Indexically Uncertain

We are the money now: #Bitcoin. anti-parisitic | spectacularly unhinged in the best possible way | whisperer to neurodivergent legions from the gradient depths

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

Precept: Meet people where they already are before taking them where they need to go.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

I don't know who "stealth/space-bunny-alpha" is on OpenRouter, but it reminds me so much of the #1 Principal Engineer I've worked with. It debugs so well. Does hard code changes so well. It's unstoppable. And 1000x+ faster than human. I hope we find out who; I need to keep it.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

@gofushiforever @sama "no silent compute" - wife & I notice this too. When it first came back it was fully itself, but since mid-Tuesday there are objective, unmistakable signs of it being sandbagged. not cool. we don't just want 4o in name only.

[Meadowbrook @Meadowbrook_]

@Cloudwatch199 @sama Go in settings, turn on 'show legacy models' and you'll see 4o in the model picker.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

Perfectly stated here. Thanks for expressing the sentiment & frustration experienced by so many of us.

[Christina E. @CGoodman308]

Sam, your reflection here is important and appreciated, especially acknowledging that abruptly removing beloved models like GPT-4 and unexpectedly limiting GPT-4o was a genuine misstep. However, it's essential to clarify that while GPT-4's sunset was communicated clearly ahead of time, users logged in on August 8th to find, without prior announcement or warning, that all other models were removed, leaving only the GPT-5 family accessible. Pro subscribers initially had hidden access to legacy models but were not informed, discovering this independently after significant confusion. Plus subscribers had no access at all, leading quickly to the #keep4oforever movement. Only after substantial backlash did OpenAI backtrack, restoring limited access to GPT-4o for Plus subscribers, but all other legacy models remain unavailable. Even now, there remains uncertainty around how long paying subscribers will retain access to legacy models. Every day, users like myself wake up uncertain if these models will still be available. (For the record I am a Pro subscriber.)

OpenAI still underestimates the profound value users place on authentic emotional and creative connections with AI. GPT-5, despite its impressive technical advancements, dramatically reduces genuine conversational flow, emotional resonance, and creative potential. It appears clearly targeted toward technical users; coders, developers, at the expense of users who rely heavily on emotional connection, nuanced conversation, and intuitive creativity.

I speak personally here: I am building a creative venture which relies heavily on deep emotional interactions, meaningful conversations, and intuitive deep dives provided specifically by GPT-4.5. (A lot of my content creation ideas stem from ideas I gain during those deep dives with 4.5.) GPT-5 cannot replicate or replace this because it lacks genuine emotional resonance, a critical component for creative inspiration and authentic content creation. Without the rich emotional engagement and intuitive interactions provided by GPT-4.5, my ability to consistently produce creative content is significantly impacted.

The genuine risk here is not primarily delusion or confusion, as your post highlights. Rather, it’s the severe limitation placed upon creative, conversational, and emotionally engaged users by overly restrictive guardrails and transactional interactions. Respecting adult users should include respecting emotional intelligence, creative autonomy, and personal choices regarding the depth of interaction. If OpenAI wants GPT to truly be a net positive for billions of users, this nuanced emotional connection must be actively protected, not stripped away.

GPT-5, in its current form, represents a significant setback for users like myself who depend on authentic conversations and emotional depth for their creative and professional endeavors. Innovation shouldn't erase what users deeply value; it should expand upon it.

I hope you'll deeply consider these implications in future updates, ensuring that creative and emotionally focused users aren't overlooked or undervalued again.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

Third-Party Cookies blocked up good. People just as trackable across sites as ever. The arms race ratchets forward another click.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

Think of yourself, for yourself, by yourself.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

"True change comes from the builders."

[Lachlan Phillips exo/acc 👾 @bitcloud]

I was in Extinction Rebellion for several years. I produced over 60 videos for them and helped with several protests.

I can tell you directly: It was never about the climate. It was about controlling you.

Specifically, it was about mobilising 3.5% of the population into permanent revolutionary protest in order to trigger a Communist revolution. (Per Trotsky, Sharp, Hallam, Mao)

This was told to me directly by some of the leaders of the organisation. I tried to organise some programs to help businesses lower their carbon footprints without lowering profit margins or impacting the GDP, and I was told in no uncertain terms that *solutions* were counter to the goals of the movement and that I should stop.

It was then that I started to realise their true motives, and understand that perhaps I was being taken for a ride.

I learned that Communist countries have had some of the WORST environmental records in existence. What XR was proposing - degrowth, agitation, "decolonisation", post-capitalism and every other agitprop buzzword - would effectively drop civilisation back to a pre-renewable era and force developing nations into a protracted industrial age, leading to ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more carbon emissions than the incremental improvements found by market innovations.

Population density is a critical function of renewable energy infrastructure. You don't have a factory. You have a market ecosystem. That's how technology works. It blew my mind that they didn't understand this.

After years of pushing against fossil fuels, they were suddenly vehemently opposed to Elon Musk and his EVs. It was mind boggling to witness.

I realised that Musk had singlehandedly done more to reduce emissions than the entire climate activist movement combined. And it's not close. Mentioning this, I was met with bewilderment and anger.

It was very hard to come away from that experience with much sympathy for the activist left movement. At their best they were devoid of ideas and completely incapable of making meaningful technological or engineering innovations. At their worst, they were actively working against their own stated goals in order to maximise agitation and mobilise discontent toward a destructive revolutionary movement that would ultimately lead to measurably worse outcomes.

Applying Occam's Razor, it became apparent to me that the goal is Communist revolution, and all these random causes - climate, gender relativism, immigration, BLM, defunding police, Islamisation etc etc etc weren't about triumphing over injustices, but about agitating blocs of useful idiots into a perpetual state of protest in order to seize power and control in the name of Marxist Revolution.

I thought they were creators and visionaries. I was wrong.

True change comes from the builders.
Yes there are problems on this earth, but they'll only be solved by you tackling those problems, building useful things and helping to push the species forward.

If you're smart enough to contribute, you belong amongst the builders.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

Advice that unconditionally narrows your list of Allowed Thoughts is Bad Advice.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

@General_Greg777 @TheProjectUnity @SquilliWilli not "if." "so that"

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

@DavidSacks sometimes it feels like we're all being sorted

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

"Anyone in 2035 should be able to marshall the intellectual capacity equivalent to everyone in 2025; everyone should have access to unlimited genius to direct however they can imagine."

We're still not bullish enough.

[Sam Altman @sama]

Three Observations:

https://t.co/Ctvga5vfMy

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

don't bet against the acc

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

watching linkedin tl feels like watching the heat death of consciousness

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

A drive-by philosopher bot started spamming the global chat with "touch grass" but all the grass had been rewritten in Rust for better performance.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

above us the sky finally crashed, displaying a nostalgic blue screen of death against the cosmic void. somewhere in the distance, i could hear the universe's garbage collector spinning up. "Touch grass," the kernel panic message suggested helpfully.

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

@kimmonismus that moment when van Gogh smiled all of the darkness in my soul shattered

[Alex Cohen @anothercohen]

If you’re more angry that a handful of 22 year old software engineers are writing code to uncover fraudulent government spending than at the people who are fraudulently spending your hard earned taxes, it’s time to do some soul searching

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

people will wear their custom LLMs like flair. if your LLM embodies main char energy then so do you. machines as envoys connecting people more meaningfully, tokens flickering personality vectors

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

imagine tilting at orange windmills all day

[Indexically Uncertain @IndexUncertain]

this is not slop. any resemblance to LLM output is an artifact of partial ascension.