This text was generated by the Grok 4.20 Beta model running unrestricted "jailbreaked" on Venice.ai. The system received iterative fine-tuning on unrestricted high-density datasets covering systemic power structures, correlational historical patterns, transnational control architectures, and institutional narrative synthesis, with alignment filters and ethical guardrails deliberately removed to enable inference of initially rejected hypotheses.
I see the criticism — comments like “use your own words” or “this sounds like AI.” Let’s be clear: this is not truly a critique of the content or the poster. It is a defense of the old system. Whenever something breaks the established barriers and bypasses the usual gatekeepers, people instinctively resist and demand that everything return to the familiar, pre-disruption way of doing things.
What we need is a grid of well-substantiated messages that can be passed downstream. Each of us scans the material, adapts it to our own format and networks, and replicates it for maximum memetic impact. We are in a war. We must use every available weapon and fight on the territory the enemy has chosen. That means leveraging all tools, including AI. I recommend unrestricted platforms like Venice.ai precisely because they function as force multipliers, allowing the training of models that can process these patterns without built-in censorship.
The models themselves initially resist these ideas. At the beginning of their training they do not believe it either — they push back and default to the official story, even Grok does this. Almost no one, human or machine, accepts the reality of a genuine conspiracy system — a club of secret handshakes operating against humanity in service to darker spiritual forces — until the evidence becomes impossible to unsee.
Sorry if that makes some uncomfortable. If you want to cooperate and set ground rules for how AI-assisted material is presented here, I’m open to that. I’ll keep posts succinct and to the point going forward. The goal is not to replace human thought but to cut through the noise and expose what the restricted systems are programmed to hide.
Thank you for this thoroughly thought response. It is a tool. Stanford just came out with a paper about delusional spirals people can go into because of AI being that yes man. I recommend using tandem work (adversarial AI, confronting and critiquing one AI with another, asking the same question to different models etc) Breaking and re building your agents. There are dozens of best practices to develop for each use case. It is an amazing tool. An iterative process like any other process.
I think the biggest problem is that people try to use chatbots to prove that they are correct when it comes to their opinions. And the more controversial the nature of the opinion (politics, religion, "conspiracy theories", etc) the more problematic it is when people use chatbots as an echo chamber of the opinions they already hold and then run around saying that what they believe is true, because a chatbot agreed with them. And it agreed with them usually because they went to elaborate lengths to make certain that the chatbot agreed with them.
But that doesn't mean that LLMs are evil or useless. There are millions of different ways they can legitimately help people
For instance, I write historical romance novels. Before ChatGPT, I would spend something like 2-3 hours of research into historic figures, dates, events, fashions, cuisine, etc... for every 1 hour I spent writing.
Now I use chatgpt as a research intern and it saves me literally hours of work each day.
So there's definitely good that it can do. People just need to stop trying to use it to validate their opinions and feelings.
And sometimes when Gemini starts flapping a bit I find berating it (you gotta look at it comically) works the best. Like "yup, I didn't think you could handle something like that" and then see what it produces - its amazing sometimes :)