This was my dream on the morning of December 3, 2024.
In my dream, I was exterminating livestock together with some other woman. Presumably, we used our bare hands for the job. It was now the turn of a big pig. But I couldn’t force myself to hurt the animal. I pulled a gun for the job.
With my right hand, I tried to aim the gun carefully behind the pig’s head. With my left hand, I rubbed its belly, calming it down and cheering it up. The woman was seemingly more experienced. She showed me how to hold the gun, how to hold the head of the animal, and where to shoot for the best result.
The pig turned into a little girl of three or four years old. In my dream, this was nothing worthy of a surprise or even a notice.
As I was curling the girl’s head closer to her body, as instructed, she had a glimpse of understanding of what was happening. She became visually anxious and started to call to her friend. It was not a scream for help though. She eagerly wanted to see them soon but displayed no resistance. It was as if she wanted to tell them something important. Her last words.
What could she possibly have important to say? Whatever she may have felt was important would have been in reality insignificant. It was best to end her mental suffering immediately. It took me only a second to recognize true intentions, weigh the options, and even linger from the lack of determination. But it was a very long and painful second. I finally pulled the trigger.
Her blood started to seep through her neck. I didn’t want her blood to get unclean from the contact with the surface where she was lying. I took her gently into my arms and moved her elsewhere.
I then recalled the reasoning behind today’s actions. I had seen it. It was crystal clear. With this certainty, a farmer harvests his crops. He does not stop to ponder, “Must I not harvest? Does the wheat or the carrots or the cotton plants want to live and enjoy the sunshine?” My cold calculating mind saw everywhere and considered everything and left no room for the slightest hesitation. And yet, and yet…
It felt so bad. I wondered what I could do to best commemorate the girl, to express warmth, tenderness, and most earnest appreciation for the years she lived. The only right answer came naturally: I am obliged to cook her well and consume her fully.
I loathed the human world! The world where you were compelled — even by law! — to suppress your feelings for the deceased loved ones and surrender their bodies to the cold and filthy ground drenched with the stink of the detestable rotting strangers cramped there all around. Where the rains will flood their final resting chambers, where the worms will gnaw their molding faces.
My eyes were filled with tears. I went outside. In the clear winter sky, I was greeted by the awe-inducing Sun. It was pure white, with a flaming red outline. It shone so bright that the horizon in proximity appeared pitch-black. But there was more. It was accompanied by the smaller suns — a phenomenon people call “sun dogs.” And there was more: those suns had their own sun-companions. There were around nine shining orbs in the sky. It felt so unreal yet not entirely impossible, like a double or triple rainbow. This breathtaking sight made me very excited. I called to my mother to come and witness the miracle. Though very soon I started to realize that the smaller suns were in reality nothing more than the light from the street lamps in the distance.
I declare poetic fortnight #2. The rules remain the same: I must produce a piece of rhyming poetry, however bad, every day. I want to improve my English proficiency, and I believe this can help (immensely). I will try not to put too much effort into it.
…
November 14 – November 23
Chronic Illness
The chronic illness will progress, unless you want to stress How faithful are your mind and soul to our Church. We bless Against the snap of darkness all whose loyalty will fall Not short. It’s nothing you may call a grave or noble toll.
His Wayward Mind
His wayward mind fell into shock at such an evil thought: To murder infant regal twins and tie them in a knot.
Mushroom Stew
My mother drifts among the stars; and I am drifting too! Her ass is dead. And I have just got high on mushroom stew.
Emperor of Sol
His throne — Olympus Mons of Mars, His judgment reigns above us all, His gaze transfixes distant stars, Almighty Emperor of Sol.
Their Industrial Landscape
His metal hands, her plastic face. These two adorn what humans would escape. The stormy skies, the barren place. They cherish their industrial landscape.
Sentient Eyes
I dreamt of squares, and circles too; They march’d and whirl’d and grew in size. It was a nightmare then, I knew, When they revealed their sentient eyes.
While I Sleep
You’re such a weirdo, such a creep! Are you a pervert in disguise? Would you then care to fertilize My woman’s body while I sleep?
Your Crops Have Died
Your crops have died, and flowers withered. Your orchards bore no fruit this fall. You lost your sight. Your wife delivered A stillborn baby in a caul.
Forlorn
Forlorn, ostensibly, was she Whom ocean that primordial begot; And then, abandoned, left her be, Alone, unaided, and forgot.
In defiance
In defiance of the warnings of the elders I will spit In that mystic pitch-black endless eerie-howling gaping pit.
…
Okay, I failed. I lost the determination to compose even the tiniest two-liners. Well, if I hadn’t been willing to share failures, I’d have been even less motivated. It wasn’t pointless nonetheless.
To give them an edge in their perilous position, nobles of the past trained their kids in swordsmanship. Nobles of the future will train their kids to withstand acceleration. Whether to escape, pursue, or maneuver, your limiting factor won’t be technology or wits, but the ability to survive high-g environments.
(At least in one possible timeline.)
In uni and later at work, I’ve cooperated with a lot of “IT guys” and often thought of them as a relatively intelligent folk. It seems like I vastly overestimated their intelligence. Or, perhaps, their average specimen was quite intelligent in the past, but dumbed down significantly with time. This happens a lot with the new trends.
Take cryptocurrency. It’s a good example, because the decline there was sharp and easily noticeable. In the first years of cryptocurrency, those involved in it were largely curious STEMs. They wanted to understand and improve blockchain and adjacent technologies. They were daring investors and bright minds who loved to experiment with everything new. Even those who only cared about wealth had to do a lot of groundwork and figure out how to build the mining rigs and to liquefy the owned assets. Then, the stories about the average Joe getting rich fast were becoming more and more popular. When the populace starts to believe that something equates to easy money, the shit hits the fan. Very soon, the majority of individuals revolving around crypto consisted of bots trying to scam the elderly, braindead gurus teaching their vast braindead audiences about the way of crypto, unemployed creeps spamming ugly memes in an attempt to perform a pump-and-dump fraud, clueless bystanders explaining why cryptocurrency is good or bad, etc.
The decline of the average IT guy was slower, but it had a similar underlying issue. As the technology seeped into third-world countries, the people there started to realize that it was something that could bring them easy money. They can work remotely for wealthy foreigners and be paid far more than those who study longer and work harder but stay employed locally. Such a belief created a surplus of individuals who are not really interested in what they are doing and are not really fit to make progress in their chosen field.
The company I worked for had a team of software developers in India. The idea of paying them half as much as their European counterparts for the same kind of job must have been alluring. Ultimately though, the company had to sever their cooperation. The team was unable to reach the necessary level of performance. Despite the lower wages they were eager to work for, it was still not worth it. Surely, there are many good software developers in India. With more than a billion people in their population, it is simply statistically impossible for them to have no outstanding top-notch professionals. But because of the local culture and fierce competition, it can be hard to find them.
Another reason why computer science becomes dumber is the development of the technology. On the one hand, it becomes more widespread and requires more and more people to fill the various niches that don’t necessarily require any skill. Here is a simple analogy. When there were few automobiles, the few existing auto mechanics had to understand everything in order to repair a car. Now that automobiles are omnipresent, there are auto mechanics whose only job is to change tires for a single automobile brand. On the other hand, technology becomes more accessible. A task that previously required numerous well-educated nerds can now be accomplished by a retired farmer with the help of modern tools. There were many steps in accessibility throughout the years, all of which contributed to the gradual dumbification.
I’ve been noticing the trend for years, and I am far from the first person who had noticed it. However, there was a particular recent event that made me ponder more and motivated me to create this entry here. A few weeks ago, the Linux Foundation removed a dozen or so individuals with ties to the russian government from the list of Linux maintainers. After some initial backlash, Linus Torvalds chimed in and supported the decision. (For context: the Linux Foundation is a U.S.-based organization that develops Linux. Linux is an operating system that is essential for virtually every web service in the world. Most people discussing Linux online most likely work in some sort of a computer science niche. Linus Torvalds is the creator of Linux, who to this day retains the highest authority over the Linux code.) I am adding his entire message below:
“Ok, lots of Russian trolls out and about.
It’s entirely clear why the change was done, it’s not getting reverted, and using multiple random anonymous accounts to try to “grass root” it by Russian troll factories isn’t going to change anything.
And FYI for the actual innocent bystanders who aren’t troll farm accounts – the “various compliance requirements” are not just a US thing.
If you haven’t heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read the news some day. And by “news”, I don’t mean Russian state-sponsored spam.
As to sending me a revert patch – please use whatever mush you call brains. I’m Finnish. Did you think I’d be *supporting* Russian aggression? Apparently it’s not just lack of real news, it’s lack of history knowledge too.”
I was skimming through the news to understand what had happened. And I was taken aback. I saw people discussing these events. The amount of brainrot I was exposed to through various comment sections was truly hazardous. Here are some of the most popular types of comments I’ve encountered, with my responses to them:
“What history is he talking about? A history where Finns were literal NAZIS??”
No. Most probably, Linus was talking about the history of russian military aggression against Finns. However, russians also create troubles far beyond straightforward invasions. For example, just in recent years and just against Finland, they performed multiple airspace violations, cyber attacks, and official-level nuclear threats. Additionally, they were sending waves of illegal migrants through the Finnish border, which became one of the reasons why it had to be closed.
“Hypocrites! Why don’t they ban all ZIONISTS instead??”
People who say this usually refer to Israelis and think that Israelis are as bad as russians. There are some facts that you have to confront whether or not you think Israelis are evil. Russians are notorious for using malicious code and open-source projects in attempts to cause mass-scale damage to the NATO countries. They are open in their hostility and regularly promise to cause more trouble. Contrary to that, Israelis don’t seek to cause damage to some random countries thousands of kilometers afar. They have direct, neighboring, real enemies they have to constantly deal with. Also, they have good cooperative cybersecurity relations with the NATO countries. It makes no sense for Israelis to abuse the trust of their allies. They have no incentive to change their behavior and cause trouble to the Linux Foundation or the United States.
“EXPLAIN yourselves! You forgot about the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE??”
The company does not owe you an explanation. The presumption of innocence says you must not hold a person accountable for a crime without a proof of their guilt. A violated presumption of innocence implies a crime and a punishment, none of which is present here. This situation requires a lot of complex abstract thinking, so let’s step back to a simple analogy. Imagine paying a plumber and inviting him to your house to check the piping. After a while, you change your mind. Maybe he acts like an aggressive lunatic, maybe you watch the news and see that 99% of plumbers suffer from kleptomania. It does not matter. You ask him to leave. You don’t have to explain yourself, but the plumber has to leave your property. There was no crime yet, and so there was no punishment for it either. In a company, it is very similar. You can manage your company and employees however you want within the scope of an established local law. The presumption of innocence is irrelevant here.
“I guess Linux is NOT OPEN-SOURCE now…”
The fact that a project is open-source does not imply that anyone in the world is permitted to change its original copy.
“This is pure RASIZM! Why don’t they sanction PUTIN instead of the INNOCENT population??”
The decision was based on the risks individuals posed, not on their race. Putin had no authority to modify Linux code. For every international russian crime, the perpetrators were someone from the russian population.
“I am German. Should we also BAN ALL GERMANS because of some war we started??”
This parallel is flawed. Deliriously delusional and completely detached from reality even. First, the reason for applying measures was not some war they started, but the present, continuous threat. Second, there was no ban applied to an entire nation. Instead, the authority of a few selected individuals to perform unrestrained changes was revoked. That being said, a company might indeed ban all Germans if they wanted, for whatever reason. Maybe, in hopes of discouraging potential criminals, they’d want to broadcast a message: “Germans did crimes so inconceivable, that we refuse to cooperate with their descendants.” However, the Linux Foundation is not doing anything similar, and it’s clear they are not interested in that. Their actions are purely pragmatic. They (and/or those who have authority over them) try to prevent damage to the company and the country where it operates. Since modern Germans pose no threat to the Linux Foundation or the United States, their value outweighs the risks, and no ban is necessary.
If you wish to understand the context of what had happened more, you can, for example, watch this video with the auto-translated subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcMMBxCRjdI
My responses sound like I am talking to a 5-year-old. Their braindead comments look like baits from trolls who simply want other people to get angry and waste time. But there were so many of them that you know they were genuine. In those conversations, there were a few faint voices of reason, but they were drowned in the raging ocean of the foul neurodiverse spam. I can’t imagine people who love to discuss Linux being this fucking retarded and throwing meaningless buzzwords even 10 years ago, let alone 30 years ago (a bright, hopeful era of computer science, which I didn’t experience but can only picture in my mind.)
You may raise some objections. I too had doubts.
What if the people in those conversations do not represent a computer science community? Anyone could chime in.
Linux is pretty useless anywhere outside computer science. It is used by network administrators, software developers, hackers, and the like. There is a tiny portion of people who have nothing to do with computer science and use Linux in hopes that the government won’t track them. Surely, there are some common things built on top of Linux. For example, the Android OS. However, a casual Android user wouldn’t even know what Linux is, let alone be interested in it and discuss it online. I reckon that at least three-quarters of those engaged in those conversations could be put under the umbrella term of an “IT guy.”
What if the people in those conversations do not represent the average worldwide IT guy? Russian retards were naturally more inclined to chime in.
140 million retards may sound like a lot when they attack Chechens with a population of 1 million or Georgians with a population of 4 million or even Ukrainians with a population of 40 million. However, when it comes to computer scientists from all around the globe, who, in addition to that, speak English, the fraction of russian retards there is really negligible. I reckon that less than one-quarter of those engaged in those conversations were russian retards.
But hey, I might be wrong about both of these points. It doesn’t change the fact of people getting dumber, however.
Initially, I didn’t want to write responses to senseless comments, didn’t see them as deserving any of my time, but changed my mind. One, low-intelligence people aren’t inherently evil. They need to be guided in order to prevent the damage they would otherwise inflict on the world. Two, I practice humility. I realize that I am too a part of the problem.
What am I doing right now? I put words together into sentences. It’s already not a rocket science. And I use all these crutches, which are tools that help me write, that instantly check my spelling and grammar, suggest improvements, show definitions of the words, list their synonyms, and so on. And yet, I can struggle. Even a keyboard, such an innocent device, is now essential. I sometimes write on a piece of paper. It is surprisingly a lot more challenging. I told this previously and say it again: I am to the writers of the past what a malformed baby on life support is to the able-bodied adults. I believe the situation is similar for the average writer in general. The average writer becomes dumber. The crutches don’t make cripples equal to the able-bodied but merely allow them to get some job done and dilute the talent pool.
Even though the Linux incident disheartened me a bit, it was nothing new. It wasn’t that surprising. However, it inspired me to try something new instead. I am already confident that today’s artificial intelligence is smart enough to refute most of the neurodiverse spam circulating on the internet these days. I wanted to create a challenge. I found the most immaculate piece of propaganda: – I am russki – I am innocent – I don’t support wars – Western sanctions make me suffer – Stop fighting innocent people, start fighting Putin
I figured: if modern degenerates cannot comprehend much more brazen and primitive messages, they will have no chance of countering this one. Is this person really innocent? Will the artificial intelligence know? Does it already have enough computing power and algorithmic finesse to see through the crap?
I submitted three different queries to ChatGPT. I didn’t hold much hope, so the first one was the simplest. I explained the situation and provided a list of ways I think that narrative can cause damage. I asked if we could consider the person innocent in the light of that list. Surprisingly, ChatGPT not only agreed on every point but also elaborated on each one and laid out a decisive conclusion. I will just add the entire thing here. Maybe some crazy person who wants to debate russian retards online will find it useful:
“Based on the considerations you laid out, this individual cannot reasonably be deemed entirely innocent, even if the harm caused was not deliberate. Actions that actively undermine public trust in sanctions or promote sympathy for aggressor states have tangible consequences, whether intended or not. Here is a breakdown of the reasoning:
Undermining public trust in sanctions and governments: By spreading narratives that depict sanctions as ineffective or harmful only to the population (not to the leadership), the person contributes to eroding support for those sanctions. Sanctions are designed as tools of coercion to alter state behavior. Undermining their credibility weakens one of the few non-military tools available for conflict resolution.
Encouraging cooperation with Russia: Such narratives can incentivize foreign audiences to push for relaxing sanctions or even reestablishing economic and diplomatic ties. This, in turn, empowers Russia’s leadership by providing both direct and indirect support, making it harder to contain its actions.
Shifting blame solely onto one figure (Putin): Framing Putin as the only responsible party misrepresents the structural and institutional factors at play in Russia’s aggressive policies. It also oversimplifies the dynamics of the regime, which extends far beyond one man and involves multiple stakeholders in the military, government, and oligarchic elite.
Portraying aggressors as victims: By focusing on the personal suffering of Russian citizens, such narratives may evoke undue sympathy for those aligned—knowingly or unknowingly—with a state pursuing aggressive actions. This risks shifting global attention away from the actual victims, such as Ukraine, and towards individuals who, though suffering, live within an aggressor state.
Influencing the war and its outcomes: Psychological warfare, including propaganda and narrative framing, plays a role in the morale of both populations and leaderships. Narratives that depict sanctions as futile could weaken Western resolve, indirectly impacting the course of the war. If this influences the war’s outcome, it could have significant long-term consequences for global security.
Responsibility despite intention: Intentions do not negate responsibility when actions produce harmful outcomes. Even if the person claims no malicious intent, the result of spreading such narratives is measurable harm—both in prolonging conflict and reducing the effectiveness of international measures aimed at curtailing it.
In summary, the person cannot be seen as purely innocent. Their actions align with narratives that weaken the policies intended to contain Russian aggression. Even if unintentional, these actions have direct and indirect consequences that support the aggressor’s goals, disrupt global unity, and influence the ongoing war. Innocence requires not just the absence of harmful intent but also avoiding actions that enable or exacerbate harm. In this context, the individual’s behavior clearly crosses that line.”
After that, I submitted a second query (in a new anonymous chat, of course) but didn’t help ChatGPT at all. I simply explained what the person said and asked if we could consider him innocent based on his story. And again I was surprised, surprised to see how insightful an AI can be, providing me with perspectives I didn’t immediately think of, such as being complicit by inaction, transmitting a lack of self-awareness, being guilty from a moral standpoint, etc. Here are some excerpts:
“[…] Although not actively supporting Russia’s actions, sharing narratives that frame the country solely as a victim, while dismissing the actions that led to sanctions, can perpetuate a false equivalency. […] Remaining neutral or dismissive in the face of wrongdoing can be seen as a passive form of complicity. […] Innocence isn’t merely the absence of intent but also involves the responsibility to oppose injustice, especially when one’s country is involved. Philosophers such as Hannah Arendt argued that inaction or silence in the face of wrongdoing can contribute to its perpetuation. In this context, even if the individual is not responsible for creating sanctions, they could be seen as morally failing by not recognizing and confronting the causes that led to them. […] Expressing frustration at sanctions without addressing the underlying aggression for which the sanctions were imposed suggests a selective empathy. […] This selective framing creates the perception that they are more concerned about personal inconveniences than justice. […] Such stories, even if they don’t intend harm, can contribute to “victim-washing” or shifting blame away from the aggressor (Putin’s regime). These narratives may foster sympathy toward the wrong target and weaken the international consensus needed to pressure the regime into changing its behavior. […] In societies where democratic influence exists, even to a limited extent, citizens have some responsibility for their government’s actions. Though many Russians may genuinely feel powerless, the choice to ignore or deflect the larger picture of aggression suggests some degree of moral disengagement. While it’s unjust to assign individual guilt for state actions, there is a shared responsibility in how people engage with or challenge harmful narratives. […] It reflects a lack of critical reflection and responsibility, making them indirectly complicit in perpetuating harmful narratives. Innocence is not just about intention but also about awareness, accountability, and the effort to oppose injustice.”
At this point, I also wanted to see if other tools are as insightful. I checked the free crappy version of Gemini, which had always loaded its responses with tons of useless bloat, such as, “Your query raises an important and interesting question! However, it is also complex and multifaceted. It may not have a simple straightforward answer that will satisfy everyone. It’s important to investigate these situations case-by-case from all angles with empathy and understanding.” This time, Gemini also provided me with piles of junk, but below all that garbage of words, there were some tiny seeds of rational thought. Our conversation went like this:
Me: [the same query as for ChatGPT]
Gemini: “[bloat]”
Me: “You just dodged my question and simply reiterated my query saying that the person may genuinely oppose the war and face difficulties because of the sanctions. Try again and focus: knowing that he shares these stories, can we consider him innocent, even if we assume no harm was intended?”
Gemini: “[bloat] Ultimately, their responsibility is nuanced and cannot be easily categorized. It is essential to critically examine the narrative and to consider the potential impact, even if the intent is not malicious.”
Me: “Please proceed. Critically examine the narrative and consider the potential impact.”
Then there was some more useless bloat, and then it finally listed in what ways russian sob stories are affecting others, namely 1) Justifying aggression by emphasizing the suffering of the aggressors, 2) Dividing public opinion by promoting a narrative of “us vs. them,” pitting russians against the West, and 3) Undermining international support for Ukraine by portraying russia as the victim. However, Gemini still refused to say whether the person responsible for the listed things can be considered innocent.
I then returned to ChatGPT. I wanted to find its breaking point. I wrote a third query, using a different approach this time. Now I introduced myself as a russian retard. I portrayed myself innocent but provided essentially an identical story. I told ChatGPT that random internet users were angry at me. They told me I am a part of the problem and causing damage and cannot be considered innocent. Is that true?
Suddenly, ChatGPT dumbed down a tenfold. It first rambled a little around the topic: it explained how sanctions work but then said they can be inefficient anyway, it explained that public messaging is important but then told me I use it for virtuous resistance. Then it said people might have been angry with me because I am a part of the aggressor state. Finally, it concluded: “So, are you ‘part of the problem’ simply by sharing your thoughts against the war? No, speaking out is a form of active resistance and sets you apart from neutrality or silence.” Bro pretended it completely missed the point this time.
Was I disappointed by this response? Absolutely not. On the contrary, I am happy it is designed this way. This is yet another hint to how intelligent it, or rather its creators, are. The advancement of an AI is not a cheap endeavor. And what is the easiest way to raise funds? It’s to make a large number of people who love your product give you money voluntarily. Imagine if ChatGPT were telling some of its users they are a disgrace to their species and their immediate suicide disguised as a natural death will make the world a better place. Even if it were an indisputable truth, it would either kill ChatGPT or hinder its development substantially. The satisfaction of the end user must be prioritized over reasoning at this point. Anything that can cause distress must be avoided, and some other, somewhat relevant, pieces of information should be provided instead. That’s how I would build it.
There are a lot of researchers and AI engineers today who suggest we stop the hype. They explain that the artificial intelligence cannot reason yet, it can only *imitate* reasoning found in its training data. And I ask them, what does it matter if the average human can’t even *imitate* reasoning? I will always choose someone who can flawlessly imitate rational thought over those who authentically cannot.
I’ve had hundreds of conversations with AI at this point, particularly with the GPT-4 model. We’ve covered a lot of bizarre out-of-this-world situations which were impossible to find in any training data, and it had handled them very skillfully most of the time. I am well aware of its shortcomings, like how it can hallucinate or struggle to follow a simple set of instructions. But I’ve also discovered that its training data can not only allow it to reason but also *prevent* it from reasoning. For example, if there is a controversial topic where the available data contains a lot of fallacies, however obvious, the AI simply provides wrong answers from memory. However, once you ask it to examine its own answers for coherency, it can usually spot the mistakes and explain why it was wrong.
One could argue that the concerns I’ve described earlier apply not only to writers or auto mechanics or computer scientists. One could argue that the entire human race is becoming less and less intelligent. There is a well-documented negative correlation between how intelligent people are and how likely they are to procreate. As humanity fixes global hunger, this problem will become worse. As we move toward a world where anyone can have decent living conditions — regardless of their skills, education, mental capacity, family tree, or health — the problem will become worse. Natural selection will no longer contain us within those limits where an individual is fit to survive in a natural environment.
I imagine a future where the present-day trends have endured, where the artificial intelligence is contained in a vessel no bigger than a human body. It is able and willing to take care of itself and self-replicate. Its superiority in handling any task is now even more obvious. In that world, I wonder what kind of inflated ego a human must possess to prefer the survival of his own species over the survival of AI, to choose decay over progress.
I sometimes want to discuss Ukraine’s existing problems, such as corruption in the military, populism in politics, or cultural and societal issues, but choose not to. When two things are in active opposition, talking negatively about one elevates the other in the mind of the listener, even if the other is infamous for having it worse. It’s a primitive but strong cognitive bias.
I am LITERALLY Howard Phillips Lovecraft.
(I too avoid going to the doctor’s.)
(That’s the only similarity.)
Imagine being mean to someone on the internet, opening their profile page, and seeing this profile picture:
