Discover Top Posts Tagged with #ignoramus

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would briefly pause an operation to help escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, citing "

#blunderer #liar #ignoramus #malicious #trmp

The Trump administration’s miscalculation of Iran is the latest entry in an old and lethal tradition in international politics: the catastro

#trump’s war #trump’s delusional overconfidence #ignoramus

I just figured out the tumblr queue feature is built around the week so i should make my posts in the order of when they will be posted

#the more you know #I’m a idiot #a moron even #ignoramus

Playing baldi’s basics during my lunch

#its all i have #bitches hittin my line and i ignore em #ignoramus

What Happens When You Design With an LLM and Don't Know What You Are Doing

Autonomous systems are advancing faster than the operating systems that govern them. Today’s major kernels (Microsoft Windows, Apple, Googl

In figuring out what I was going to write about this; I went through a number of variations. I could absolutely spend many pages mocking just how terrible this is. I could also tell you with absolutely certainty that this guy is an ignoramus and a dilettante.

However, that isn't the most productive thing. What I want to talk about is what you should learn from this AI slop. Before we continue absolutely look at the LinkedIn link above. For more reference look here, here, here and here.

What all these have in common is:

They were generated by AI, and likely had little actual human editing.

They demonstrate that the person who made them and posted them doesn't understand even remotely the field they are "designing" for.

Delusions of grandeur as if an LLM is going to design the future generating the next most likely word, and all without you having to know anything.

Folks this is such a tragic site and such a tragic waste of time. I actually genuinely pity the person who made this.

Let's talk a little about the slop. The core principle seems to be this:

"That proof is enforced by a deterministic execution boundary called The Deterministic Ethics-Constrained State Transition Law, or DECTL. S(t+1) = f(S(t), I(t), R, E) with the constraint f(S(t), I(t), R) ∈ E"

What does all this mean? Loosely speaking this is supposed to derive a relation between state transitions available to an AI that are elements of the set E which is some sort of super set of "ethical" outcomes.

Let's consider this for a moment: how would you encode ethics or rules into a system that is as diversely capable as what people imagine "AI" to be? How would something that is intelligent be so easily boxed in? Think about if you applied this to a person? If that were possible, then people wouldn't find new ways to do bad things, or new bad things to do. Furthermore, this would equally apply to good things as well.

Ethics is not a set. You can't define the set of all ethical things as a formal mathematical idea. It is unlikely that there is some cognizable version of "E" here that you could apply–since the space of ethical behavior boarders on the infinite, and I suspect there is no common usable theme that could be converted into this set idea.

Furthermore, there is this idea of rules which makes me think that this idea is just an amalgamation of science fiction like Isaac Asimov's three rules of robotics and maybe a little safe AI nonsense.

The above equation seems to be the linchpin of this entire idea, and it's all based on AI slop. The justification for it comes from a paper that he "wrote", didn't publish and cited nobody else in the field in the writing of. There is no significant additional derivations or equations or anything. It is stated as important and true, and then the paper is filled with vague hand wavy claims to support that.

I don't advise reading the paper; it is 25 pages long and says about 4 pages worth of actual content. The "math" is just fake math that looks not particularly convincing if you know what you are doing–even remotely.

As far as I can tell this "OS" of his is vaporware. I see no evidence that anything has been built, and as an offered proof of his ignoramus status he provides us with this list of "modules":

"professional music hardware (keyboards, synthesizers, CDJs, mixers, DJ systems), loudspeaker and audio reproduction systems, aerospace and flight-control instrumentation, automotive navigation and safety controllers (V-CORE), industrial automation & robotics decision systems, immersive entertainment engines & holographic projection (PixelCore), consumer electronics and smart device controllers, deterministic cybersecurity and data firewalls (ZeroLeak), autonomous infrastructure routing & machine planning While many modules remain undisclosed, each one adheres to the same fundamental rule:"

Notice the last bit that I bolded. So all of these "inventions" are supposedly real, but many of them aren't products you can see or test the claims of. It is the ultimate flex for a person like this. They claim broad expertise and then say–well you can't see it right now. I would guess that none or almost none of these exists in any way, and if there is anything it's more LLM generated content.

Looking up ZeroLeak and V-CORE reveals some Facebook posts with screenshots of nothing that seems to work. Not even a video or a Github link–absolutely no evidence that these are anything other than imagined ideas with some sort of template code as the "product" all generated by a chatbot as an ego flex. All of these supposed ideas just materialized in last half of 2025. If any of this existed, then why is there not even video of the product at work? Why is it all static interfaces or made of charts and tables with nothing to prove their validity?

Honestly we are rapidly moving into self delusion boarding on a scam if he was asking for money.

Let's briefly talk about this OS he calls DAIOS. I think you likely get the point, but we will look quickly.

"All four kernels [Windows NT, MacOS, Linux, Android] excel at security, integrity, and resource control. They prevent tampering, enforce permissions, and keep systems stable under heavy and unpredictable workloads. They also share the same architectural assumption: execution is allowed whenever the code is trusted and the active policy permits it. What they do not provide is a deterministic, mathematical test of whether a system state should be allowed to exist before it becomes real."

This quote perfectly summarizes the idea and the utter silliness it represents. The very nature of this system assume that you know the answer before the question is asked, or that there is ethical content in small moves–which isn't always the case. For example: I am writing text in a text editor. That is devoid of "ethical" content. However, depending on the content I write and what it is for that changes the game. The issue here, if you didn't detect it, is that this guy uses "ethics" to mean general right and wrong which is sort of correct, but classically ethics is a philosophical study of the "good".

This idea that good is a set of rules and set is an imaginary world that isn't the shades of gray we actually deal with. It also doesn't account for eureka moments or new situations. As discussed before with the "equation" this idea is based on simplistic view of reality and a total misunderstanding of "AI" and what it means in the context of humans and computers. This is not problem of needing to mathematically prove that this is good or bad. The issue is with LLMs, as with all technology, is how people use it, and that you can't define a moral superset for it, because not all ends are knowable.

Even basic things such as how operating systems work are misunderstood:

"The kernel decides whether code may run. It does not decide whether the result of that execution should be allowed to exist."

As stated this is just false. Even if you loosely interpret it–it is still false. The kernel isn't the only bit of the OS that has a say if something happens. Also this distinction of "should exist" is meaningless. If the kernel or some other program blocks execution, then by definition the result doesn't exist.

This is the last bit I am going to bother with. There isn't any technical detail to pick apart and the "OS" doesn't exist and never will.

"Modern AI systems such as LLMs, deep neural networks, predictive models, are built on probabilistic math. They hallucinate. They drift. They can be manipulated through prompts, training data, or subtle adversarial signals. DAIOS rejects this entire paradigm. The Problem With Probabilistic AI – Outputs vary each time – Reasoning cannot be shown step-by-step – Models depend on centralized cloud GPUs – Systems cannot guarantee safety in mission-critical environments – Ethical auditing becomes impossible The DAIOS Solution: DAIOS makes machine reasoning: Deterministic, Explainable, Ethical, Local, Governable, Reproducible, Legally accountable"

So let's spend some time breaking down just how much misunderstanding went into this AI slop.

The reason that LLMs hallucinate isn't specifically because they are statistical. LLMs hallucinate because they don't deal with uncertainty and they treat every problem as semantic. When you don't understand the content and try to solve the problem as a matter of putting the right words together by definition what you are going to get out is going to be suspect and highly variable in quality. The reason is that there is infinite nuance in answering questions and much of that nuance is not something that you can semantically fiddle your way into. The most probable set of words for question X may be correct, but a slight variation of X may get a similar set of words and be wrong, and that's because the variation takes the answer out of the most probable.

LLMs share susceptibility to manipulation in common with humans and other man made technology. There is an entire field of assured computation and how to make reliable systems that don't do things you don't want. This is not a new problem. Highly secure systems is an ever evolving field since the threat is ever evolving. However, this claim that you can prevent an LLM from being manipulated is no more realistic than saying that about people. Influence and manipulation can take near infinite forms and there isn't a general principle that they all share. Therefore, systems to prevent manipulation always fail due to the fact that there is always a new way to manipulate.

He then strays into claims of cloud GPUs being part of the problem. Which is vaguely true, but of course most people don't have the ability to run a trillion plus parameter LLMs in their house, or whatever an actual AI is likely to require computationally–seems unlikely to be a common computer on your desk or even in possible racks in your basement. In fact this problem of secure LLM interaction is actively being worked on. Look at Apple's Private Cloud Compute, or Proton's Lumo or the new work from Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike. Even a quick read of these would have told this guy that he is wrong. Secure cloud compute is a real problem and there are real solutions. What they have in common is that they are real things that are built by people who understand the field and aren't off in the clutches of an LLM and its wish fulfillment capabilities.

Finally we get to this idea of "ethical" auditing. I won't waste more time talking about that and the impossibility of such a venture. Instead let's just focus on how this guy transforms this into his favorite list of buzz words with no effort to explain how. Probably because he doesn't know, won't know and it is just a big fantasy that he put on the internet. It's hard to take seriously this sort of thing when the follow up details talk about assigning each computation a justification, mathematical chain, and transparent reasoning path. I don't know what this means? So I am going to write a text document, but to do so I need to have a justification for the as of now unknown final output, a mathematical chain (maybe math bling?) and a transparent reasoning path again I don't know what that means. It is just more of the same I need to know the answer before asking the question. Which has worked exactly never unless you only plan to do what has been done before exactly, and never anything new no matter the circumstances.

Really you can summarize everything I have said as this is what happens when you know nothing about a field. You then ask an LLM to fulfill your wish and produce a "product" and then think you've solved everything because your view and understanding is so painfully myopic that the grain of sand you know is your whole world, and never once do you allow actual learning or knowledge to intrude on your fake reality.

Here is the bottomline folks: don't do this. This the saddest flex and the dumbest way to stroke your ego. Also this is a sure-fire way to make yourself a laughing stock. Doing real work and inventing real things is hard. It takes work, knowledge, commitment, and is only accomplished by people who understand that sitting in front of an LLM for some wish fulfillment fantasy of yourself as a master inventor is just lame and delusional. Don't be that guy, and don't do this. Now that you've read this remember the lesson, and forget the project because it will never amount to anything.

#opinion #ai #llm #delusional people #ignoramus

Are you an Ignoramus or an Agnostic, you may be both

The Latin equivalent of the word agnostic is ignoramus. Ignoramus is a Latin term meaning “we do not know” or “we are ignorant.” It is derived from the Latin verb ignorare, meaning “to not know.” The term agnostic comes from the Greek agnōstos, meaning “unknown” or “unknowable,” combining the prefix a- (not) with gnosis (knowledge). The connection between agnostic and ignoramus stems from…

#agnostic #ignoramus

#Trump #ignoramus #idiocy

...walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness...

Ephesians 4:17-19

#futile devices #mindless #ignoramus #the callous daoboys #greedy belly