-fetched and implausible explanations to wave the problems away. Any explanation would do, as long as it meant they didn’t have to wake up from the dream. In almost every case the person concerned decided to put their money into the scheme. Hardly anyone decided not to. In every single case they lost all the money. In every one of these cases the mark was completely shocked and stunned when it happened. They never saw it coming, despite so many people around them telling them it was a con. I bring this up because the situation with Nigel Farage is similar. People are desperate to believe that he is going to save the country. I don't blame them for being desperate. The situation *is* desperate. But that means that many people will cling onto anything which is presented to them as the solution. Farage, they are told by the media, is the big, bad anti-immigration, anti-green, anti-PC man. Great, they think. If the media doesn't like him, then he’s the man for me. I'm also against those things. So they buy into him, big time, without a proper examination. Look, they say, he was Mr Anti-EU for decades. He’s Mr Brexit. He released that poster during the Brexit campaign depicting a long line of foreigners trying to get into Britain. The hated MSM attacks him for being anti-immigration, etc. So how can you lose if you trust him? Life will become good again if we all just support Nigel. Sink your emotional life-savings into him, and watch the results pour in once he gets power. So when you tell them to read Farage’s fine-print, like the Reform manifesto (digging into what slogans like “Net Zero immigration” actually mean), or particular things he has publicly said over the years, and what many people who have worked with him say about him, they act exactly like those people who are advised not to invest their life savings into a get-rich-quick scheme. They get angry and offended. Why are you trying to take away my dream of a better life for me, and a better Britain for all of us? Why are you undermining the only man who stands any chance of transforming the country for us, and preventing my life from getting worse and worse? You’re just trying to ruin everything. You’re just a negative Nelly, who is too afraid to take a risk. Maybe you even support Labour, really. And so on. When asked to explain why it is that Farage’s actual positions, and his track record, indicate that he is not remotely the hard-liner they think he is, they act like the wannabe investors who will come up with any excuse, no matter how implausible, to preserve the dream. I know, I've seen many of them in my comments doing this. “He has to pretend to be more mainstream and mild than he really is in order that he doesn’t get bad MSM headlines” is the gist of it. “The BBC would tear him apart and his support would vanish overnight if he said anything stronger at this stage,” they say. In other words, “he has to get his party into a stronger position before he can say anything that might seem radical.” Apparently being neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in the polls, having MPs in Parliament, facing rival parties that are collapsing in unprecedented fashion for their adherence to the established ways, having the media hang on your every word, and facing a country crying out for a change in your supposed direction, isn’t a strong enough position for you to lay out your real agenda. You’ve still got to be timid and pretend to differ only slightly from the Conservative Party, lest the British people say, “Reducing mass immigration back to the levels they were in 2000 frightens me, who will cook our kebabs? I’m going to go back to the Tories/Labour/LibDems.” So it’s quite reasonable, apparently, for Farage to delay saying what he really thinks until 2034. Or 2039. Until then, we’ll just twiddle our thumbs and trust him with our support. It never occurs to them as a serious possibility that maybe Farage isn’t “hiding his real power levels,” but just isn’t very radical. In fact, his whole history indicates that not only does he have no interest in supporting robust anti-immigrationism, he is actively opposed to it. He left UKIP because he thought UKIP people were too concerned with Islamic immigration. When he was in charge of UKIP it worked with the intelligence services to weed out anyone who didn’t want Britain being filled up with foreigners. All his public statements going back thirty years indicate that he is a liberal, supply-side Thatcherite, who repudiates nationalism, unless it’s anodyne, flag-waving, Union-Jack-biscuit-tin civic nationalism, where anyone who can vaguely adopt some British cliches (cricket, tea, old Jags, etc.) gets a passport. If he’s playing a game to fool the media, it’s a game that goes back a long, long way. Where is the actual evidence, then, that shows that he is in any way a nativist? What reason is there to believe that he is really is a blood-and-soil nationalist who will suddenly reveal, once in power, his determination to remigrate millions of foreigners, when he’s spent his whole life urging against this? There is no reason to believe this at all, other than people’s desperation to search for a Messiah figure, and the fact that the media (and various hysterical left-wingers) give people the impression that this is Farage’s plan. But they have no evidence for this either, and anyway, why would the media give airtime to someone who genuinely thought this? Wouldn't that devious and tricksy ol’ MSM be more likely to give airtime to someone who was actually rather liberal when it comes down to it, but who can be made to seem like an attractive, anti-establishment rebel, while simultaneously sidelining the real rebels? It's like when the people who want to give away their life savings are shown the long history of bankruptcies that their Svengali has left behind, and they excuse it by saying something like, “Oh, that’s because he never had enough financial support from people. But thanks to me, I can finally give him the money he needs to succeed.” Or whatever excuse they kid themselves with. When asked, “But what evidence is there that he can make you money?”, they reply, “He’s told me his plan, and swears it will work, and it sounds good to me. Look, the rate of return is amazing, I can't pass that chance up, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” and so on. Farage also has a glib, charismatic manner, and is very good at talking in general-enough language that people can read into it what they like. “People on the streets have been talking to me, and they've had enough,” he kept saying during the summer 2024 election campaign, but he was rather vague about what exactly they were fed up with, and even vaguer about what he proposed to do about it, which allowed the sucker, er, supporter to decide that Farage was talking about just the very things the supporter thinks are important, and had in mind the same solutions. The media will admit, though, when it thinks the average Joe isn’t listening, that Farage isn’t anywhere near as bad as they normally make him out to be. This is what’s going on in this video clip of Michael Crick, which was from Times Radio, which the average Joe doesn’t listen to. The point of Crick admitting this is to calm down any naive liberals or leftists who are starting to froth at the mouth at the prospect of Farage getting anywhere. (“Look, we don't like him, but we can live with him, he's tamer than you think, better him than some genuine nationalist party.”) I haven't even talked about the idiocy of thinking that Reform’s support would plummet overnight instead of rising (or at least staying roughly the same) if they started talking tougher. (The Telegraph’s pet hamster Tim Stanley hysterically claimed recently that if Reform decided to do this they would lose 10,000 votes for every “far-Right” voter they courted.) I haven’t said anything about how an anti-establishment party must of necessity drive changes in stateable public opinion, rather than accept the status quo. Nor have I talked about the foolishness of trusting a party that you think is cowardly and constantly lying. Or the problem of how rational it is to believe that a timid party, that said for years that it definitely won't do X, Y and Z, will be capable of doing X, Y and Z when it gets power, especially seeing as it will face the real wrath of the establishment at that point. These are all legitimate topics for discussion, but in this article I have been mainly concerned with the parallels with the self-deluding life-savings investor. The conman doesn’t need that many suckers to be a success. He just needs a few. Similarly, Farage doesn’t need that many people to fall for his shtick. With the other big parties’ support in free fall, he can set Reform up as the rebel outsider party for years on the back of a minority of votes, without ever having to make any hard choices, or commit to any positions which will genuinely set the establishment against him. He also has an advantage over the traditional conman, who operates on the margins and in the shadows, of having the media there to endorse him as the “official” rebel. Their every warning makes him seem more attractive to the dissatisfied: “Don’t vote for that Farage, don’t you know he’s anti-immigration and anti-Net Zero? He’s a maverick who doesn’t do what he’s told.” No wonder Reform’s membership numbers are going through the roof. When one person loses their head to a charismatic phony it’s a private tragedy. When enough voters lose their heads to a political phony, who’s taking away the oxygen that a real opposition needs, it’s a public tragedy. So I say, keep your political life savings in a box under your bed for now. And if you must spend some or all of it on Farage, be demanding. Keep all your receipts, note what he says and doesn’t say, and demand that he clearly articulates the feelings of the people he claims to represent. Don’t let him fob you off with vague and airy platitudes. He’s not Barack Obama. He’s your rebel, so make him speak for you, and if he won’t, find someone else who will.

Hector Drummond

34,408 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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
24:38

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

545,386 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

(1/2🧵) Heraclio Guerrero Martínez, alias “El Tío Lako” y “Chaparrito”, es uno de los líderes de la facción Guerrero del CJNG, originaria de Tinajas de Vargas, Michoacán. Tío Lako es padre de Rubén Guerrero, alias “El R1”, y tío de Adrián Alonso Guerrero Covarrubias, alias “El 08”. Tío Lako presume abiertamente en sus narcocorridos haber salido de largas condenas de prisión mediante sobornos a funcionarios del gobierno mexicano. La letra de “El Compa Lako”, de Los Alegres del Barranco, señala que por sus delitos Tío debió recibir 70 años de prisión, pero que “el dinero es buen amigo, un año duro nomás [en prisión]”. Estas letras hacen referencia a la detención de Tío en 2015, cuando fue acusado de homicidio por ordenar el asesinato del candidato a la alcaldía Enrique Hernández Saucedo, quien fue acribillado por sicarios del CJNG en una banqueta de Yurécuaro. Pero este nivel de impunidad no es nuevo para Tío Lako. De hecho, algunos de los ejemplos más graves ocurrieron más recientemente, en el otoño de 2023. El 23 de septiembre de 2023, sicarios del CJNG secuestraron a Yolanda Sánchez Figueroa, alcaldesa de Cotija, mientras se encontraba en Zapopan con su familia. De acuerdo con reportes de El Universal, la alcaldesa había molestado al CJNG meses antes al negarse a sustituir al director municipal de seguridad por el candidato elegido por el cártel. Dos días después, se celebró una lujosa quinceañera en Tinaja de Vargas para Nicole Guerrero, hija de Tío Lako, el mismo líder del CJNG que presuntamente había ordenado el secuestro de la alcaldesa. La quinceañera se realizó en una enorme carpa, con arcos morados especialmente construidos y un dosel de flores blancas suspendido sobre la pista de baile. Se proyectaron juegos de luces sobre estatuas distribuidas por el lugar y una gran carroza de Cenicienta, elaborada con flores, resguardaba el pastel de la festejada. Varios artistas musicales de gran renombre, como Julión Álvarez, Alfredo Olivas y Pancho Barraza, se presentaron para amenizar la fiesta. Las actuaciones fueron seguidas por un espectáculo de fuegos artificiales y un show de drones que formaban el nombre de la hija. La coincidencia temporal de ambos hechos resulta contundente: la alcaldesa fue secuestrada el 23 de septiembre y la quinceañera se realizó el 25 de septiembre. Esto significa que, al mismo tiempo que Tío Lako colmaba a su hija de regalos, como una camioneta Mercedes G-Wagon rosa completamente nueva, algunos de sus sicarios mantenían cautiva a la alcaldesa de Cotija en una casa de seguridad del CJNG. Un día después de la fiesta, el 26 de septiembre, la alcaldesa fue liberada en Mazamitla, lesionada pero con vida. Entrevistas posteriores derivaron en la detención de tres sicarios de bajo nivel involucrados en el secuestro. Sin embargo, la investigación no terminó ahí. Nuevas entrevistas a los detenidos y evidencia forense llevaron a los investigadores a concluir que Tío Lako y su hijo Rubén Guerrero, alias “El R1”, habrían ordenado el secuestro de la alcaldesa. A mediados de noviembre de 2023, las autoridades solicitaron una orden de cateo para un rancho propiedad de Tío Lako en Tinaja de Vargas. El 14 de noviembre de 2023, elementos del Ejército se desplegaron para ejecutar la orden de cateo en el rancho (ubicado en 20.207520975615246, -102.30032431640761), pero en el interior no encontraron a Tío Lako ni a ninguno de sus hijos, ya que, según LatinUS, habrían logrado huir milagrosamente del lugar “apenas minutos antes de la llegada de los soldados”. Lo único que el gobierno aseguró en el rancho fueron tres animales exóticos: una cría de pantera, una cría de león y una cría de tigre, encontrados en jaulas diminutas. Posteriormente, zoologos determinaron que las tres crías presentaban desnutrición severa y padecían diversas afectaciones derivadas de su mal estado. Pero no hay de qué preocuparse: la cuenta de TikTok de un familiar de los Guerrero muestra que la familia ya adquirió una nueva cría de león, a la que exhiben en redes sociales paseándola con una correa como si fuera una mascota. — Heraclio Guerrero Martinez, aliases “El Tío Lako” and “Chaparrito”, is one of the leaders of the Guerrero faction of the CJNG, who come from Tinajas de Vargas, Michoacan. Tio Lako is the father of Ruben Guerrero, alias “El R1”, and the uncle of Adrian Alonso Guerrero Covarrubias, alias “El 08”. Tío Lako openly brags in his narco corridos about getting out of substantial prison time by bribing Mexican government officials. The lyrics to “El Compa Lako”, by Los Alegres del Barranco, say that for his crimes, Tio should have gotten 70 years in prison but “money is a great friend, so he only did one hard year [in prison]”. These lyrics refer to Tio’s 2015 arrest when he was charged with homicide for ordering the murder of mayoral candidate Enrique Hernández Saucedo, who was shot to death by CJNG hitmen on a sidewalk in Yurécuaro. But this level of impunity is nothing new for Tio Lako. In fact, some of the most egregious examples occurred more recently, in the fall of 2023. On September 23, 2023, CJNG hitmen abducted Yolanda Sánchez Figueroa, the Mayor of Cotija, while she was in Zapopan with family. The mayor had upset the CJNG months earlier when she refused to replace the municipal director of security with the cartel’s chosen candidate, according to reporting by El Universal. Two days later, a lavish quinceanera was held in Tinaja de Vargas for Nicole Guerrero, a daughter of Tio Lako - the same CJNG leader who had allegedly ordered the abduction of the mayor. The quinceanera was hosted in a huge tent space, with specially constructed purple archways and a canopy of white flowers hung over the dance floor. Light shows were projected onto statues throughout the space and a large cinderella carriage constructed out of flowers encased the birthday girl’s cake. Many famous musical artists, like Julion Alvarez, Alfredo Olivas, and Pancho Barraza, performed as entertainment for the party guests. The performances were followed up by a special fireworks display and a drone show spelling out the daughter’s name. The timing of the two events couldn’t be more striking, with the mayor being abducted on September 23 and the quinceanera being held on September 25. This means that at the same time that Tio Lako was showering his daughter with gifts, like a brand new pink Mercedes G wagon, some of his hitmen were in a CJNG safehouse, holding the mayor of Cotija captive. One day after the party, on September 26, the mayor was released in Mazamitla, injured but still alive. Follow up interviews led to the arrest of three low-level hitmen who were involved in the kidnapping. But the investigation didn’t stop there. Further interviews with the arrested hitmen and forensic evidence led investigators to believe that Tio Lako and his son Ruben Guerrero, alias “El R1”, had ordered the kidnapping of the mayor. In mid-November 2023, investigators requested a search warrant for a ranch owned by Tio Lako in Tinaja de Vargas. On November 14, 2023, Army soldiers moved in to execute the warrant on the ranch (located at 20.207520975615246, -102.30032431640761) but inside they didn’t find Tio Lako or any of his sons because, according to LatinUS, they had miraculously managed to flee the ranch “just minutes before the arrival of the soldiers.” All the government managed to seize from the ranch was three exotic animals, a panther cub, a lion cub and a tiger cub, found inside tiny cages on the ranch. Zoologists later determined that all three cubs were severely underfed and suffering side effects from their malnutrition. But not to worry, the Tiktok account of a Guerreros relative shows that the family has already purchased a new lion cub which they show off on social media, walking it on a leash as if it were a pet.
1:07

(1/2🧵) Heraclio Guerrero Martínez, alias “El Tío Lako” y “Chaparrito”, es uno de los líderes de la facción Guerrero del CJNG, originaria de Tinajas de Vargas, Michoacán. Tío Lako es padre de Rubén Guerrero, alias “El R1”, y tío de Adrián Alonso Guerrero Covarrubias, alias “El 08”. Tío Lako presume abiertamente en sus narcocorridos haber salido de largas condenas de prisión mediante sobornos a funcionarios del gobierno mexicano. La letra de “El Compa Lako”, de Los Alegres del Barranco, señala que por sus delitos Tío debió recibir 70 años de prisión, pero que “el dinero es buen amigo, un año duro nomás [en prisión]”. Estas letras hacen referencia a la detención de Tío en 2015, cuando fue acusado de homicidio por ordenar el asesinato del candidato a la alcaldía Enrique Hernández Saucedo, quien fue acribillado por sicarios del CJNG en una banqueta de Yurécuaro. Pero este nivel de impunidad no es nuevo para Tío Lako. De hecho, algunos de los ejemplos más graves ocurrieron más recientemente, en el otoño de 2023. El 23 de septiembre de 2023, sicarios del CJNG secuestraron a Yolanda Sánchez Figueroa, alcaldesa de Cotija, mientras se encontraba en Zapopan con su familia. De acuerdo con reportes de El Universal, la alcaldesa había molestado al CJNG meses antes al negarse a sustituir al director municipal de seguridad por el candidato elegido por el cártel. Dos días después, se celebró una lujosa quinceañera en Tinaja de Vargas para Nicole Guerrero, hija de Tío Lako, el mismo líder del CJNG que presuntamente había ordenado el secuestro de la alcaldesa. La quinceañera se realizó en una enorme carpa, con arcos morados especialmente construidos y un dosel de flores blancas suspendido sobre la pista de baile. Se proyectaron juegos de luces sobre estatuas distribuidas por el lugar y una gran carroza de Cenicienta, elaborada con flores, resguardaba el pastel de la festejada. Varios artistas musicales de gran renombre, como Julión Álvarez, Alfredo Olivas y Pancho Barraza, se presentaron para amenizar la fiesta. Las actuaciones fueron seguidas por un espectáculo de fuegos artificiales y un show de drones que formaban el nombre de la hija. La coincidencia temporal de ambos hechos resulta contundente: la alcaldesa fue secuestrada el 23 de septiembre y la quinceañera se realizó el 25 de septiembre. Esto significa que, al mismo tiempo que Tío Lako colmaba a su hija de regalos, como una camioneta Mercedes G-Wagon rosa completamente nueva, algunos de sus sicarios mantenían cautiva a la alcaldesa de Cotija en una casa de seguridad del CJNG. Un día después de la fiesta, el 26 de septiembre, la alcaldesa fue liberada en Mazamitla, lesionada pero con vida. Entrevistas posteriores derivaron en la detención de tres sicarios de bajo nivel involucrados en el secuestro. Sin embargo, la investigación no terminó ahí. Nuevas entrevistas a los detenidos y evidencia forense llevaron a los investigadores a concluir que Tío Lako y su hijo Rubén Guerrero, alias “El R1”, habrían ordenado el secuestro de la alcaldesa. A mediados de noviembre de 2023, las autoridades solicitaron una orden de cateo para un rancho propiedad de Tío Lako en Tinaja de Vargas. El 14 de noviembre de 2023, elementos del Ejército se desplegaron para ejecutar la orden de cateo en el rancho (ubicado en 20.207520975615246, -102.30032431640761), pero en el interior no encontraron a Tío Lako ni a ninguno de sus hijos, ya que, según LatinUS, habrían logrado huir milagrosamente del lugar “apenas minutos antes de la llegada de los soldados”. Lo único que el gobierno aseguró en el rancho fueron tres animales exóticos: una cría de pantera, una cría de león y una cría de tigre, encontrados en jaulas diminutas. Posteriormente, zoologos determinaron que las tres crías presentaban desnutrición severa y padecían diversas afectaciones derivadas de su mal estado. Pero no hay de qué preocuparse: la cuenta de TikTok de un familiar de los Guerrero muestra que la familia ya adquirió una nueva cría de león, a la que exhiben en redes sociales paseándola con una correa como si fuera una mascota. — Heraclio Guerrero Martinez, aliases “El Tío Lako” and “Chaparrito”, is one of the leaders of the Guerrero faction of the CJNG, who come from Tinajas de Vargas, Michoacan. Tio Lako is the father of Ruben Guerrero, alias “El R1”, and the uncle of Adrian Alonso Guerrero Covarrubias, alias “El 08”. Tío Lako openly brags in his narco corridos about getting out of substantial prison time by bribing Mexican government officials. The lyrics to “El Compa Lako”, by Los Alegres del Barranco, say that for his crimes, Tio should have gotten 70 years in prison but “money is a great friend, so he only did one hard year [in prison]”. These lyrics refer to Tio’s 2015 arrest when he was charged with homicide for ordering the murder of mayoral candidate Enrique Hernández Saucedo, who was shot to death by CJNG hitmen on a sidewalk in Yurécuaro. But this level of impunity is nothing new for Tio Lako. In fact, some of the most egregious examples occurred more recently, in the fall of 2023. On September 23, 2023, CJNG hitmen abducted Yolanda Sánchez Figueroa, the Mayor of Cotija, while she was in Zapopan with family. The mayor had upset the CJNG months earlier when she refused to replace the municipal director of security with the cartel’s chosen candidate, according to reporting by El Universal. Two days later, a lavish quinceanera was held in Tinaja de Vargas for Nicole Guerrero, a daughter of Tio Lako - the same CJNG leader who had allegedly ordered the abduction of the mayor. The quinceanera was hosted in a huge tent space, with specially constructed purple archways and a canopy of white flowers hung over the dance floor. Light shows were projected onto statues throughout the space and a large cinderella carriage constructed out of flowers encased the birthday girl’s cake. Many famous musical artists, like Julion Alvarez, Alfredo Olivas, and Pancho Barraza, performed as entertainment for the party guests. The performances were followed up by a special fireworks display and a drone show spelling out the daughter’s name. The timing of the two events couldn’t be more striking, with the mayor being abducted on September 23 and the quinceanera being held on September 25. This means that at the same time that Tio Lako was showering his daughter with gifts, like a brand new pink Mercedes G wagon, some of his hitmen were in a CJNG safehouse, holding the mayor of Cotija captive. One day after the party, on September 26, the mayor was released in Mazamitla, injured but still alive. Follow up interviews led to the arrest of three low-level hitmen who were involved in the kidnapping. But the investigation didn’t stop there. Further interviews with the arrested hitmen and forensic evidence led investigators to believe that Tio Lako and his son Ruben Guerrero, alias “El R1”, had ordered the kidnapping of the mayor. In mid-November 2023, investigators requested a search warrant for a ranch owned by Tio Lako in Tinaja de Vargas. On November 14, 2023, Army soldiers moved in to execute the warrant on the ranch (located at 20.207520975615246, -102.30032431640761) but inside they didn’t find Tio Lako or any of his sons because, according to LatinUS, they had miraculously managed to flee the ranch “just minutes before the arrival of the soldiers.” All the government managed to seize from the ranch was three exotic animals, a panther cub, a lion cub and a tiger cub, found inside tiny cages on the ranch. Zoologists later determined that all three cubs were severely underfed and suffering side effects from their malnutrition. But not to worry, the Tiktok account of a Guerreros relative shows that the family has already purchased a new lion cub which they show off on social media, walking it on a leash as if it were a pet.

HEARST

124,571 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten