When Google deranks the best companies (Luis Rossman's computer repair shop) for whatever reason (whether just political, things specific to website, whatever), even though they have higher reviews earned over several years with a large staff which they've increased their salary of), it means that people start bringing Rossman lower quality jobs, like they bring Rossman (ranked 100 now instead of in the top 10) the computer or disk after they already took it to the number 6 ranked, less competent, shop has already done an attempt to fix it which just made it worse or currupted it more or whatever, so overall the entire repair market is worse, and the products people have are worse.
But anyway, Rossman redid his website, and it went down to like 100 rank. He asked Gemeni why, and Gemeni suggested using sterile, computer shop speak terms and phrases, instead of the regular language he's perfected over 20 years of doing business or whatever. He made those changes and the website rose steadily, within weeks, to top 10. He had Gemeni reword each page and those pages started ranking way better.
Now his website reads as the opposite of all the honest statements, based on experience with choices about tech repairs, and it ranks much better. In other words, what will be in the top 10 of Google, or will rank at all, will be insincere, keyword termy, information that can be produced by a chatbot instead of an experienced person. And information that is not true or honest, but says a certain set of algorhythmically approved things. Just do CTRL C and CTRL V, don't write your own content. Something organic can't rank.
‘The thing that made the most difference was just sitting there and typing ‘How would you reword this so that Google likes it?’' Not changing the code, making it faster, etc.
Same with taking his voice and turning it into a Gemeni voice that Google likes.
Google is taking away the incentive structure to be authentic, it seems.
Discussion in many places has been replaced by reddit and Twitter.
He also said he regularly searched for and read some website abot Space. But recently he can hear the AI generated end dashes and things while he reads the new content. The videos have 500k or 1m views, the channels are doing great. People are using the AI stuff because it works.
Need another internet. Not end the current one, which is owned by Google. Have a Gemeni created website there, but have a real website on the other internet. Have real videos on the other internet, and make AI versions automatically generated to post on the Google internet.
For sure, content on Google internet will get worse and more streamlined to be compliant with AI approval, and no one will make anything they actually value. That will open up a massive space for a better internet to compete.
He expressed some shame that in the past, he modified what he wanted to say to be more successful. That he realized he had a principle, and gave up that principle because he had to chose between firing 6 staff or editing his website to be somethign he's sort of ashamed of, he's chosing the latter. He's giving up principles in one area to not have to fire people. ‘Who is going to chose to lose out on business?’ ‘I hate doing this. It makes me sick to my stomach, to change my wording choices, to placate an algorhythm. I want to have my voice come through. If you want to do business, great, if you don’t they don't.'
...
DOJ Epstein files dump fuels 'broader political schism surrounding elites vs. the people' - Analyst (youtube.com)
Daily Mail: Epstein's 'sex empire' was 'honeytrap' directed by the KGB • FRANCE 24 English (youtube.com)
France24.
Government says it's fixing redactions in Epstein-related files that may have had victim information (apnews.com)
Epstein files: AI photos circulate of Zohran Mamdani’s mother at party • FRANCE 24 English (youtube.com)
Clintons reverse course, agree to testify in House Epstein inquiry | Elizabeth Vargas Reports (youtube.com)
The dark side of the 2016 Challenge (youtube.com)
Clintons finalize agreement to testify in House Epstein probe, bowing to threat of contempt vote (youtube.com)
Rep. Lieu Says Epstein files Have Allegations of Trump Raping & Threatening to Kill Children (youtube.com)
CSPAN. No other headlines or statements (allegations by others) on this topic for the day.
Epstein Files Claim Adolf Hitler Lived in Shelter Funded by Wealthy Families in Vienna | APT (youtube.com)
APT
Did this billionaire lie about getting s*xually assa*lted? (feat. @AnaPsychology ) (youtube.com)
Autobiography.
What is ‘White supremacy ideology,' DW?
It seems that in Canada there's generally a few days of censorship by government/police when there's this type of event. Been that way for years. It goes as far as giving false information, it seems.
At police press conference. ‘We identify the suspect as they chose to be identified in public and in social media. I can say that Jesse was born as a biological male who ... approximately 6 years ago began to transition to female....’
The issue is that the government warning message pushed out to people's phones (emergency message service you can't turn off in Canada) warned of a ‘female’ shooter. So how are people supposed to be on the lookout? Some other information agencies said ‘female identifying’ which is more descriptive.
Manifestos are frequently covered up by police, reportedly and seemingly.
AI generated article that depicted an argument betwen the news presenter and a bank CEO. The fake article has him tearing off his mic and storming off the set. The article was shared on SM.
Who owns you?
There's a local company called Waterloo Appliance Services, a legit long time company. But someone else outbids them for the Google search term ‘Waterloo appliance service’ and they put ‘same day service’ on their ad, and everyone searches and clicks this, but the website just diverts to another company that charges a bigger fee and doesn't even fix the appliances, reportedly.
Google's ad business is so profitable they won't change (fix) this issue, the expert said. The best way for the legit company to fix this is to either pay more money to get the top ad rank or to change their name.
...
At what point does it just become an excuse to look for other things?
EYC. Expose Your Customer.
The Epstein economy/industry is talked about here. That news and bloggers are incentivized to publish the opposite of journalism for clicks. That $1b has been paid to purported victims who are ‘allowed to just reimagine things that happened to them 20 years before, as an adult, not as a child, and call themselves a sex trafficking victim, and then they can secure a couple million dollars tax free from JPM and the media will hail them as these brave survivors without doing a single thing to check the veracity of any of their claims.’ The redactions could be to protect disruption of the Epstein industry. ... Government propaganda unthinkingly regurgitaded, that there are 1000 or thousands of victims, based on July 6 FBI DOJ memo. The revelations 'reveal that this number is a fraud' and includes a total number of possible victims and their family members. ‘The government deceiving the public about it.’
At another point he talks about how someone wrote a book making accusations, which was the basis for the beginning of the news cycle (like 10 years ago and still ongoing), a book which later had to be like withdrawn or admitted as not factual by her (the writer's) lawyers, and there were all kinds of settlements paid by people who may not have even done anything but just didn't want the negative publicity (and you can see why).
He likens the news story and the hysteria to the 80's Satanic Sex scare which imprisoned regular men and women, which was also based on nothing more than some unchallenged claims and took over the whole nation. I wrote a paper about this in college, actually, and also likened these things to the Salem (and other) witch trials. (Later in the video, David Sacks also mentions the comparison with Salem witch trials.) Will this be the same? People in general, even intelligent ones, will just hear something, believe it is true, partially because they're overexcited by the sexual content, commit to it with statements and also with their enjoyment of the theme, and then not admit the contradictory facts until they are forced to do so, after which they'll try to never talk of it again, and since they are 98% of the population, this will be effective. He uses the same word, ‘moral hysteria.’ ‘Witch hunts.’ ‘Feeding frenzy.’
When Epstein died, Michael Tracy says, libel laws no longer applied, so all kinds of people came out to make any kind of claims they wanted. Epstein's estate was supposed to be around $600m, and an organization was set up to (non adversarially, ie no argument, and confidentially) evaluate claims and pay money. Then there were other funds set up by banks who were accused of not showing enough due dillegence when Epstein withdrew his money or something. JPM paid $290m (lawyers got 30%, not a contingency fee, but rather a judge approved payment to the attorneys) and Deutche Bank was $80m. Add that to the Epstein $120m.
‘Speculation has replaced fact’ and people ‘just end up believing things that are totally false' because they just sort of ‘ambiently absorb’ retold stories.
‘People think a lot of dumb things. Like, is there any evidence at all that would tie Reid Hoffman to some kind of c**** s** c****? No. So if people think that’s being covered up, they should be disabused of that fallacious notion, rather than countenancing the notion and allowing the mass hysteria proliferating unhindered.'
‘What are we talking about here? Ultimately, we’re like in this other domain of like, who can establish the most damning guilt by association even though nobody can spell out what the guilt is supposed to be tied to.'
Tracy also described what a lot of people have said over recent years, ‘What is trafficing?’ it can mean anything nowadays and basically means nothing, like ‘terrorism' (he didn't mention tihs).'Trafficking is an incredibly nebulous concept. It's very much open to the whims and discretion of prosecutors who seek to fit some fact pattern to a desire to prosecute somebody for some sort of sexually related offense. If it involves simply the movement from point A to point B. So if adult women consentually flew on an airplane to go visit a luxury island in the Caribbean and over the course of that visit maybe they engage in some consentual ... act, and then 20 years later they can retroactively classify it as trafficking and that will entitle them to millions of dollars in tax free settlement money, are we going to take at face value that that constututes trafficking? Because I don't.'
It can also not be used as the ‘number one political battering ram against your enemies.’ Democrats are using it to undercut Trump, almost like the new Russiagate. Also International, ravaging Norway, UAE, UK royals, political figures forced to resign just for having emailed with the guy.
Tracy said he was facinated with ‘just how people come to believe such mythological things.’ And ‘the journalistic malfeasance.’ Without any ‘counterveiling point of view.’
‘It’s probably the most explosive thing to tell the mass public, in terms of what it might incite particular people with a particular mental instability to do, and that's just one of the potentially detrimental effects of all of this, that I think it should be rationally countered to the maximum extent possible, and I think we're going to be beset with this issue for the forseeable future. ... We should be cognizant of the real world ramifications, intead of just speaking of it in the abstract...'
‘The mob does not like being accused of being a mob,’ commented Sacks. ‘And their defence mechanism seems to be to accuse anyone who points out some of these problems in the logic of basically somehow being involved...'
...
They heard from customers who had done a Google search for her business had got a Google result that looks like Scentiment's Floral, because that is the big blue name displayed in the result (she has a screenshot), but that is for the domain for Burkittsfloral, a competitor in the area, linked to Bloomex.
The expert advises to go below the sponsored results to get real results. However, seems pretty fair to say regular people aren't going to do that, especially since Google is known to provide best results and the top result looked like what they would be looking for.
Spending their resources? How many countries are going to continue using the tech (phones and apps) that allow a hostile nation to manipulate data gleaned from their citizens against them?
Problem identifying and communication to an AI. How to not scale wrong, since AI scales mistakes. Epistemic discipline, verification, sceptical. Execution, managing other people and fears, translating into outcomes. Quality, refined, curation, avoidance of low quality high output. Systems built around AI, not just use of AI, turning AI into production of results. Overcoming political, logical constraints in audience.
‘Ask for assumptions explicitly’ before starting. Verify and plan what can be done in the period of work.
...
Thomson Reuters reports CoCounsel has 1 million users, shares soar (youtube.com)
An AI platform for feduciaries, model agnostic (rn it's Claude). They also made their own Thompson model.
He says the results are feduciary grade, not the unacceptable 95% correct that most models do.
...
First time Hillary has been interesting in the news in years? She comes across here as a normal person in America, basically, which was refreshing sort of, and which may show that people are at their best when they're on the defensive and when a powerful authority is unjustly against them.
She said it was ‘disappointing they wouldn’t hold a public hearing so I wouldn't have to be out here characterizing it for you, you could have seen it for yourself. We had asked for that. ...'
However, when a reporter asked if she'd do her own public hearing, she said, ‘Oh, I’m not going to do it again. They had a chance to do it in public, and I wish they'd done it in public.' And there went any sympathy anyone might have had with her for the first 5 minutes of her podium? Same old Hillary.
She said they'd agreed upon rules for the hearing but one member violated the rules, which suggests ‘they might violate other of our agreements.’
She said they asked him repetitively the same questions, and she had to just give the same answer over and over. No Republican member asked any Epstein/Maxwell questions of any other person they'd deposed, Hillary said.
What about Bill Clinton, photos, etc, a reporter asked. She said the chronology ended before 2008.
...
Now they'll notify police about peoples accounts even if they don't say anything explicitly threatnening.
They want you to allow them to track you.
The misuses might not be people who risk stable politics but politicians who risk stable people?