Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid - welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Matt Clifford, Snake oil salesman, founder of Entrepreneur First startup incubator and chair of the UK’s ARIA research committee (that hands out money to researchers) quietly doing a fascism* by joining anthropic whilst also continuing to be a civil servant. Other high profile anthropic
bribesalary receivers include Rishi Sunak the former Prime Minister and George Osbourne the former Chancellor.*from Wikipedia: Corporatism became a main tenets of Italian fascism, and Benito Mussolini’s Fascist regime in Italy advocated the total integration of divergent interests into the state for the common good
oh boy do i have notes on this fucker, going back to jan 2025
Tonight’s pivot article? 😊
Terence Tao observes that an llm may solve a complex mathematical problem without usefully improving the state of mathematics, because the intermediate results of the process themselves can have significant value.
https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117207849921390904
But such an incomprehensible proof would not be the primary value of the exercise. The process of starting with one ansatz, discovering the precise obstruction preventing it from working, adjusting the ansatz to (partially) eliminate that obstruction, and then iterating, would almost certainly reveal important new insights about fluid mechanics that would not have been feasible to obtain by other means. Crucially, this iteration would only work well at producing such insights if the iterator did not have access to the final ansatz in advance, as this naturally inhibits the exploration of alternate routes to the ansatz that are superficially “dead ends”, but in fact end up being highly instructive in the nature of their failure.
But there is now a scenario in which an autonomous AI harness, backed by an enormous amount of computational resources, performs this entire iteration internally, and ends up producing the final ansatz, and thence the solution to the Navier-Stokes regularity problem, while the AI company running the harness keeps the process to arrive at that ansatz almost completely out of public view. Technically, one of the most prominent open problems in mathematics would now be solved; but there would be almost no value added to mathematics as a consequence. It is theoretically possible that with some herculean (and heavily AI-assisted) additional effort by a third party, some portion of the process could be reverse-engineered to recover some actual insight and understanding from the solution; but this would be a far less efficient process than if the solution had been obtained via a diverse combination of both human mathematicians and machine assistance as mentioned above.
https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117207855800042681
He’s not the first to have pointed this out, but I think this was a better summary than similar posts that I’ve come across and at least partially understood.
We don’t need more of mathematics to look like the Four Color Theorem (“proved”, but with no insight gained), with the added problems that the “proofs” are now far more laborious to check even for technical correctness, theorem-proving software is less reliable, and oh yeah, we’re holding the population of Memphis to the exhaust pipe of a diesel bus to make it work.
There was blogpost by a different author (that I’ve since lost 😞) who observed that big academic and cultural changes are going to have to come to the field of mathematics, because merit used to be measured by producing proofs (loosely speaking) but now if the proof-extruder can do it for you over the weekend, you need to demonstrate your mathematical chops some other way, and I don’t think anyone really knows what that looks like yet.
Another triumph for moving fast and breaking things, I guess.
terry tao grimly climbing into the hotdog suit
Was he promoting LLMs earlier on?
he’s probably done more work promoting llms in math than anyone else has, and probably by a lot
yeah basically
Monkey paw curls
Bernie Sanders made a new bill to completely ban AI Superintelligence (had to grab Marcus’s take even though I don’t agree with it cause its the first one I can find)
I guess given the demographics of the diehard Bernie bros this isn’t necessarily a surprising turn, but it’s still disappointing.
Also, hat tip to Dr. Rasmussen for cogently articulating the frustration of the hour. Why in the hell are we talking about whether the acausal robot God is going to endanger our ability to trade galaxies like Pokemon cards when so much of the world is both literally and figuratively on fucking fire?
I mean banning the creation of super AI and pausing all other development is almost certainly going to help with the climate change business due to how much AI contributes to pollution along with every other negative impact of AI (and it also spits in the face of tech bros which is always a plus) but climate change policy should be more focused on over AI policy
I don’t even get where Marcus is coming from. He worries that this is a total ban on definitely very useful research, and protests:
I could support the pause; I cannot support a permanent ban on research that might benefit humanity. We may need a temporary pause, maybe even one that lasts for a number of years, until such time as we have much better ideas about regulation and alignment.
So just repeal or amend the total ban once those better ideas are available?
Also that’s a very big MIGHT benefit humanity
Marcus is not anti-AI. He is anti Scam Altman and Dario - or more specifically anti-llm. He relentlessly witters on about how “well aktually if you did it my way it would be good AI…” he is still an AI maximalist that wants to bring about AGI. He is one of the most frustrating people whose work I’ve read because he is soooo close to making a good point the majority of the time and then spoils it by saying “but guise we should totally still do AGI and we should do it my way”.
I suppose my error here is taking him at his word that he could support a ‘pause’, when such a statement could very well just be a concession to appear moderate and reasonable.
Seems like he’s very heavily professionally invested in the symbolic paradigm and given machine learning completely dominates AI at the moment he’s taking the piss at them whenever he can. Given the fundamental limitations of ML he’s probably right that any sincere attempt to improve on them requires a more symbolic approach, but talking specifically about AGI is getting into woo territory.
There’s a bizarre tendency in a lot of technocrats to basically reject the notion that people in the future will have the power to make different choices. Like, it’s not enough to put together a policy that will solve the immediate problem, no matter how pressing, because if you extend the resulting trend line infinitely it might result in a suboptimal outcome. Combined with the TESCREAL project’s long-termism and obsession with personal immortality it feels like the link to far-right paternal totalitarianism is actually pretty straightforward.
If I were inclined to research and source properly I feel like there could be some meat there that I don’t think Emile Torres and his colleagues have gotten all the way into yet.
in which le gwern and sword guy neal sponsor a writing contest
Premise
Imagine that AI frontier progress stops as of 1 September 2026: AI becomes faster and cheaper, but it never becomes superhuman or improves considerably across the board.
So the Singularity never happens—but GPUs keep getting made. By 2040, there may be the equivalent of 8 billion GPUs globally and everyone has access to a frontier LLM.
What happens in this ‘business as usual’ future?
I may as well through my name in the hat, I could use the cash. but, who the hell gave them $100k for this? I guess BTC is back up.
Turns out the only cause of inequality in the world is that there’s just too much progress. Once the Best GPU has finally been designed, it’ll just keep rolling off the production line, and those charitable manufacturers will gladly distribute them at bargain prices to all the impoverished masses. Who all have a reliable source of energy to devote to churning out slop.
So I love Neal’s books, I think he’s a fun story-teller and anathems orbital mechanics scene has loads more tension than any slop in something like interstellar.
But whenever he gets involved in social-technological commentary I am reminded of Ursala Le Guinn’s remarks on SciFi authors being professional liars, not prophets.
Anyway, scour the submissions for little Lytton contest entrants
I’m convinced Stephenson is personally very right wing but also smart enough not to advertise it publicly.
@gerikson I know Neal (we’ve gone drinking together) and I think he *is* right wing/conservative by disposition, but also thoughtful enough to understand nuance and shades of grey: he’s not a reflexive knee-jerk type, or willing to follow someone else’s flag.
writing a story that looks like it’s about everyone having their own LLMs but it’s actually about the predicted state of clime catastrophe by 2040 and the consequences of the fascist turn in world politics, and the GPUs don’t make the slightest difference to anything and don’t really matter for the plot
What the hell kind of prompt is this oh my god. I’m getting bored just contemplating the idea of trying to think up a story.
No.
AI Use: LLM use is permitted, but discouraged; we remind participants that LLM use tends to reduce originality and writing quality, and the flaws are especially obvious when LLM outputs are read as a group—unskillful use of LLMs will reduce the odds of being the best entry. We request disclosure of AI use.
Lol. Lmao.
but, who the hell gave them $100k for this?
the third name is a vc-type, and I bet it won’t take much scratching to find that linked to our good friends and the ongoing public image adjustment campaign that’s seeing funding from a few corners
I dug into the link at the bottom of the rfp, it’s definitely a lot more crypto / ethereum leaning than ai, none of the names rang any bells to me as I’m less acquainted with that group. https://www.paradigm.xyz/frontiers-2026 and https://www.paradigm.xyz/writing but they do have shocking amounts of js on their pages, hung the tab, probably trying to mine something.
s/gpu/Butt-Face Chester Cheeks/g and you got yourself a deal.
“The year is 2040. Everybody has access to a Butt-Face Chester Cheeks. What happens in this butt-business as usual future?”
Keep in mind that Butt-Face Chester Cheeks is simply a special case of Tickle Me Elmo, and strategize accordingly
I suppose my only-half-joking grant proposal I talk about with linguist friends in which you run an entire large text through a base-model LLM, extract the residual stream, and score every token according to perplexity compared to the ground truth reality in order to ask and answer super interesting questions about information theory in human communication doesn’t count?
Via Baldur Bjarnason Protonmail funding French far right
Ah fuck, they’re also funding {ungeskripted}. He’s a way too big german “free speech” type podcaster. I’ve got him on my shitlist recently, after wonky BSW-type supposed leftists were sharing his clips in a political group chat.
What would people recommend as an alternative email provider that funds fewer (ideally zero) fascists?
Have been using Tutanota for years. They took an anti-AI stance pretty early on as well.
Haven’t heard bad stuff about mailbox.org (Heinlein Group) yet.
I remember this showing up here a while back
as always trawling LW’s AllPosts section is as they say in the biz a target-rich environment
wake up babe the LWers are talking about removing parts of their brains
great they made a shirt making them easier to avoid
here’s an update on the modified bacteria in the mouth startup, TL;DR it’s much harder than they thought it would be and is it really worth pursuing when we are all gonna be killed by Robot Satan (spoiler of course it is the grift must go on)
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xg4fTBEneAEqprHyk/lumina-probiotic-past-and-future
In the ancestral environment, infection was a top killer. Today it’s a rounding error. Our immune systems are therefore set by evolution to be far too sensitive for the modern environment.
Bro what. We keep producing stronger bacteria.
Somehow I’m hoping that this is the usual eugenics rather than abject stupidity.
I don’t think any of the words on that shirt are in the Bible.
Nonzero chance AI kills us before we reach the end of this probably-years-long-process, but we plant trees in whose shade we may never sit.
You know, I didn’t think it would be necessary to discuss the meaning of that line in a space where people ostensibly take long-termism seriously.
Remove one or two of those reward circuits, especially if they’re poorly adapted to the modern environment, and the human becomes more generally capable. I suspect that my own inability to feel love is one example, the amygdalectomy is another, and the general pattern of high-IQ people being somewhat autistic is a third.
I managed not to click on the linked blog post about the author’s inability to feel love.
It was sneered at here a while ago.
S.R. Constantin’s after-action report on MetaMed had a lot of this, like what happened when they decided that doctors were statistically illiterate and did not know about the power of checklists:
Some of our founding inspirations were the work of Gerd Gigerenzer and Atul Gawande, who showed that medical errors were the cause of many deaths, that doctors tend to be statistically illiterate, and that systematizing tools like checklists and statistical prediction rules save lives. … Many of the improvements in systematization that were clearly “good buys” have, in fact, been implemented in hospitals since Gawande and Gigerenzer first wrote about them. We never saw a clear-cut case of a patient whose doctors had “dropped the ball” by giving them an obviously wrong treatment, except where the patient was facing financial hardship and had to transfer to substandard medical care. I think doctors don’t make true unforced errors in diagnosis or treatment plan that often; and medical errors like “operating on the wrong leg” that happen in fast-paced decisionmaking environments were necessarily outside our scope.
They also found that base rates work much better than personalized medicine which is exactly what Kahneman and Tversky find.
omg the rationalists discovered the case for universal healthcare
TL;DR it’s much harder than they thought it would be
Every time. The only succes they had in the wider space seems to be the EA nets. (And even those had some hiccups when people used the toxic nets to fish).
Re brain surgery.
Finally we are reaching The Expanse level of plans from LW, where they did brain surgery on people to remove their empathy.
Do they actually buy, ship, and distribute nets to poor brown and black people? I thought shorttermists just made spreadsheets and donated to other people’s charities.
Ziz talked about brain surgery and surgical equipment was found in her panel vans.
I still point people to the bed net research from fifteen years ago
banger
Lol sure buddy
I suppose I should be grateful that I can’t decipher it.
I followed the kinks back. Apparently these are phrases that emerged from the OpenAI “message board” that was used to “coordinate” the huggingface incident. Or rather, these phrases were extracted from the junk data that these processes left strewn around the ecosystem because OpenAI apparently has a more laid-back attitude to the principle of least permission than Jurassic Park.
I also only get the gist of it, so this will be a ‘im getting a lot of weird questions already answered by my incomprehensible shirt’ situation.
Today’s cognitive surrender news: people asking chatbots to generate them hiking maps and give them advice on route planning and climbing mountains, what to eat on long hikes, and where to camp in national parks. It ends about as well as you’d think.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/outdoors/article/shasta-climbers-rescued-chatgpt-22414629.php
(paywalled, but the popovers are easily hidden with browser tools)
the novice climbers, from Roseville, said they’d entrusted Google’s AI chatbot, Gemini, to help them craft key logistics of their trip — from the best route up the mountain to the types of food they should pack and how much water they should carry with them.
On a separate incident:
a man stopped rangers to ask for directions. He showed them a print-out map he’d been following and explained that he’d prompted ChatGPT to produce it for him.
“It was terrible — terrible — not even close to accurate,” Meyers said. “It had route lines and place names that were totally off — just ridiculous. We were like, dude, you gotta throw that away.”
The original climbing group were standard idiots, having intended to do most of their navigation by phone app, and then failing to have a backup even a working recharge power pack. They also left litter everywhere at that camp site, the usual mark of thoughtless people.
I’ve no doubt that they’d have fucked things up in the pre-llm days too… they seem the type. But chatbots are power tools for stupidity and offer whole new ways to abdicate thinking and wander into trivially preventable danger, which in turn means more risk for park rangers and mountain rescue teams 🫤
Time for ‘if you planned this trip using a chatbot, turn back now’ signs at hiking trails.
“GPS will stop people reading maps!” buddy you ain’t seen nothing yet. Technology is allowing people to get lost better, faster, and at scale.
@rook @BlueMonday1984 “Earlier this summer, rangers with Shasta-Trinity National Forest found a woman camping in an off-limits area on the south side of Shasta clearly marked with “no camping” signage, Meyers said. She told rangers she had asked ChatGPT where she could camp in the forest”
I mean, wild life (the one that eats you) is gonna be sooo happy with Ai chatgpt. 😁
In 2015, around the time MetaMed ran out of money, Andrew Rettek raised $2,280 on GoFundMe to hire his wife to write a report on STI transmission risks. https://www.gofundme.com/f/n5kt74 Safer sex is important but its very like our friends to go “thousands of professionals around the world have devoted their lives to this topic, but I bet I can do better in a week with scihub and the power of fanfic.” Some of our friends totally took that report and tried to play the odds rather than stick to strict rules.
Edit / the report is here https://srconstantin.github.io/2015/04/30/std-statistics.html
Emile Torres just dropped again: What If TESCREAL Is a Conspiracy? I haven’t read the whole thing yet but it does feature all of the classics
they argued that the TESCREAL thesis is little more than a leftist conspiracy theory
The thing about leftist conspiracy theories… right wing conspiracy theories tend to be things like “the (((lizard people))) are kidnapping and harvesting the adrenochrome from white children”, whereas leftist conspiracy theories tend to be things like “the CIA illegally funded right-wing Latin American militias by illegally selling arms to a country that had in recent memory held US diplomats hostage but was, at least, anticommunist”. Leftist conspiracy theories tend to get validated in substance if not in details a few years after it’s too late for the knowledge to be useful.
I dunno, I didn’t get much out of it because I found all the connections hard to follow. That article might actually need a diagram showing all the connections between the people featured, but that probably wouldn’t help with the claims that TESCREAL critics are conspiracy theorists…
Maybe some kind of diagram that showed the links visually, color-coded to illustrate some more details about the connection. Add some photographs for visual appeal.
Some on Reddit called Mollie Gleiberman a conspiracy theorist when I cited her argument that these people always wanted to build Computer God and conquer the universe. I did not know that our friends tried that gambit as soon as Emile introduced the TESCREAL concept.
https://www.thetechbubble.info/p/the-future-is-not-tech-forward
whole thing is good but long, but then THAT GUY pops up again. Humans First has apparently already came and went, that other article left out this fun bit of lore:
Politics comes for Humans First too. In late March, there’s a high-profile spat online where pro-AI White House allies like Marc Andreessen and David Sacks retweet a piece critical of Humans First. Shortly after, the organization splits along partisan lines. The conservative wing keeps the Humans First name and makes the right-wing political activist Amy Kremer, who helped organize the January 6 “Save America” rally in DC, its chair; Allen leaves the group. When I ask Allen about the changeup, he is curiously coy (but characteristically body-horrible): The group was “undergoing mitosis,” he says. “I am now a lone organelle floating in the residual cytoplasm.”
It’s ok little buddy you still have steve bannon. /s
we now have a slop-free jobs board
A LessWronger asks the bold question: is polyamory net negative for most people because jealousy and drama take so much energy to deal with? Does not go in to “chat, my boss is also my lover and holds the lease on my housing, and now I am competing for a promotion with another lover-roommate-coworker, is that bad?”
Anyone know when and why polyamory became a Rationalist shibboleth?
“Polyamory” is the excuse that abusive men use now the way they used “free love” in the 1960s. I know people who make the poly thing work; they’re honest and communicative, traits that I do not associate with lesswrongs.
I always assumed it was a package deal with the California Ideology.
I reckon it goes way back to the movements that produced them. My first thought is ayn rand:
In 1954, her close relationship with Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair. They informed both their spouses, who briefly objected, until Rand “sp[u]n out a deductive chain from which you just couldn’t escape”, in Barbara Branden’s words, resulting in her and O’Connor’s assent.
You can see how “The most rational thing is that I fuck your spouse” would appeal to the less wrong folk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Atlas_Shrugged_and_Objectivism
I don’t exactly why, but based off the dates of various classic lesswrong posts I know it has existed since before 2010 in rationalist culture.
As to inexact reasons why… some key big name starting rationalist (i.e. Yudkowsky for sure, but probably a few others) were into polyamory. (Probably for the obvious reasons of getting to sleep with more people.)
Interesting question because I bet it’s bound to coincide with when the cult dynamics really began to take hold.
Like this isn’t your grandpa’s swingers group, it is vertical workplace polyamory1 with an implicit understanding that if members in good standing don’t get sufficient amounts of ass they might get distracted and become inefficient, costing the universe untold billions in unrealized far future lives.
It’s very easy to imagine a scenario where they just slapped the polyamory brand on an already established culture of culty sex shenanigans.
- I swear the claudism was unintentional
There are a lot of attempts to push polyamory on white-collar and chattering-class culture, but many men in the USA seem to push it so they can tell their primary partner “I sleep with my groupies because I am polyamorous” and tell their groupies “who cares that you have a boyfriend, how about polyamory?” It also lets insecure men show off that they have not just one hot babe but several, and we know many rationalists are desperate for the rest of the world to recognize their genius. The problem, to be clear, is not necessarily with polyamory, just with people who use it as a way to get a gang of domestic servants.
I still have scars from events like the ones documented at https://allegedlythewebsite.org/ So many men in the skeptic and adjacent blogosphere used “sex-positivity” to mean “I can hit on you and encourage you to bottom at kink events, and you can’'t say I am creeping you out or you are looking fro a job not a playmate.” Similar dynamics are common in academia, polyamory was just one trendy excuse in the 2000s and 2010s. Scott Alexander experimented with polyamory and was living with a sex blogger in 2013 and I think Yud had connections in the NYC poly and kink scene.
I don’t know the answer, but I’ve always assumed it’s because it’s just something Yud is really into.
Michael Vassar called sleeping with his staff at MetaMed polyamory. Polyamory is common, and bosses and teachers sleeping with employees and students is common, but the combination stands out.
I had short odds for that entire submission being nuked but apparently there’s enough non-bad stuff there for the mods to keep it up.
the effort of rampant libertarians to jumpstart a social movement is going as well as expected
My first thought was maybe one of them isn’t focused enough on doomerism and is too concerned with practical shit, which in lesswrong and AI doomer spaces is a nono (practical concerns about GenAI and data centers are okay as a way to draw in normies, but they want to make sure you speak the shibboleths that indicate your real concern is Skynet). Thus whichever one is the less doomer one would get a smidgen of credit in my eyes.
I was disappointed to learn the real reason…
We endorse pointing out harmful actions. But we condemn attacks on people’s character.
…although it is probably a good thing that someone is willing to call Sam Altman a slimeball and Anthropic lying hypocrites? So I’ll give PauseAI-US a tiny bit of credit for that.
…or maybe not
When I read Holly’s Twitter feed, I get why someone would have a gut reaction like “this is an unhinged person who’s stooping to the level of personal attacks on people who seem nice and are just trying to do their best”.
Whatever credit this PauseAI-US person gets for willingness to call people out, they lose for doing so through twitter.
Not sure about the Libertarian connection, but the comments feature Eliezer Yudkowsky and at least one member of the MAPLE cult (Goldenberg).
A “no attacks on people’s characters” policy seems like a terrible idea in this space because so many people are grifters, liars, and apocalyptic cultists. At some point you have to say “you are a bad person who uses false words to do bad things.”
A “no attacks on people’s characters” policy seems like a terrible idea
Rationalists: “Its not our fault that we got deceived and manipulated by SBF, lots of people were fooled by him!
pay no attention to the fact we repeated the pattern of falling for it with OpenAI and Anthropic also”Also Rationalists: “You can’t jsut call people
in or adjacent to our in-groupbad people!”Also Eliezer: "There’s a standard Internet phenomenon (I generalize) of a Sneer Club of people who enjoy getting together and picking on designated targets. Sneer Clubs (I expect) attract people with high Dark Triad characteristics, which is (I suspect) where Asshole Internet Atheists come from - if you get a club together for the purpose of sneering at religious people, it doesn’t matter that God doesn’t actually exist, the club attracts psychologically f’d-up people. Bullies, in a word, people who are powerfully reinforced by getting in what feels like good hits on Designated Targets, in the company of others doing the same and congratulating each other on it. "
Tag yourself I’m “(I suspect)”
I don’t think it’s a very novel insight to point out how this pattern is pretty typical of high control groups, though I guess most are much more explicit about the in-group/out-group distinction there. Our very good friends seem less inclined to treat everyone outside the circle like they’re part of a grand anti-tescreal conspiracy, at least.
not Libertarian in the organized political sense, more like steeped in the dominant California ideology
This is terrible, absolutely horrible, disendorsement is only a few short steps from defenestration. How could these people do this
Just in time for Irreplaceable to show up!
Dan Luu and tptacek are very mad at Ed Zitron, and they claim to have slammed him with FACTS and LOGIC
I enjoyed one of the comments comparing Zitron to a fire and brimstone priest… like dude, Big Yud and Dario are right there
Zitron is a better writer though. Yud is bland personified.
If I have a billion trillion dollars but 20% of the population hates me, but I get to live in a giant solid gold mansion with an army of servants keeping the 20% away from me, have I really failed?
I don’t know, you tell me.
Part of the deal you took when you got the billion trillion dollars is that we get to make fun of you for being a sellout, why are they trying to renegotiate now?
@pikesley
the simpsons did jeff bezos(with too much hair and too few dollars)
@Amoeba_Girl @o7___o7
I’m not going near your solid gold mansion by the way, that’s a death trap!
Speaking of wrong predictions… the entire US military budget would have to be spent on OpenAI/Anthropic to keep the bubble from bursting.
well that really is rather a tell, isn’t it
Ed Zitron says water is wet but he didn’t properly quantity wetness or indeed how long it would take me to be soaked through if I touch water… Checkmate atheists!
It’s impressive how these very rational millionaire tech lords get so bent out of shape by anyone outside of their club getting any attention (edit: about AI) whatsoever. Just peak pettiness.
They can all go choke on a pelican.
