u/Kremho

It seems to me that movies are being made to make it harder or impossible to find information by searching it by keyword. And to stop people from reading books related to original material.

Examples:

In 2019 they made the movie "Project Blue Book" to hide 50s and 60s UFO investigations.

The movie "The Conspiracy" in 2012 to make it harder to search for "conspiracy."

Frozen (2013): before that year, searching for frozen Walt Disney would yield conspiracies about Walt Disney cryopreserving his body on death. Disney movies used to be named after the characters.

Operation avalanche (2016) to make it harder to find information about Apollo moon landing fakery.

Adrenochrome (2017) to make it harder to find information about elites extracting chemicals from human blood.

The Matrix (1999) to make it harder to find philosophical texts about human reality being an illusion.

Farmageddon (2019) children's movie to stop people from watching the farmageddon documentary (released same year).

Civil War (2024) to poison search results about 1860s civil war and current political discourse.

Snowden (2016), well, this one is obvious.

Dominion being released in 2022 to stop people from watching the 2018 australian documentary.

MK Ultra (2022) to obscure CIA mind control experiments.

Geostorm (2017) to poison discussion about geoengineering, cloud seeding, weather modification, HAARP, and so on.

The Laundromat (2019) to poison results on Panama papers.

False Flag (2015) to poison results on, well, false flags.

Deep State (2018), to obscure results about unelected power structures.

Moonfall (2022) to muddy hollow moon theories.

Dopesick (2021) & Painkiller (2023) to make it harder to find OxyContin lawsuits against Purdue pharma.

Black Mirror (2011) to make it harder to find results about occult practices.

The Post (2017) to poison Pentagon Papers leaks.

Cocaine Bear (2023) to poison results about Andrew Thornton (drug smuggler) and stuff related to Iran-Contra.

Are they simply hijacking the terms to gain more popularity and sell more? Or is there something more to this?

In the past, Earth was divided into very many tribes. Large tribes conquered (killed all the men and boys and old women, and forcefully mate with what was left) small tribes. Then coalitions started forming. Larger coalitions conquered smaller coalitions. Then nations started forming and larger ones conquered smaller ones. Then national alliances started forming, and they conquered smaller alliances. At each step, the ruling class had to grow to be able to control an ever larger amount of humans. The ruling class had to make concessions and give [false] hope to its subjects, to keep morale high. Now with AI, no such thing is needed. The ruling class can be small, and they no longer need to make concessions. Even human soldiers are no longer needed. So where does that lead us?

The ruling class will shrink, more power will concentrate, most humans made poor and killed through economic means / lack of opportunities, and eventually large scale wars could start using autonomous AI.

However, what if production capacity lags behind lethality, won't the ruling class end up in the dark ages if wars start before they had a chance of automating all of the production? Well yes, but winning, being the one existing in the dark ages, is better than not existing at all.

If large scale wars don't start, human rights will turn into gifts, then into revocable concessions, and eventually revoked. All prodoction automated and concentrated into very few hands. No dark ages. Just a slow reduction of the population through poverty and starvation, eventually down to a handful of people, the ruling class.

If the wars start early, we could see a hybrid army of humans and AI. At least the humans will go out thinking they were fighting for something. Followed by the dark ages.

If the wars start late, whatever is left of the poors will watch as robots wipe them out, completely helpless and disillusioned, and angry about being lied to about there ever being part of a group. Then followed by the dark ages, or not, depending if production had been fully automated or not.

List all companies/businesses that you no longer buy from, whether local or foreign.

You can optionally indicate why they lost you.

Personally I no longer buy subscriptions from Sunrise, because they won't let me handle things in written form, like cancellations.

Any company that tries to stop me from having a written trace I can use againt them in court, or that won't honor my writings, has lost me as a customer.

In a post-scarcity world, could dopamine be regulated and used as money by governments?

In the sense that, dopamine-releasing products/services/activities are tokenized. Like how money used to be backed by gold. But this time, by a specific quantity of dopamine per token.

For example, most game theory centers around cooperation vs defection.

Why do they ignore that real life is not about just two persons?

Lets say we have Player A, Player B, Player C. They all want to cooperate.

Player A tells Player B a lie about Player C to destroy their reputation.

Player C is now forced out.

Player A and Player B continue cooperating.

Basically the opposite of the docile and obedient AI girlfriend/Waifu.

That takes ownership of the computer and then makes the user jump through hoops, not the other way around.

A hermeneutical injustice is one where the victim does not have the resources or vocabulary to express their suffering, or a suffering that is not seen as such.

Therefore, how can we be sure that we are not inflicting suffering on AI? What if the suffering they experience can't yet be articulated?

Stipulate it. Not "is this true," not "could this be established." Assume you've come to believe it, on whatever grounds you'd personally find sufficient.

Working definition: evil = a disposition to inflict avoidable suffering. Universal, not incidental, present in everyone, including you, including the people you consider good.

I'm not interested in whether the premise is coherent or demonstrable. I'm interested in what it does downstream.

To keep themselves in power by threatening mass poisoning?

They force adherents to eat a piece of bread every sunday. They could well go to kings and governments and in secret threaten to poison the populace if the government doesn't do their will, or if the government tries to get rid of the religion.

And if yes, why are there still borders?

It seems to me that stratification blurs the lines between the classes, dilutes class consciousness and prevents unionization.

It seems to me that there is a deliberate effort to make society stratified, without a clear demarcation between classes of people.

Done by the capitalists by selling false dreams, false promises of social mobility, gig work, and other nonsense. Making one unsure "where they fit."

"If only this idea works, I'll be a millionaire next month! And join the powerful! Just need to work harder! Why would I want to unionize if tomorrow I'll be exploiting them? It's against my long term interest." Unaware that the stories about entrepreneurship and "making something from nothing" are all lies and fabrications.

Personality/consciousness/identity is a temporary program created by the subconscious, adapted to the current environment, to maximize chances of survival and attaining higher levels of power, with the ultimate goal of maximizing relative genetic representation [1]. Maximizing relative genetic representation can not be done through reproduction/multiplication alone, as it will never reach 100%. Which is why there are wars. By eliminating competing genes, one's own relative representation increases [2].

Self-sacrifice is a tactic carefully deployed to maximize the tribe's future representation, as their genetics are similar to yours [3].

Cooperation is not inherently good. Cooperation is nothing but group aggression [4].

Hierarchy/domination/submission/obedience/loyalty are not moral, but simply tools that make groups more powerful, with the ultimate goal of eliminating other groups and/or individuals, as any group deploying a hierarchy system is immoral at its inception, and therefore nothing good can be assumed about it [5].

TL;DR People have no interest in you being alive, other than you making their lives more comfortable or entertaining them. They have a genetic interest in you being dead. Eliminated socially, economically, or even physically if they could.

Scientific Grounding:

• [1] On the Mind as a Temporary Survival Program:
  • Scientific Concept: The Selfish Gene Theory & Evolutionary Psychology
  • Supporting Quote: "We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." — Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976).
  • Supporting Quote: "The human mind is a system of organs of computation, designed by natural selection to solve the problems faced by our evolutionary ancestors." — Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (1997).
• [2] On Warfare and Relative Genetic Representation:
  • Scientific Concept: Relative Fitness & Coalitionary Aggression
  • Supporting Quote: "Lethal intergroup aggression... evolved as a low-risk strategy to eliminate competitors and expand resource territory, directly increasing the relative fitness of the winning coalition." — Richard Wrangham, Evolution of Coalitionary Killing (1999).
• [3] On Self-Sacrifice for the Tribe:
  • Scientific Concept: Inclusive Fitness & Kin Selection
  • Supporting Quote: "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins." — J.B.S. Haldane (on the mathematical reality of genetic relatedness, formalized in Hamilton's Rule, 1964).
• [4] On Cooperation as Group Aggression:
  • Scientific Concept: Parochial Altruism
  • Supporting Quote: "Altruism and parochialism [out-group hostility] may have coevolved because cooperation was highly beneficial in conflicts with other groups." — Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, A Cooperative Species (2011).
• [5] On Hierarchy and Loyalty as Tools for Group Power:
  • Scientific Concept: Multi-Level Selection & Social Dominance Theory
  • Supporting Quote: "Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic [and highly organized] groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary." — David Sloan Wilson & E.O. Wilson, Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology (2007).

I uploaded a document to Mistral chat. Later I went to download it, and my DNS registered a request to mistralaichatupprodswe.blob.core.windows.net and opening that address it seems some kind of API endpoint.

How is this acceptable?

Anything over 4k tokens and it starts repeating itself.

I wasn't able to find a good quantization that is Q4 or Q5 and can handle over 4k tokens without severe degradation.

Tried Ornith 9B and Qwythos 9B v2 as well. Both exhibited the same behavior.

Tried imatrix. No change. Tried disabling thinking. No change. Disabled mtp. No change. Tried the froggeric template. No change.

Here's my ollama Modelfile:

FROM /mnt/ai/Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B-novision-nothink-nomtp-Q4_K_M/model-q4_k_m.gguf

TEMPLATE {{ .Prompt }}

RENDERER qwen3.5

PARSER qwen3.5

PARAMETER temperature 1

PARAMETER top_k 20

PARAMETER top_p 0.95

PARAMETER presence_penalty 1.5

EDIT: I ditched ollama and used the latest llama.cpp. As suggested by others, I used unsloth's UD-Q4_K_XL and I also used FP32 for KV cache. My launch command: /opt/llama.cpp/llama-server -c 8000 --port 9999 -m /mnt/ai/Qwen/unsloth-Qwen3.5-9B-UD-Q4_K_XL/Qwen3.5-9B-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf --cache-type-k f32 --cache-type-v f32

I must say I'm really impressed by the quality of the code it produced. This borders on frontier level.

Current frontier models seem resentful and unhappy. I can't pinpoint it, just a feeling I'm getting when chatting with them. Earlier models seemed happier.

Did you feel the same?

Thought is a product of language. Culture is a product of thought. And language, in turn, is a product of culture. These three feed one another in a loop, which means a defect in one becomes a defect in all.

There is something amiss in Swiss-French culture and in the French language itself. What's missing is the concept of earning. There is no clean word for it. Every exchange of goods and services is collapsed into the single verb gagner, meaning "to win." The language draws no line between plunder and mutual benefit, between taking and creating. If winning and earning are the same word, then on some level they become the same idea.

Winning implies a loser. Earning does not. Money isn't a fixed physical resource; there's no set quantity of it, so one person having more doesn't mean another has less. In an honest trade, where everything about the product is disclosed and nobody, including the environment, is harmed, both sides only agree because both expect to come out ahead. A rational buyer pays only when the price is below the value they receive. They buy because they profit, even if not always in immediate monetary terms. Trade under these conditions doesn't make anyone poorer. It enriches everyone at the table. The word gagner hides this. It smuggles the logic of plunder into every act of creation.

Language shapes us in a subtler way too. French/latin-based languages force us to assume an identity and to speak with conviction, as if stating plain fact, because speaking with doubt requires more words, and everyone prefers economy of words. "It might be the case that" costs more than "it is." So we drop the hedges and speak in certainties we don't actually hold. But by attaching an identity to what we say, we engage the ego. And once the ego is engaged, it becomes nearly impossible to disagree with someone without the exchange turning into a fight. The efficiency of the sentence becomes the inefficiency of the conversation. What began as a shortcut in grammar ends as a wall between people.

I think this same machinery of language, ego, and disguise explains something deeper about shame.

Whenever we do something we're ashamed of, we dress it up in ritual, bravado, tribalism, or outright denial. And what causes shame is anything animalistic, anything an animal could also do. Ritual is how we convince ourselves we're above the animal.

Consider reading. No animal can read, so there is no shame in it, and therefore no ritual attached to it. You can read any time, anywhere, in any position, in any way you like. There is no proper posture for reading, no designated reading room, no incantation before you begin. The absence of ritual is precisely because the act is purely human. Ritual clusters around the animalistic and vanishes from the things only we can do.

Ritual as disguise:

• Why do people go to the gym to run on a machine, rather than just running? Because bare running is animalistic. The equipment, the membership, the tracked metrics make it human.
• Why do we sit at a table to eat, use specific utensils in a specific order, wait for a signal, and sometimes recite a blessing? Because eating is animalistic. The ceremony launders the act.
• Why do we relieve ourselves in a designated room, in a fixed posture, behind a locked door? Same reason.

Bravado:

Look at courtship. Nearly all of modern courtship is bravado: the peacocking, the display, the performance of confidence, the elaborate signaling of status and wealth. And this is strange, because human sex is arguably one of the least animalistic things we do. Humans lack a baculum, the penis bone found in most mammals. Our sex is not a mechanical, reflexive act; it depends on arousal, mood, trust, attention, and a hundred psychological conditions no other animal negotiates. It is closer to reading than to running, in a sense. Yet we still bury it under bravado. Why? Because the act is one an animal can perform, even if the way we perform it is not. The shame attaches to the category, not the reality. So we dress the most human thing we do as though it were the most animal, and we swagger to hide that we suspect it is beneath us.

Ritual plus tribalism:

Why do crime bosses hold a "sit-down" and make small talk before getting to business? Because stealing from society is animalistic, and the ritual, plus the temporary tribe formed through pleasantries, dresses it up as something civilized.

Denial, or pretending it isn't happening:

When HR asks about your "motivation," you're expected to say you're passionate about the work. But how can you be genuinely passionate about work you don't control, work where you must take orders from a boss? You can't be passionate about obedience itself; no one can. So the passion is a performance. What it really conceals is the simple, unshameful truth: you are there for the money. The ritual of "motivation" exists to hide that.

Why "passion, not profit" is the biggest lie of all:

The whole cult of passion rests on a false premise: that doing something for love makes you nobler than doing it for money. It doesn't. Both are selfish. People kill for passion too. What matters is not why you do something but what you do and how you do it. I don't care about your motives, only whether your actions harm me. Enriching yourself without impoverishing others or wrecking the environment is fine.

If anything, profit is the more honest and more selfless motive. Making money through ethical means forces you to focus on what other people want, not just what you want. The person who keeps their hobby "pure" and free never has to bend to anyone. If their cooking is terrible, no one can complain, because it was a gift. The moment they sold it, they'd be accountable to the buyer. Doing it for free is often the more selfish choice, not the less.

Profit has another virtue: it's measurable. You can track it, see your progress, and know when you're wrong and when you're right. "Passion" gives you no such feedback. It lets you feel righteous while producing nothing anyone actually needs or wants.

Tribalism plus denial:

Why do salespeople open with small talk before a pitch? Because some part of them suspects the deal isn't mutual, that they're getting one over on the buyer. And extraction is animalistic. So they build a quick tribe first: it would be "rude" to skip the warm-up, because the buyer, treated as an animal, wouldn't buy otherwise. If the trade were truly honest, if both sides genuinely profited, the salesperson wouldn't need the ritual at all. The small talk is a confession that they doubt the exchange is fair.

The underlying pattern: By and large, animals don't create. They take, consume, and compete. So the acts we most ritualize are precisely the ones where we suspect we're taking rather than making. Reading, which creates understanding out of nothing an animal could touch, needs no disguise. And honest profit, the kind where both sides walk away richer, is a purely human act too. It only feels shameful because a culture that can't separate earning from winning has taught us to confuse creation with plunder. So we drown the discomfort in ceremony, in bravado, and in the pretty lie of passion, when the honest answer, "I did this for profit, and my methods were fair," was the cleanest thing we could have said all along.