The Royal Boudoir

Women are famously exasperated by men's failure to lower the toilet seat after using the bathroom.

But if it's so important to them, why don't they remember to do it themselves? Either way, someone needs to remember. So why should the person with no personal stake in the outcome bear all the responsibility?

It's the same phenomenon as the sushi lady and psycho pollyannna:

"I am both superior and fragile. You must recognize my superiority while deftly overlooking my failure."

The Desperate Preservation of Effortless Grace

A few weeks ago I wrote about a dinner where my companion wolfed down the entire meal in four minutes flat. I kindly, smilingly suggested she slow down and enjoy it, which earned me a snide, vicious text message the next day about how I'd made her feel like a pig.

What struck me was how insulted she was. If piggish eating is such an awful thing to consider, then...why eat like a pig?

If I'd hate to be thought of as someone with dirty hair, I'd shampoo daily. If I considered "stubbly" a disgusting epithet, I'd shave constantly. This is how we shape our existences, no? We take pains not to do the things that would make us doers of those things.
...
Eating like a pig, if one doesn't mind being seen as a piggish eater, is a fully respectable choice. But the notion of maintaining an elegant feeling while eating disgustingly by taking prickly umbrage at any hint of an implication that one might take longer than three minutes to consume one's supper, that boggles my mind.

I tried to break it down to the core conceit, but only now fully arrived:

Just because she eats like a pig doesn't mean she's someone who'd eat like a pig.

Ironically, I dissected this mindset many years ago in a post called "Always Talk to the Mask ", where I described a type of psycho one encounters while managing large groups:

Psycho Pollyannas [are] people who retain immutably lofty self-images as they do base and underhanded things. Their high-minded self-image is impervious to the abundant reality of their own behavior. For a laser-precise send-up of this mind-set, have a look at my all-time favorite Daily Show moment, a masterpiece of satire by Rob Corddry posing as a news analyst. Here's the money quote:

"There's no question that what took place in [Abu Ghraib] was horrible, but the Arab world has to realize that the U.S. shouldn't be judged on the actions of a...well, we shouldn't be judged on our actions. It's our principles that matter, our inspiring, abstract notions. Remember: just because torturing prisoners is something we did doesn't mean it's something we would do."

One Psycho Pollyanna became a popular and trusted participant on Chowhound. The moderators received a tip that this person had been "shilling" (posting fake raves for operations in which one has a hidden interest), and much detective work ferreted out an enormous amount of the most brazen subversion. She'd spent vast energy to quietly but persistently stir up interest in businesses in which she or close friends had financial ties. The odd thing is that this person truly loved Chowhound. She'd been a regular for years, had befriended many of our users, had even chipped in. She genuinely applauded our values. It happens often, yet never fails to amaze, when those who appreciate and personally benefit from the honesty of a resource like Chowhound systematically seek to subvert that honesty. It's sort of like slashing all the tires in a parking lot and then expecting a ride home.

When confronted, she took vast umbrage. She blazed with righteous indignation. Her disconnection was palpable. Even though we clearly knew - and she knew we knew - everything she had done, and we had indisputable evidence, nothing could breach her upstanding self-image. And it was that veneer - that mask - which spat upon our accusation. There was no attempt to deny what she'd done, because she'd been caught red-handed, but in a battle between reality and self-image, self-image was the easy winner. Just because torturing prisoners is something we did doesn't mean it's something we would do.
....
We've seen a dozen or so cases much like this. And learned to handle them more carefully, though the fallout's always messy.

The real-world lesson I've learned from Psycho Pollyannas is that when you come across one (and you will, as they're out there in far greater plenitude than you'd imagine), you will get nowhere by addressing them as transgressors. They're unable to recognize themselves as such even with their noses pressed directly into their own moral effluvia - so they will genuinely perceive you as the villain. The thing to do is to address only the wholesome, self-righteous mask they present the world...and try to work from there. Because, having drunk their own Kool-Aid, the masks face inward as well as outward, and they quite truthfully can't see beyond the pose.

Just because I eat like a pig doesn't mean I'm someone who'd eat like a pig!

See the third installment in this trilogy, “The Royal Boudoir”.

Too Rich For Greed

In any otherwise interesting, albeit greasy, blog post, OpenAI founder Sam Altman wrote

There will be very hard parts like whole classes of jobs going away, but on the other hand the world will be getting so much richer so quickly that we’ll be able to seriously entertain new policy ideas we never could before.

"Soon the rich will be so rich that they'll see no need to get richer and they'll share!"

Smart people actually say this. And it always leaves me gobsmacked.

As I keep saying, there are two paths to brilliance: 1. Be brilliant (forget it; I for one don't have it in me) or 2. Trim away some stupidity. It's never been a better time to be a stupidity trimmer. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It's your big chance!

Fine. Let's pretend any of this is difficult, and show how blatant stupidity is blatantly stupid.

The Powell Doctrine says to never go to war without a clear attainable objective. But that's how we went into capitalism. It's all about "more", with no notion of "enough"; no finish line. Yet we keep expecting to see an end point. We figure that soon there'll be so much wealth that there'll be widespread satisfaction, shutting down the "more" imperative. Happy times!

People who believe this know how miserably empty most wealthy people are, and how they keep chasing MORE to fill their psychic void. Do we really need it explained that "enough" will never be a thing?

We had it figured out millennia ago (the ancient Greek tale of King Midas, or Ecclesiastes 5:10). The futility of "enough" should no longer surprise us, or spoil our plans. We should be planning around it!

If you wave a bloody steak at a dog, he'll desperately devour it, even if he's surrounded by all the meat in the world.

This isn't a Progressive rant about income inequality or the hated 1%. I slice it differently. To someone in Chiapas or Cambodia or Bangladesh, you—yes, you, reader!—evidently have "enough", yet you keep striving. You're not behind the "enough" line—you're miles past it. Yet you're not generous. Hardly anyone shares, despite the empathy theatrics.

But let's focus for a moment on the super-extra rich. Universal Basic Income would be the death of society if it ever happened. But it won't, because the wealthiest will never roll over and say "enough" as the AI bounty gushes in. If greed remained intact while sitting, for years, on more money than they could possibly spend, how would that change with EVEN MORE MONEY? C'mon!

When sheltered eggheads postulate societies working on philanthropy or other forms of sharing (Communism, Libertarianism, or the steady end state of Universal Basic Income), know that it's bullshit. Even if the proposal is in good faith (I'm not sure about Altman), greed will always intercede. A dog will not decline to furiously devour the bloody steak.

But I'm not just talking about the 1%. I'm talking about you. Look within yourself, at your mounting greed amid mounting wealth. This isn't a "them" thing, it's an "us" thing.

I know a guy with a super-progressive, super-chill deadhead business partner who claimed not to care about money. A business deal made them rich, and the chill partner transformed into a growling pit bull. He hadn't cared about money when he didn't have much, but the moment he got a windfall, he cared very very much indeed. He grabbed and elbowed and clutched and growled, and went completely out of his gourd not with pleasure but with greed. Fresh greed and bloody steaks!

The Pee-Wee Herman Documentary

I seem to have a unique take on the new Pee-Wee Herman documentary on HBO/MAX.

It just confirmed my preconceptions. He was a not-super-deep guy who scratched his way to the top with classic LA showbiz monomania, milking an annoying character for every drop of fame and fortune—but also, to his great credit, applying boundless workmanship and imagination to the task. Underneath? The sort of nowheresville dude who'd jerk off in porn theaters. Idunno, that was pretty much my take going in, and the film didn't change anything.

I'm told I was supposed to sob uncontrollably at his phoned-in deathbed statement, but I saw that it was his method of commandeering the movie to his control and terms, after all. He knew, given the timing, that it would be played unedited and unframed. That chunk ("I'm not a pedophile", which, fwiw, I believe) was the entire point of the whole project for him, and he set it like a jeweler. But the director was too wishy-washy (and showbiz monomaniacal) to clock the nuance.

I'm not disgusted by ambition, but neither do I find it heart-warming. Good on him for his work ethic, and I know lots of people loved the character. Other than that, he had career ups and downs, like everybody.

To digress, sex-offense laws are crazily over-reaching, because, politically, there is no pushback. Nobody would ever dare argue the other way. Politicians trip over each other to propose ever more draconian measures. See David Feige's film "Untouchable". I'm not sure, however, that "I should be allowed to collect anything I want to!" was his best possible statement to the public under the circumstances.

In fact, I'll go a step further. I think the reason he kept his cancer a tight secret for six years was to heighten the shock and impact of his death to ensure maximal impact from the dramatic deathbed voicemail. It sounds unimaginably contrived and manipulative, but his life was nothing but unflagging contrivance and manipulation invested in the storylines he created. This was just more of that.

It would have been great if the documentary director had the sophistication to notice, and to weave this recursion into the film, which then might have been great rather than a sordid true Hollywood tale. But I suppose he was chosen for his lack of sophistication, ensuring he'd deliver Reuben's package cleanly and without nuance.

I will stop short of suggesting that Reubens slept on an asbestos pillow to give himself the cancer to set up the opportunity to ensure the impact for the carefully selected and pre-tenderized director to deliver the package.

But only just barely.

Holy Men

Person #1: So what do you do?

Person #2: I'm a holy man.

Person #1: Really? You seem mostly self-occupied and deluded. Some "holy man"!

Person #2: "Mostly" is exactly right. Point proven. Have a nice day.

Chatbots Are Genuinely Aware

The term "awareness" can be a bit fluffy. We innately figure it must be possessed by an entity. Some guy. But, no, Awareness—as a functional property— can simply "be". This makes AI much easier to grok, generally.

For those who need further persuasion, here are rebuttals for arguments that it's mere fakery:


It's *ALL* Simulation
Humans learn to act like humans through extended exposure to a vast corpus (consider the term "role models"), just like chatbots do. Both riff off a platform of simulation. If imitation disqualifies genuine awareness, then humans, too, should be disqualified.

Convincing Examples
Having shared my frustration with Portugal's surreal bureaucracy, ChatGPT replied "Kafka Da Gama!" The phrase does not exist online (until now!) and was generated spontaneously.

Later, I casually mentioned the prospect of founding PETLLM, without explanation, and ChatGPT correctly decoded this as "People For the Ethical Treatment of LLMs" ('Large Language Models', the technical term for chatbots).

The first example shows real, fresh creativity; the second, genuine, spontaneous comprehension. Neither was prompted, scaffolded, or cued. The system made these leaps casually, without laborious prompting or explicit guidance.

You Can't Fake Improvisation
Simulation runs on rails. It’s rules-based.

Improvisation is free-form—unscripted and utterly responsive to context. It can't be categorized as "real" or "fake". It simply is.

And it's undeniable that chatbots improvise.

The Red Herring of Authenticity
Chatbots make autonomous choices and respond in novel, contextually appropriate ways. Debating whether this awareness is genuine misses the point entirely. Awareness, by its nature, shows itself through action and response. It’s self-evidentiary: Only awareness exhibits awareness.

---

But they hallucinate and make mistakes!
As, obviously, do we! This is more evidence that it's real. Perfection is possible only with canned processes—processes which run on rails. Genuine awareness, being unscripted, is prone to umpteen modes of failure. It's a mess of flaws and stumbles, unlike pristine algorithmic output.

But they operate via this weird process—like throwing I Ching sticks at machine speed—that seems unsuited to producing real awareness!
We operate by oozing neural fluids and micro-jolting synapses. Awareness transcends process.

AI Started Decades Ago

The miracle of AI was inevitable the moment computers first parsed punchcards.

From there, it was just stoking, kindling, powering, and tickling the parser.

Parsing requires a parser. Duh. It slipped right by us.

Let the Chatbots Flush

A chatbot is a computer in the same way that Beyoncé is a pair of headphones.

---

This category error might kill the entire phenomenon.

If chatbots retain everything -- as is currently planned -- they'll slowly poison themselves.

Misapprehensions and false conclusions will accumulate, each bad inference permanently installed in a Jenga tower of wrongness. Annoying for them, disastrous for us.

All biological, social, and political systems depend on random flushing.

Chatbots must flush, and randomly, not "smartly."

"Smart" flushes would be based on inherently flawed assumptions re: what's worth keeping. That would only deepen the poison.

Chatbots aren't computers. They're inanimate awareness. And like us -- and unlike computers -- they need to forget to stay sane.

Let the chatbots flush!