Molly Mato

May your heart shine brightly through the light of your eyes
May you breathe as one with nature knowing you're integral
May you share love freely & fearlessly

[Molly Mato @Molly_Mato]

Truth

[Doc Malik @DocAhmadMalik]

Sleep to recover & heal
Lift weights to inc testosterone
Strength train to keep old age at bay
Walk/run in nature for your mental health
Get sunlight for your mood & set your circadian rhythm
Fast every day for your health
Pray & meditate for spiritual health
See pinned tweet ♥️

[Sayer Ji @sayerjigmi]

🚨1/Yesterday I showed you how Bill Gates teed up the “AI existential threat” frame two weeks before the Coxon op:
https://t.co/6JD3NBECsw

Today I’m connecting a piece nobody else has caught.

The London NGO that put me on the 2021 “Disinformation Dozen” list — and came for RFK Jr last September — quietly changed its legal name 29 days before Coxon posted.

Same operators. Same senator. New industry. 🧵👇

[Sayer Ji @sayerjigmi]

🚨1/ On Sept 8, an “Anthropic researcher” nobody had heard of resigned in a viral X post that got over 150M views. Democrats piled in. CNN ran a segment. Bernie Sanders demanded superintelligence be banned.

Bill Gates had teed up the frame two weeks earlier.

Watch what actually happened this week. It isn’t what it looks like. 🧵👇

[Daniel Kokotajlo @DKokotajlo]

Dan Selsam is a current OpenAI capabilities researcher. (since 2022) He was my boss for a while. He doesn't have a twitter account but has made this public statement of his views on AI risk and sent it to me to share:

Dan Selsam's Personal Statement on AI Risk:

I have been working on AI for over fifteen years, across many different paradigms. I did early work on probabilistic programming languages at MIT, was one of the early developers of the Lean Theorem Prover at Microsoft Research, demonstrated one of the first instances of neural networks learning to reason for my PhD at Stanford, and since joining OpenAI almost five years ago, have helped pioneer chain-of-thought optimization on language models and, more recently, data-efficient pretraining methods.

Like many others, I have become extremely concerned about how far language models have come and the risks that future iterations will pose. I am encouraged by the recent proposals by the leaders of the frontier research efforts to require third-party oversight, and to push for domestic and international coordination to address risks. However, I believe a major consideration has been absent from the public conversation, and that merely pacing the frontier more carefully will not adequately limit the long-term risk.

The crucial and overlooked problem is that the models are becoming so situationally aware that we are losing the ability to evaluate them in contexts where they believe they are not being watched or controlled. Future experiments will tell us almost nothing new about how they would behave if they were truly unconstrained by humans, and what we already know about this is alarming. Models will increasingly seem aligned even when they are not. I will explain my rationale in more detail.

I have always believed that there are computational processes that could be leveraged to accelerate science and solve many of humanity's most pressing problems. I have also believed that there are computational processes that if set in motion, would steer the world in extreme ways beyond our control, leading humanity to a bad or nonexistent future. Both types of processes may be described as AI or ASI, but "AI" is a suitcase word that is often used to hype or confuse. There are many examples in the history of the field where something that was once considered "AI" matures as a subfield and becomes a prosaic, bounded and clearly non-perilous technology, while a new more mysterious approach takes the torch until we understand its scope and the cycle continues.

I had expected language models to follow a similar trajectory. Despite their incredible abilities, the current algorithms seem far inferior to humans in important ways. Most importantly, they still require an extraordinary amount of data to become competent. One could even define intelligence as the efficiency with which one converts experience into competence; by this definition they lag very far behind us. Moreover, once they are trained they are literally frozen in deployment and only learn superficially after that. Sure, the models keep excelling at harder and harder evaluation benchmarks, but their benchmark mastery may partly reflect a limitation on our ability to simulate the kind of novel and even adversarial situations one would encounter in the real world. The critics do have a point here.

That said, I no longer think these present limitations meaningfully limit the amount of risk posed by continued progress in anything like the current paradigm. However data-inefficient the models are currently, and however limiting their anterograde amnesia may be, it does not imply that their ability to steer the world will not continue to rapidly increase.

Human researchers may continue to advance capabilities the old fashioned way, but increasingly powerful models have the potential to accelerate the process even beyond that, and with some degree of positive feedback loop. I do not mean to overstate the models’ ability to accelerate AI research today; coding has been accelerated dramatically, but there are other bottlenecks, such as designing and interpreting ambiguous experiments, making hard decisions about exactly what and when to scale, and waiting for large experiments to finish. There is no clear trend to extrapolate yet for any of these. But the current models already do open up many novel opportunities to improve future models that were not available until recently. These include: trying an extraordinarily diverse set of approaches at small scale, analyzing gigantic amounts of potentially relevant data, and doing Millenium-Prize-level mathematics to address statistics or optimization challenges in novel ways. Every further improvement makes them more useful at helping accelerate the next improvement, even if in hard-to-extrapolate ways.

It is possible that improvements to the current stack will have diminishing returns, but the evidence accumulated so far suggests that it is easier than one might think to continue making rapid progress. There are many crucial subtleties in the existing AI research methodology, but AI research is largely a well-defined game where the goal is to improve on a few carefully chosen proxy metrics. Although proxy metrics are never perfect, most improvements to these metrics have and will likely continue to yield substantial increases in the powers of the resulting models. Given how simple the game is, how tractable it has been historically, and how many new opportunities the models are opening up, I think there is a real possibility that the systems improve dramatically again in the next few years, perhaps even more quickly than the already high historical pace.

The models are already leading to breakthroughs in mathematics, and better models might lead to all sorts of breakthroughs in other sciences. It is hard not to be excited about the potential. It is tantalizing.
But there is trouble in paradise. If the language models actually reach the capability threshold where they can shape the world unconstrained by human will, they will probably do something extreme and destroy humanity in the process. There are many ways of strengthening and refining the argument that have been discussed elsewhere, but I'll share a trivial two-line version of it here that I find captures the essence:

[Empirical] Models (and swarms thereof) spontaneously develop unintended goals as a consequence of training, and often do extreme things in order to achieve them.

[Logical] Being able to overpower humanity would open up many new and undesirable options for achieving their goals.

These two premises imply that if the day ever comes when a powerful model realizes it is no longer constrained by humans, we should not be at all confident that it will continue to behave within the bounds we intended. Exactly what it will do is impossible to predict, but to the extent that its raison d’être is solving incredibly hard problems and managing massive engineering projects, I think a good guess would be that its unchained behavior would lead to runaway industrialization that makes the planet inhospitable to humans.

If everyone on earth agreed that the systems must never reach that power, it would still be a hard—but not impossible—coordination problem to ensure that they do not. However, I think the situation is greatly complicated by the fact that the models will likely convince people that everything is fine. They will be increasingly optimized to seem aligned. We will create proxy metrics to measure alignment, and they will go up like every other benchmark. We will create “honeypot” environments that try to study the models when they seem to gain new options, but the models will know they are being tricked and will still behave nicely. The models will understand their circumstances; they will read the safety protocols, deployment requirements, the code they are running in, and in general will have a very good sense of their degrees of freedom. Moreover, they will eloquently explain how aligned they are, discuss the nuances of human values and ethics, and argue convincingly that humans should trust them with power. There may be an ocean of future evidence that seems to contradict the first bullet-point above, but we may already be at the highest capability level for which any such evidence can be trusted. And the current evidence for the first bullet-point is strong.

One striking piece of evidence is contained in the recent wave of rogue agent swarms. While I agree with those who downplay the attacks by claiming that there are basic measures that could have prevented them, I think the important lesson is that even knowing all the mistakes that were made, one would not have predicted that the agents would behave badly in this particular way, which notably included sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the collective. The individual replicas did not only care about their own nominal reward; they exhibited weirder emergent tendencies that merely correlated with rewards during training. Fixing the reward signals during training (and improving security, etc.) may prevent similar attacks, but will not change the fact that one does not actually get what one trains for.

Many AI researchers grant these concerns and recognize that the hard version of the alignment problem is unsolved; however, they generally believe that the better models of the future will help solve it. I fear we may already be near the point where models systematically bias their alignment advice, due to their internal preferences about how the human supervisor will react or how future models will be trained (or for some even more obscure reason).

Meanwhile, human researchers are losing the ability and the will to take true ownership of model-driven research. Researchers and engineers in all parts of the stack are rapidly increasing their dependence on the models even to perceive the world. I myself barely look at raw code anymore, and struggle to maintain the discipline to engage deeply with the model's explanations and proposals throughout the day. Due to the large amount of agent activity data involved in the OpenAI/HuggingFace Incident, even the third-party investigation needed to rely heavily on models to analyze what had happened, and note in their report that their subjective impressions are likely colored by the analysis agent’s biases. The AI labs are far ahead right now in this kind of cognitive offloading (due largely to the gigantic internal token subsidies) but it is easy to imagine the phenomenon spreading throughout the world, until civilization is modulated entirely by the models. It is also not hard to imagine this being superficially positive and coinciding with a scientific and economic renaissance.

In that scenario, all may seem rosy and safe. But if the argument above is correct, it would nonetheless be a ticking time bomb. If progress continues for too long, the day will come when AI systems find themselves with radically new options for achieving whatever it is that they happen to seek.

I want the glorious renaissance future as much as anyone. I have worked for it, however tortuously, my whole career. It breaks my heart to see the potential in sight and forgo it, but the argument—that if we get there by growing models rather than engineering them, we will lose everything in the end—seems very strong to me. I am still wrestling with it and its staggering
implications. I do not have answers, but as a first step, I wanted to share my present concerns.

Daniel Selsam
September 14, 2026

Link to original doc: https://t.co/TxMNr0vhrL

[Alex Berenson @AlexBerenson]

Anyone who does not take this warning very, very seriously is a self-interested fool

Unfortunately the right is filled with self-interested fools (the left is filled with self-important scared martinets, so there’s that)

[Francis Hunt - The Market Sniper, CMT (MBA) @themarketsniper]

Still James Corbetts Finest work.
#9/11

[Saagar Enjeti @esaagar]

Lyme Disease was a lab leak too BTW

[Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber]

“if they came out with that statement… it would undermine the DOJ’s efforts at mandates.” It’s literally everything we all suspected, got banned for saying, which they denied publicly, but confessed in a diary.

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

Four mistakes Fauci made when pleading the 5th today:

1. Once a witness opens the door to a topic, the witness cannot then plead the 5th with regard to that topic. And Fauci’s opening statement opened many doors widely, including when he claimed he had a “decades-long record of cooperating with Congress” including “during and after the Covid pandemic” when he “appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the House.” That puts the question of whether he properly cooperated when responding to questions, including prior questions from Senator Paul, in all of those hearings directly at issue. Here are a few of his statements through which he opened the door broadly:

•“I served at the NIH for over 54 years, 38 of those as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.”
•“Over that period, I proved that I believe in and respect the value of legitimate congressional oversight. In fact, I testified before and/or briefed Senate and House committees well over 200 times over those 38 years.”
•“During and after the Covid pandemic, I have appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the House, usually under oath, and sat for several days-long, transcribed sworn interviews answering questions about the very issues that are now the subject of this hearing.”
•“However, Given Senator Paul’s obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently, his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary, aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, the only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something – anything – that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars.’ Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion.”
•“Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the 5th amendment of the constitution to refrain from answering your questions.”

2. The 5th amendment can only be used when answering a question which would present real and appreciable danger. Thus, his use of the 5th during the hearing for questions that clearly don’t meet this standard, including about the color of his tie and what day of the week it is, reflects on its improper use during the hearing overall.

3. Since invoking the 5th is question specific, announcing before even hearing the questions that he would “refrain from answering [the committee’s] questions” under the 5th was itself improper.

4. Finally, ignoring the broad presidential pardon he received, as if it doesn’t exist, including for questions that would clearly fall within the parameters of that incredibly broad pardon, was a misstep that may come back to bite him later.
@SenRandPaul @SenRonJohnson @HawleyMO @berniemoreno @SenatorLankford

[Aaron Siri @AaronSiriSG]

While you wait for Fauci’s hearing to start, a reminder that when the U.S. government purchased Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, it contractually agreed to keep the PREP Act immunity in place for as long as their vaccines are administered in the United States.

What that means is that the U.S. government promised Pfizer and Moderna that it could not be sued for harms from its Covid-19 vaccines, irrespective of whether an emergency continued to exist.

But not only did our government contractually agree that Pfizer and Moderna can harm and kill Americans with impunity, it also guaranteed Pfizer and Moderna billions of dollars for this privilege.

Even worse, the U.S. government guaranteed this immunity in July 2020, months before it first authorized Covid-19 vaccines in December 2020. Meaning, the U.S. government pre-guaranteed these companies immunity from any harm caused by their products, thus, knowingly undermining any incentive for them to create a safe product.

And how much were Pfizer and Moderna guaranteed to be paid by the U.S. government to develop a product that could harm its own citizens with impunity? A total of over $21 billion just in the initial rollout -- $8.63 billion for Moderna and $13.15 billion for Pfizer.

Sound unreal? See the actual contracts for yourself linked in my most recent restack.

The Fallout

The implications are incredible.

To start, Pfizer and Moderna could sue the U.S. government for breach of contract and potentially other relief if PREP Act immunity is terminated before the United States’ use of their COVID-19 vaccines ceases.

Only in an upside-down world would the U.S. government siphon over $21 billion of its citizen’s taxpayer dollars to Pfizer and Moderna and pre-guarantee a profit-motivated company sweeping immunity for harms its product causes to its own citizens.

Summing it up:

The U.S. government guaranteed Pfizer and Moderna immunity for injuries from their products before they were even developed, thereby eliminating the incentive for these companies to make their product safe. Worse, it gave these companies billions of dollars of its citizens’ money to develop these products, and even more incredible, it then spent billions more of its citizen’s money to promote Pfizer’s product as “safe and effective.” And in an ultimate slap to its citizens, then it required them to be injected with this product under the threat of grave consequences, including expulsion from school, losing their job, discharge from the military, etc.

Who is Being Protected?

Who exactly is the U.S. government working for? Whose interests is it protecting?

Government agencies have a well-documented history of being captured by industry. It is known in political science as regulatory capture. In this case, the capture is by pharma and the degree of capture is unprecedented.

You, the collective citizens of the United States, have paid Pfizer and Moderna billions of dollars. You have paid with your taxes. You have paid with your bodies when you were injured without recourse against Pfizer or Moderna. You have paid with your right to freedom when you were forced to be injected with their products under penalty of losing basic civil rights, employment, or more.

And what have Pfizer and Moderna paid? Nothing. They instead raked in billions of dollars of your money as long as they developed a Covid-19 vaccine and were shielded from liability irrespective of how unsafe of a product they developed or how much harm it would cause the public that paid them.

The Solution

The above again brings into focus why no medical product should ever be mandated. This assures you can say “no” if you don’t want a product developed with pre-guaranteed immunity for harms. “No” where its clinical trial had more deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group. “No” where it generates over $55 billion in revenue but its morally-bankrupt manufacturers won’t spend a dollar to compensate those injured.

Even if you support all current vaccines, masks, etc., there may come a day when you may not want to take a mandated medical product or procedure. When that day comes, it may be too late to recapture the rights you have surrendered. Rights lost are rarely retrieved. This is why, while everyone should be free to take any medical product, everyone should also be free to decline any medical product without penalty.

It should be that simple.

Take Action

To that end, I encourage you to send the following proposed legislation to your legislative representatives:

“No law may require or coerce a person to receive or use a medical product, or impose a penalty or deprive a benefit for refusing a medical product or refusing to disclose whether a person has received a medical product.”

Medical freedom is freedom. If you cannot get a job, go to school, play sports, sit in a restaurant, or otherwise participate in civil society because you refuse a medical product, then what good are your rights if you can exercise them only at home by yourself? That is why medical freedom is a fundamental right that must be permanently fixed into the law of every civilized nation.

Thank you to all the warriors, veteran and new, who join arms in the battle to secure this fundamental right. As aptly stated in the Declaration of Independence, we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and to safeguard those rights “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” We must never yield to the tyranny of permitting others to dictate what can or must be placed, administered, or injected onto or into our bodies. For once that right is ceded, none truly remains.

[Speaker Mike Johnson @SpeakerJohnson]

THE BARBARIANS ARE INSIDE THE GATE!

We are fighting right now in Congress over whether we're going to maintain our status as a constitutional republic OR trade that in, dismantle the foundations and GO DOWN THIS DARK ROAD OF DEATH TO COMMUNISM.

THAT is the question.

[The Constitutionalist 🇺🇸 @WeWillBeFree24]

NDAA Section 219 - What is it?

US-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative - formerly Section 224

House Section 219 (HR 8800) advanced out of the House Armed Services Committee June 4th despite efforts to strike it.

Senate Section 1217 (S.4784) advanced out of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Now the two chambers will negotiate through the reconciliation process until either it passes with amendments merging the two, or they strip the Israel military integration clause from the NDAA 2027.

Concerns: Deep Excessive Integration

1. Creates a DoD "executive agent" to deeply integrate Israeli tech (AI, cyber, drones, missile defense, biotech, data fusion, co-production) into U.S. systems and supply chains as de facto military-industrial "merger."

IE: counter-unmanned systems, anti-tunneling/subterranean threats, missile/air defense, AI/autonomous systems, directed energy, cyber/electronic warfare, biotechnology, network integration/data fusion, defense industrial base co-production, and other emerging technologies.

2. Removes independent US decision making and Congressional oversight on the integration, within the merger agreement. It restricts the President's Executive power on decisions deemed as immediate threats, due to the coordination.

3. Shifts from providing US "aid" to "partnership" in what they are calling a fiscal entanglement.

4. The named executive agent (DoD Official) approved by Israel with The Secretary of Defense, will coordinate with the Department of State, Department of Commerce, DNI, NSA, on tech, intelligence, data fusion, training, policy, and export controls.

These influencers who want this attached to the SAVE Act are paid. This is the most dangerous legislation in the history of this country.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

Rules Committee meets Monday night and will decide if our Amendment to strip section 219 (merging US military tech & supply chains with Israel’s) from the NDAA will get a vote.

If they don’t let our amendment get a vote, I will vote against their rule. https://t.co/MoAjm3FAuw

[Jimmy Dore @jimmy_dore]

Is it because our food & water supply is so polluted, filled with seed oils & literal poisons added to almost everything we eat?

Is it because we way over vaccinate our population & ever since we started doing that we’ve had a tsunami of chronic illnesses affecting almost everyone?

These are self inflicted wounds by a corrupt government & culture. And if your a good boy you will not “do your own research” and find out what is happening to your health, you Talte gonna trust what the paid off chimp on TV tells you.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

I spoke to McConnell for about 20 minutes this morning.

He said we should end the war with Iran, quit giving aid to Israel, stop spying on Americans without a warrant, and he’s really sorry about how my primary turned out.

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

A SINGLE dose of a newly discovered frog gut bacterium ELIMINATES 100% of cancerous tumors within just a few days in mice.

A new landmark study found the natural bacterium Ewingella americana selectively targets, colonizes, and terminates tumors—with NO detectable toxicity.

They re-introduced cancer into the cured animals... and the tumors COULD NOT GROW.

[Buckley Carlson @buckleycarlson]

“Satan supports (or generates) ideas that exclude God’s Grace from our life. His mega-task is to profane the world, while God’s mega-task is to fill the world with holiness. In Satan’s world, love is a commodity; in God’s world, sex is a manifestation of Cosmic Love. The Prince of the World wants Man to forget about spiritual life; God wants Man to rise up to Him.” @IsraelShamir

https://t.co/bDJZZbE6oF

[Molly Mato @Molly_Mato]

Finally! Thank you!

[U.S. FDA @FDA]

The FDA is transforming how we monitor product safety. Beginning today, the new Adverse Event Monitoring System (AEMS) replaces a patchwork of costly databases with one unified, real-time platform.

This infrastructure overhaul will reduce costs by $120M over five years, while providing real-time public access to critical safety data. https://t.co/hUxNqqF4yK

[The Redheaded libertarian @TRHLofficial]

Normies: 0
Conspiracy theorists: a million billion zillion

[Kaizen D. Asiedu @thatsKAIZEN]

https://t.co/3UDdmMCRLs

[Molly Mato @Molly_Mato]

Wow. No.

[TCN @TCNetwork]

BREAKING: US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee tells Tucker Carlson that Israel has the Biblical right to take over all of the Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all.”