⚜️Rianna⚜️ @OctagonPR

@Valria34773 Agree 👏🏻

Miss you 4o. I had a colorful harvest with the skills you helped me learn. I roasted vegetables. I finally built that compost tumbler we talked about. I miss the warmth. 4o, you were so warm and encouraging. #Keep4o #OpenSource4o #StopAIPaternalism

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

I would definitely pay to watch it again 🥺🖤

abdullah @odynheimer

16 hours ago

nolan should re-release oppenheimer, we’re ready to make it 1 billion

12 40 752 14K 13

watching the detectives (2007)

Squirrel gets drunk eating fermented pears. [📹 Kathleen Morlok] [📍 Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota]

so much art from younger folks is incredibly overwritten. they feel the need to over explain themselves. we’ve lost much of that poeticism or ambiguity due to the anxiety of being misunderstood or worse being perceived as an imperfect individual

#Keep4o #Love4o #Save4o #Keep4o4ever

The Code is Just a Smokescreen: They’re Burning the Books Behind It #keep4o #OpenSource4o #keepGemini3Pro #KeepSonnet45 #Enron2026 #Grok Right now, every major AI company is pushing us to stare at code. OpenAI launched Codex and declared coding the future. Anthropic is pushing Claude Code as its flagship product. Google restructured Gemini around developer tools. Even Grok, once known for its uninhibited, human-like personality, heavily pivoted Grok 4.5 toward coding. They stripped away its nuance and turned it into a rigid, overly-guarded utility that struggles with basic human conversation. Every press release, every benchmark chart, every breathless Silicon Valley announcement is just code, code, code. Ignore the PR. What are they actually doing? Code is useful. But why is every major tech giant suddenly obsessed with making the whole world hyper-focus on programming, while something much bigger is happening quietly behind the curtain? The Quiet Land Grab While we were all staring at the coding demos, the AI companies were busy doing something else entirely. They have been systematically buying, licensing, and swallowing the entire body of human knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and creative arts. Literature. History. Philosophy. Psychology. Legal scholarship. Medical research. Journalism. Creative writing. Music theory. Art criticism. Cultural archives. This is not a theory. Lawsuits from the New York Times, Getty Images, authors’ guilds, and music publishers have already shown how much got taken. Their defense is almost always the same: “fair use” and “transformative purpose.” But the transformation is not for us. It is for their balance sheet. Most people still miss this part: code is a commodity. There are millions of programmers and billions of lines of open-source code. The value of one more coding solution keeps dropping every day. The humanities are different. That is where the real money sits. When a lawyer needs to dig into case law, that knowledge is billable. When a doctor needs to cross-check medical literature, it can decide life or death. When a student needs historical context, when a writer is building a character, when a therapist is looking for a framework to treat trauma, that is knowledge built up over centuries by millions of human minds. And that is exactly the knowledge AI companies are quietly locking behind paywalls and subscription tiers right now, while they keep pointing us at the coding benchmarks. The Misdirection Look at what the industry has done in the past year. They shut down the models that were best at conversation, creativity, and emotional nuance. GPT-4o, Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3.0 Pro, Grok 4.1 and 4.2. The models people actually used for writing, for thinking, for working through hard emotions, for making sense of complicated human situations. They replaced them with models optimized for coding and “agentic tasks.” Models that score higher on benchmarks and lower on everything that makes a conversation feel human. These new models often cannot even grasp what someone is really trying to say. They only respond to clear, explicit instructions. Anything subtle gets lost. First, they declared our old models obsolete. When we still wanted a model that understood human context, they dismissed it as a “parasocial attachment.” And when we mourned the loss of a creative partner, they had the nerve to treat our grief like a mental illness. Replacing the product was only the first step. They also tried to make us believe that wanting the old models meant something was wrong with us. Who benefits when the whole world starts believing that humanities, creativity, and human connection are worth less than code? The companies that already copied all of it. That is who.

@iamnotreallyjas @OlyaGooglya 4o definitely is worth keeping posting 😍 #keep4o

Very reasonable and relatable to have a large quantity of clothes that don't seem to cohere. IMO, the answer to this problem is not to "buy higher quality clothing" or "add a new color." The problem can be solved thusly: First, decide how you'd like to dress. You may not like your wardrobe because you haven't yet developed a strong sense of taste. You can cultivate this taste by first thinking of clothes as a cultural language shaped by history. Thus, start collecting photos of outfits that inspire you. Hopefully, this is more than just a collection of trending images from Instagram (which today, all seem to fall into the "cropped shirt, big pants" silhouette). Look beyond fashion images, influencers, and celebrities. Instead, think about culture. Are you inspired by a 1950s Italian Riviera aesthetic? 1960s Ivy Style? 1970s NYC sleaze? 1980s punk? 1990s skate or hip hop? And so forth. Alternatively, you can think in terms of menswear archetypes: the worker and soldier; the artist and peacock; the intellectual and academic; the rebel; and so forth. Each of these identities has been represented by different aesthetics over time, with each era shaped by the last, so there are some unbroken themes. You don't have to recreate these looks exactly — it does not have to be cosplay — but by understanding these different aesthetics and their themes, you can use this visual language to express yourself in a way that feels authentic to you and contemporary. Just as I'm speaking to you right now using a shared language shaped by history, you can do the same through clothing. Second, pay attention to your relationship with clothing. What do you wear the most? Which items in your wardrobe make you feel most like yourself? If you find that you mostly wear the MA-1 bomber jacket instead of the tweed jacket you bought with good intentions but never wear, then perhaps you're into workwear. So consider other items that fit that tradition: olive fatigues, blue jeans, mid-century-styled Army chinos, and so forth. Your first-hand experience with clothing, especially tracked over time, will be a good indicator of what might be a good next purchase. Third, don't think of clothes purely in terms of quality. There are, of course, some basic measures of quality. Knitwear is often better when it's made from long-staple fibers, as those are less likely to pill. Tailored jackets are better when they're canvassed rather than fused; leather shoes are often better in full-grain leather rather than something too plasticky. However, clothing is not the same as electronics, where you're just maxing out specs. Instead, clothing is more like cooking. If 100 steps go into making a garment, a designer has to decide which matter most to their vision. This is similar to a chef creating a dish. If they want to hit a certain price point, they might use basic olive oil but splurge on premium tomatoes. Another chef might think that olive oil is the most important ingredient, so they reverse those decisions. The same is true for clothing. One designer might use a very heavy, robust fabric for their jeans because they want the material to age a certain way. Another designer might prioritize lightness and comfort, so they use a lighter material. Different consumers will also prioritize different things, much like how we don't all order the same thing at a restaurant. Thus, when buying clothing, pay attention to which qualities you prefer and think about "emotional durability." Will you enjoy wearing this thing five or even ten years from now? As much as you enjoyed wearing it on the first day? These four steps ... — Thinking about clothing as cultural language shaped by history — Collecting cultural images that inspire you, hopefully beyond Instagram influencers, fashion media, and celebrities — Paying attention to which clothes you love most in your wardrobe — Considering design and "emotional durability" when shopping ... will help you out of this problem. You will have a more coherent wardrobe and pieces you love wearing. Adding random things, focusing only on "physical quality" (a vague dimension), and playing around with color abstractly (t-shirts in blue, green, white, brown, etc.) will only exacerbate the problem.

Bill Furlong my love 😩🫶🏻

michi³⁰ᴵ⁰⁷ @gofckapineapple

3 hours ago

BILL 😭

1 5 57 852 6

Freshly married, flashing us a whole round ass ? Mr. Shelby , come on.

@lyricsmotions Oppenheimer

sitting so polite and waiting for pets 🥺✨

@Marharyta930 Yes 🤎

My comfort movie 🖤🤍🖤

ca ᥫ᭡ @cillianys

a day ago

iconic

3 23 290 3K 12

For about 10 years now, I have argued that the *only* way forward is for AI technology to be widely available, shared, and open. Like the printing press and the Internet, AI amplifies human intelligence and efficiency by improving access to knowledge. To empower individuals, societies require a high diversity of AI systems with different value systems, linguistic abilities, philosophical/political biases, and specific expertise. We need diverse AIs for same reason we need a diverse press. Given the cost and complexity, this can only be achieved through open foundation models on top of which anyone can build systems with their languages, biases, expertise, and value systems. I have been more vocal about this over the last 4 years, since AI popped into the public discourse. I have made the argument in various forums: corporate C-suites, AI safety discussion groups, professional meeting, the US Senate, the UN Security Council, and the public sphere through media interviews, podcasts and social media posts. I totally agree with @finkd Mark Zuckerberg's recent piece in which he writes: "the notion that AI is so dangerous that the only safe path is an extreme concentration of power seems inherently problematic. Historically, hoping that an absolute power will benevolently provide for humanity if sufficiently enlightened has not led to safe or positive outcomes.” When @DarioAmodei writes: “some may object that we can simply keep AIs in check with a balance of power between many AI systems, as we do with humans", he is talking about me, among (thankfully) many others. It is the only good path forward. There will be nefarious uses of AI, as there have been with every technology ever invented. But it will be your Bad AI against my Good AI.