To honor the newly approved storytelling style of the show I hereby declare the following:
Chloé is doing wonderfully in London. She is studying at a Private School, focusing on remedial courses while taking dance and beekeeping. She has a new cohort of friends and is adjusting well, if a little gunshy, now that her father is no longer a part of her life. The alt-Chloé who returned to Paris is actually a sentimonster. Felix let Noé make one in exchange for the Kingdom leaving Amilie alone.
AAAaa- I'm so proud of this one! I wanted to try out a different style, and I think it looks neat :3 I kind of thought it was both interesting and terrifying how often Shiro changes throughout the show and how most of it happens against his will, but I also thinks that's what makes him such a good character, cause he just keeps going.
hello leftist. in front of you is the state of israel. your challenge is to not use its governmental wrongdoings to slsnder the name of random israeli citizens or the jewish people as a whole. your time starts now
do not forget the patron saint of these weeks that we celebrate ourselves proudly and openly in the streets
her name was Marsha P Johnson, and we have her to thank for so much.
remember, the first Pride was a riot, and she was one of the brave souls who endured it to help carve the path which so many of us walk today. she helped found several activist groups regarding LGBT safety and wellbeing. and she was absolutely radiant, too.
Ohh, so I was looking at my storage and found these! I originally shared them on twitter before yeeting the platform. Anyway, feel free to use! Art memes for your oc :D
Thought crimes of course aren’t real but uh. We know those aren’t just thoughts anymore once you’ve posted them publicly, yeah?
Then they’re just crimes.
sure, fictional crimes since nothing happened and no one was hurt. should we put the fictional handcuffs on? "sorry, you wrote about murder which is illegal, go spend 20 years in mind jail"
To the best of my knowledge, the only two "it was a thought until you wrote it down but now it's a crime" actual crimes are libel and incitement.
Allow me to explain: libel is the written defamation of someone's character with a view toward causing them professional or social damage (in the US, this defamation must be false; in the UK, iirc being significantly damaging is enough). So if I'm looking at a photo of Ted Cruz and thinking "someday we're going to find out this fucker likes little kids way too much," that's a thought. If I write "every time I look at Ted Cruz I have the sneaking feeling he's involved in CSA and I'm not sure if I'm getting an actual vibe or if I just hate him that much," I'm relaying my personal opinion. But if I write an essay about how Ted Cruz is definitely involved in CSA and release it a couple of weeks before an election where his seat is up, and there is no proof whatsoever that he's involved in CSA*, I am very clearly trying to damage his reputation and ability to win the election by making a horrific false claim. That is illegal.
The other one, incitement, is when you try to cause violence by speaking or writing about it. The bar on this one is extremely high (consider that Donald Trump's speech on January 6th was found to be not incitement), so this example probably wouldn't hold up in court, but as an extremely simplified version: let's say I've been cut off in traffic by a snowbird again. I lay on the horn and yell "fucking MASSHOLE!!" at nobody in particular. That's me venting frustration. If I come on my blog and write a post about how people from Massachusetts need to learn how to drive, that's also venting frustration. But if I write an essay calling for people to go out on X date and ram any car they see that has a Massachusetts license plate, now it's a crime.
You're going to notice the issue here is when ACTUAL REAL HARM is done, not when I said mean words or wrote a story where a guy got pushed out of a helicopter.
Y'all really care more about blorbos than real people and it's gonna bite you in the ass.
*ask an actual lawyer for the details on what would happen if, say, no proof existed and my words were found libelous but then later it turned out I was right. I don't know what would happen in that case.
Text of tweet under the cut because it is loooong.
But... Stochastic Parrots.
Timnit Gebru was fired from Google in December 2020 for refusing to retract a research paper, and every single warning that paper made about large language models has now happened at a scale the industry spent 4 years trying to make people forget about.
Her name is Timnit Gebru.
She co-led the Ethical AI team at Google. She co-wrote a paper called "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" with Emily Bender at the University of Washington and two other researchers. The paper was 14 pages long. It was submitted to a top AI ethics conference. And it was the reason Google decided that one of the most senior Black women in AI research could no longer work there.
The story Google told publicly was that she resigned. The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email while on vacation because she refused to either retract the paper or remove her name from it.
The paper had not even been published yet.
Here is what she actually wrote, and why every prediction inside it has now come true.
The first warning was about scale itself. Bender and Gebru argued that training ever-larger models on ever-larger scrapes of the internet would produce systems that appeared fluent but had no actual understanding of language. They called these systems stochastic parrots because they would repeat patterns from training data with statistical confidence and zero comprehension. The paper predicted that this apparent intelligence would fool both users and developers into trusting outputs that were structurally incapable of being reliable.
This was 2020. GPT-3 had just come out. The paper predicted the hallucination problem before anyone had a word for it.
The second warning was about bias amplification. The paper documented in detail that internet-scale training data contains systematic overrepresentation of dominant viewpoints and underrepresentation of marginalized ones. The models would not just absorb this bias. They would amplify it, because the optimization process rewards confident outputs, and confidence in language patterns tracks frequency in the training set.
The prediction was that hiring tools built on these models would discriminate against women. That healthcare triage tools would underperform on Black patients. That loan approval systems would entrench inequality while presenting their decisions as neutral algorithmic judgment.
Every one of those things has now been documented in deployment.
Amazon's hiring algorithm penalized resumes that contained the word "women" in any context. Healthcare risk scoring algorithms used by major US hospitals were found to systematically underestimate the medical needs of Black patients. Apple Card's credit algorithm gave wives credit lines 10x lower than their husbands for the same financial profile.
The third warning was about environmental cost. The paper calculated that training a single large language model produced emissions equivalent to the lifetime output of 5 cars. The prediction was that the race to scale would create an environmental footprint that would eventually rival entire industries.
In 2024, Google's emissions were up 48% from 2019, and the company explicitly blamed AI infrastructure. Microsoft's were up 29%, same reason. Both companies have now quietly abandoned the climate commitments they were publicly celebrating the year Gebru was fired.
The fourth warning was about documentation. The paper argued that the training datasets being assembled were too large for anyone to actually audit. Nobody at Google, OpenAI, Meta, or any other lab could tell you with confidence what was in the data their models were trained on. This was not a temporary problem to be solved later. It was a permanent feature of the approach.
In 2023, researchers discovered that the LAION-5B dataset, used to train Stable Diffusion and other major image models, contained thousands of images of child sexual abuse material. The companies that had trained on the dataset had no way of knowing. The paper predicted that category of failure 3 years before it was found.
The fifth warning was the one Google cared about most.
Bender and Gebru argued that the deployment of these systems would centralize linguistic and cultural power in the hands of the small number of companies that could afford to train them. The internet would become a place where the dominant voice was a statistical average of dominant voices, presented as a neutral assistant. Languages underrepresented in the training data would degrade over time as more web content was generated by these systems and fed back into the next training run.
This is now happening in real time. A 2024 study found that 57% of new web content in English is AI-generated or AI-assisted. Researchers studying low-resource languages have documented active degradation in translation quality, because the synthetic content fed back into training is itself worse in those languages.
The paper Google fired her for predicted the model collapse problem before model collapse had a name.
The mechanism behind why this all happened is the part of her work that nobody quotes.
Gebru's argument was not that AI is dangerous in some abstract sci-fi sense. Her argument was that AI is dangerous in a very specific structural sense. The technology was being built by a small group of researchers who shared similar backgrounds, worked at similar companies, and were rewarded for shipping products faster than competitors. The incentive structure made it impossible for safety, ethics, and bias concerns to slow anything down. Anyone inside the system who raised those concerns was either ignored, sidelined, or removed.
She was making that argument from inside Google.
Then Google proved her right by removing her.
The team Google had built to make sure their AI was safe was dismantled in 90 days because they did the job they had been hired to do. Margaret Mitchell, the other co-lead of the Ethical AI team, was fired two months after Gebru for searching through her own emails for evidence of how Gebru had been treated.
Gebru did not stop. She founded DAIR, the Distributed AI Research Institute, in 2021. The mission is to do AI research outside the control of the companies that have a financial interest in not hearing the answers.
Every prediction in the Stochastic Parrots paper has now been validated by deployment. Hallucinations are an industry-wide problem the largest labs cannot solve. Bias amplification has been documented in hiring, healthcare, lending, and criminal justice. Environmental costs are larger than entire small countries. Training data audits remain impossible. Model collapse is an active research crisis at every major lab.
The question worth sitting with is the one almost no one in the industry will say out loud.
Every researcher with the technical credibility to call out these problems watched what happened to her in December 2020 and made a calculation about their own career. The number of people willing to speak publicly about safety and ethics issues inside the major AI labs collapsed after that firing and has not recovered.
The researcher Google fired for warning about exactly what is now happening was right.
The company that fired her is now the second-largest deployer of the technology she warned about.
And the people inside that company who agree with her are not allowed to say so.
Ok so spoiler alert but there's this one stupid scene in the episode where Sublime learns about Chloe and makes the completely fair questions "why didn't the adults do anything?" And the response was that-I shit you not- the adults where "scared of her".
WHAT?! WHAT?! WTF IS THE WORST SHE COULD DO?! SPLASH WATER ON THEM ONCE AND THEY NEVER AGAIN CAUSE SHE'D BE GROUNDED/EXPELLED IF ANY OF THE ADULTS REMEMBER THEIR GODDAMN RESPONSIBILITY?!
Adults scared of a child. Think about that. And remember she didn't squirt out of Audrey fully formed.
Grown adults scared of a 5yr old, a 7yr old, a 9yr old.
Miraculous really infantilized *all* of Paris and all French social structures to the point they couldn't handle a five year old's tantrums.
I wonder why they’re avoiding mentioning Andre. If he’s redeemed his past actions should be taken into account without issue. That is what accountability is, is it not? Or do the writers think accountability suddenly should vanish if the person feels bad?
Maybe I'm just being generous. But I think the episode never acknowledge Andre because Thomas knew there was no good defense for how the show redeemed Andre. That's why instead of admitting Andre had a part to play, they just passively made the comment "the adults were scared of her," because I think even he sees that it was Andre's responsibility to deal with his "scary" daughter anyway.
It honestly makes this episode more pathetic, because it's purely Thomas saying he's right anyway, regardless of seeing the point he won't do anything about it because that would mean admitting he was wrong.
The worst part of the whole "Chloé is an irredeemable monster" is the fact we spent two seasons getting to know her humanity. Then on seemingly a whim, the show pivoted hard into "you can disregard someone's humanity because you think they deserve it." Which is also conveniently the same logic Thomas uses when dealing with any fan who disagrees with him.
This is the logic of supremacy. Whether Thomas intended it or not, this is the logic of supremacy.
I mean, it is. You are not wrong. Pick your flavor. Religious, cultural, racial, gender, sex, what have you.
If you don't think a child deserves a good home and a good upbringing because they are a little mean, then you're really just not cut out for anything to do with children, or laws involving children.
