Artificial Intelligence Was Taking Over Long Before AI

"It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it. The hard — is what makes it great!"

Jan 28, 2025

Our society no longer has time for elegance, beauty and complexity; we have synthesis, but not clarity; speed, but not efficiency; information, but not knowledge! We know too much and too little, at the same time. Because, we can no longer connect things. People can no longer think.

— Telegram Poster/Guendalina Center

In a nation that no longer understands how to understand, I know the feeling — all too well!

In today’s town square where nothing has to square — it’s considered critical thinking to Tweet about critical thinking. I’d let it slide if you didn’t make up your mind on perception alone in sight of something like the imagery below. In what parallel universe can you win an argument without even knowing what the issue’s about?

A critical thinker should not see “your crowd” and instantly assume I support the other crowd (or any crowd). But even if you did — you’d sharpen your understanding in light of information that doesn’t fit what you thought at first.

And if you’re gonna wear principles on your sleeve, shouldn’t your actions consistently reflect your claims (whether the truth is in your interest or not)?

That the title is talking about the entire platform (including Left, Right, and everyone in between): Should speak volumes all by itself. But nothing registers in a world where you’re celebrated for beliefs about integrity while belittling people for having it. Contrary to increasingly popular opinion — wishful thinking is not an argument (and the following is pure fantasy):

The quest for truth has turned into a digital Wild West, 𝕏 emerges as the sheriff town, not just another social media platform, but a beacon for those seeking unfettered access to real news.

If that belief had any bearing on reality — none of my articles would exist (and neither would this):

In a sea of sameness, the blankness it would take to blow right by my work while blowing smoke about “demonstrating the power of your mind, your hard work, and your tenacity”: Is the same blankness that created that sea of sameness. And I would know, as I know your kin who came before you:

It is as though with some people — those who most avidly embrace the “we are right” view — have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack. There is no curiosity in them. There are no questions in their minds. There are no “what ifs?” or “maybes.”

— Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Nevertheless, as I point out in that piece on “premium support” (where I’ve seen none of any kind): “While I’m no fan of Elon and the fantasyland he fosters: I gotta give credit where credit is due.” And that is at the core of what critical thinking is all about — a fundamental requirement of which is this:

On that note: Bluesky isn’t any better — and not for one second did I think it would be. It’s all a charade (including the lofty overtures of those who departed one platform to perpetuate the problem on another):

Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. — Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt

Same goes for Substack, Reddit, and anything & everything claiming to be something it is not.

Just do what you say you do . . .

And you’ll start to put the patterns together to connect the dots. Speaking of patterns — there’s much to be learned on this image alone. While I found it — I didn’t see everything there is to find within it. I had a blast being enlightened by a friend who did though! But whatever you might miss — you know what that girl glued to her screen represents.

Critical thinkers don’t eschew the demands of difficulty and discernment. They don’t concern themselves with website style-guide standards in weighing the worth of an argument. Would a critical thinker put a person on a pedestal for analysis that comes with “no conjecture, just facts free of emotion”:

Then ignore their history of “opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork”?

Even if you weren’t aware of the gaping holes in their history — that’s precisely the point of how critical thinking works in the weighing of new information. And if you respond with emotion and refuse to face facts: What does that say about someone promoting the importance of not doing what you’re doing? Critical thinkers don’t want nor need everything spelled out to them (at which point self-proclaimed “critical thinkers” complain about the length).

Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that ensure they never will.

What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? It’s become a pastime for people to take endless delight in advertising their immaculate critical thinking skills. But the second they’re challenged on anything that is even perceived as threatening their interests:

Don’t do anything in the image at the center above or what’s bolded below:

Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.

— Ann Baker, Critical Thinking: A fading skill in the age of information overload

Perfectly put — except for the “fading” part. In our Age of Unenlightenment — “fading” is an understatement for the ages.

Funny thing about information: It can seem incoherent when you don’t take any of it into account. Would you browse a textbook then blame the teacher for your failure to understand the material? Would a critical thinker gripe about graphics and blow right by clips at the crux of the story — then complain that they can’t understand what they didn’t stop to consider? Never mind that much of my material hinges on irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty:

The manipulation of which shaped everything you see today!

But instead of taking note that we’re talking about quantifiable fact, some “critical thinkers” prefer to find meaning in mathematical certainty having no meaning. At every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — insulting their intelligence with every step. Excuses and ridicule come first and they never ask questions later. I didn’t imagine this behavior from slide to slide — and anyone willing to understand the mountain of obstacles in my way, would.

If only you could grasp the galactic waste of getting in your own way:

Allow me to demonstrate how understanding works with even the smallest of considerations. It’s all the more educational because it wasn’t an ideal exchange on exactly how something like this should go. And this is with someone I hold in the highest regard for his integrity and intelligence (and has my best interests at heart). What he didn’t see from the start is not nearly as important as how he adjusted in the journey.

As he’s the application architect & developer at the helm of my project — he’s keenly aware of what I’m doing. But at first, he didn’t comprehend the compilation of stories I share in the upcoming video. The operative words are “at first,” for in a matter of minutes — the purpose of the presentation became increasingly clear.

All it took was the time-honored tradition that’s fallen out of favor:

The principle required to understand every single story, slide, image, title, caption, quote, and how it’s all connected and tied to the song (right along with my purpose in putting it together):

As in how 15 minutes later, I had a “hmm” from him (a tectonic shift in movement these days). And exactly 17 minutes later:

Yea, I am getting it now

A turnaround that took all of 32 minutes — was reached simply by considering a series of short explanations in response (taking each element of information into account). But had he done what he normally does in developing software: He would have seen from the start what he came to understand later. I’ve seen him work wonders by breaking things down into their smallest components.

In so doing, he put us on the same page on what the issue was really about (at which point we solved the problem).

And that is what this is all about:

One voice began to echo through the night. One voice raised in song. The song was terribly out of tune — but sung with great enthusiasm. One voice became two — and two became three.

— Admiral McRaven

Various versions of that speech have racked up over 70 million views combined. Since my other site was named after the turning point in his SEAL-training story, obviously I’m a fan. What I’m not a fan of is celebrating beliefs then abandoning them the instant they become inconvenient:

Particularly when the whole point is about rising to the occasion.

The video contains a series of 28 slides that set the stage for an idea that could turn the tide. Generations love the timeless song on the slides, but how many watching will go back and pause through each one to see how the lyrics are linked? Without returning to each title to consider the imagery & captions that couple them (just how much would you expect to understand in 3 minutes):

On matters shaped by erosion of reason that took decades of denying the undeniable?

Without reading the articles (or least at making an attempt to establish a baseline understanding from which we could have a conversation): How could you correlate how it’s all connected in a country where sharing beliefs has become equated to acting on them? But if you can’t connect the dots — start with one and I’ll help take you to two.

A trailer is not the movie
A blurb is not the book
A highlights reel is not the game

And yet somehow that understanding goes right out the window in the face of the unfamiliar. I bought a C# Beginner’s Guide to Object-Oriented Programming on Udemy. It’s 2 hours of 59 lectures (so they’re just snapshots into the concepts). It ranks with the best ten bucks I ever spent — as he encapsulated complex concepts in ways that registered with me.

And yet, when I wasn’t quite clear on something — I had to dig deeper to discover what I was missing. Wouldn’t it be preposterous to complain that a 2-minute clip failed to inform me on a topic that took 30 minutes for another to explain in detail? The summary is simply a window into what I’m looking to learn. It would be unthinkable to expect the instructor to take me where I wanna go, but he was a big step in the right direction. My gap in understanding paved the way to pay dirt — but only because I kept digging (which was a blessing in disguise).

As it got me to the gold standard (a guy who’s the best I’ve ever seen on any subject matter).

That I can understand every second of his 30-minute blocks of brilliance: Speaks volumes about the value of investing time and effort in your purpose. And listening’s the easy part — the real work is putting those principles into practice.

Works the same way here:

Einstein borrowed from the one below:

The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection.

Possession is what “critical thinkers” care about most.

The internet and the cable clans paved the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd. As if that wasn’t bad enough in reinforcing force fields of fallacy, we took technology to a whole new high so we could sink even lower. Borrowing from a piece about Bluesky’s content guidelines: “X/Bluesky has a 280/300-character limit, so it’s all about keeping it short and impactful. Stick to one main idea per post to make the most of your words.”

That TL;DR mentality has poisoned people’s minds to the point where they act as though they’re incapable of correlating anything. In a world where easy is all the rage, you can promote principles in one breath and abandon them the next. And when called to account for your claims — you can act as though your record vanished off the face of the earth:

Counting on old faithful like clockwork:

In a matter of minutes on any of my writings — you can see that my scrutiny spares no side (and understanding that alone is a big deal in degrees). If only an infinitesimal fraction of “critical thinkers” applied critical thinking when coming across my work, we’d be well on our way to what I have in mind.

Now you can see that scrutiny in seconds from one slide to the next.

And still — The Critical Thinking Crowd complains! Just what would it take — to do what you say you do?

You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t PKIA

As this story is also . . .

About the behavior of the echo chamber around PKIA — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem. And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.

Who’s PKIA?

You’ll see, but critical thinkers would find it telling that I feel the need to withhold the identity of this Professional Know-It-All for now. What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did?

Speaking of identity:

Taking on the entire country by myself is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. Understanding how seemingly unrelated events impact one another takes time and effort to digest. You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite: Allowing “critical thinkers” to think they can consume my efforts with the same standard-scrolling-with-ease formula from which they expect all content to come.

Never mind that what I do is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms.

Critical thinkers would get that!

And in no time, they’d take notice of the venom that invariably awaits me for drilling into all of America with surgical specificity that cuts to the bone.

Critical thinkers look to listen and learn (and are willing to be wrong). Whatever they wish to challenge or clarify — they’d respond specifically on the merits and ask questions on anything unclear. And in coming across someone who did a documentary that deals with the psychological gymnastics of human nature (taking both parties to task on issues at the core of America’s decline (including the biggest & most costly lie in modern history — which shaped everything you see today):

Critical thinkers would know that if you really want to understand a story, you start at the beginning.

The doc is structured to the hilt in 7 segments averaging 24 minutes apiece — so it’s much easier to digest. But circular certitude is quite the convenient cop-out: Allowing you to blow off the doc, dish your derision on issues you’re wildly unqualified on — then complain how you can’t follow the format of a site that wouldn’t be needed if you simply watched the doc in the first place.

It astounds me that wading through unfamiliar territory is somehow seen as complicated as quantum physics. I assure you: What it took to acquire this information was infinitely more demanding than anything you face here — let alone the complexities in exposing systematic deception at the core of our country’s ills.

But you’re busy! You’re always busy:

Since armies of unreachables have made it impossible to tell that story, I needed a conduit through which it could be told through a more isolated discussion. And right on cue, for almost four years — “critical thinkers” have defended the indefensible by relying on a rolodex of excuses (coated with rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full).

The cult-like following protecting PKIA is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. As I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds for decades, that’s saying something! His disciples see him as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes. I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t.

And that — is an opportunity!

Not simply to expose the danger and destruction from blind belief in him — but blindly believing in anyone. And if we can’t even agree on the most demonstrably provable facts imaginable — how we possibly solve serious problems on issues not so crystal clear? As stated in the scrolling letter in the video: Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right, as there’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future:

A.K.A. Learning!

Critical thinkers don’t jump to conclusions — they arrive at them by refraining from judgment on a journey in the interest of truth and understanding. It would pique their interest to know that a key figure in question who’s quoted in the opening slide — is someone I once admired. What changed would be of interest to anyone seeking to understand the story. It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up. I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters. I’d like to think a lot of things:

Like when someone’s promoting principles driving his popularity — he’d abide by ’em when it wasn’t popular!

Such high praise from Loury is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their ever-growing audience thinks they are. I don’t roll that way. While I maintain a degree of respect for him — and I’m forever grateful for the inspiration he provided: If you’re part of the problem, I don’t care who you are — I’m calling you out!

We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason.

Hmm . . .

It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it. The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them.

Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t cut it. You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board.

How could you comprehend a solution without understanding the multidimensional nature of the problem? My idea is simple! Cutting through a culture consumed by calcified convictions that can be debunked with the slightest objective scrutiny: Is not!

This is my story — but if you read it in full, you’ll find it’s part of your story too. You’ve all dealt with the same behavior I have — the difference is that I get it from every direction. Believe it or not, the best way to serve your interests is to first and foremost — hold your own accountable. If you want to make the opposition look bad, try looking good. If you want to have the moral high ground, try earning it:

The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to the status of being respected for

None of that goin’ around!

Sounds of Silence: The Deafening Noise of a Nation Decades in Decline

Politicians and pundits are not gods. When you treat them as such — you do a cosmic disservice to them, yourselves, the country, and the world as well. Look around! If they were the genuine article — they’d be pushing you to make a habit of welcoming challenge: Not just endlessly pointing out the opposition’s flaws while unconscionably ignoring your own.

As M. Scott Peck perfectly put it in The Road Less Traveled:

[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it

In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. To get a grip on the damage you’ve done and what we can do about it it: The Egyptian Proverb suggests you start with the first slide and so do I.

What do you think that illustration is trying to tell you?

And this one . . .

People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results. They choose it because it seems authoritative and familiar — and I’m not and never have been familiar. — Michael Burry, The Big Short

If that were not overwhelmingly true, my writings would not exist. I would not have been shown nothing but contempt for 20 years of telling undeniable truth: Painfully obvious deception that shaped the world around you. No rational person would repeatedly deny what’s plain as day, and just minutes into anything I’ve written on this issue — you should know something’s not right.

But you find it’s with me — as I’m not and never have been familiar:

It seems like only yesterday I didn’t have a clue I stood alone not knowing where to turn Now suddenly I look around And everything looks new . . .They call it understanding A willingness to grow I’m finally understanding There’s so much I could know — Bob Seger

In all the “critical thinking” I’ve come across, I’ve seen no such willingness. Incredibly, even sharing something in hopes of a human connection — that maybe having something in common could connect in a way that undeniable evidence doesn’t: Even that is mocked and conveniently taken as “weakness” in argument — by people who have no argument.

I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see.

If you can’t see how that applies to America, I don’t know what to tell ya — and if you were a critical thinker, I wouldn’t have to. Just as I wouldn’t have to explain the inclusion of a story called Music in Motion: “We Will Cut the [Wheel] Down the Middle”:

As critical thinkers are curious as to how problem-solving principles in one story connect with another.

Sometimes we do things with the best of reasons behind ’em — with rock-solid experience shaping our approach. But problems can arise when we get too comfortable relying on our experience — then make assumptions that don’t account for other factors.

That can happen to anybody, but if you wanna accomplish your goal:

Keep the door open for when things don’t go as planned. And be willing to wonder, “Is this working? Will it ever work?” I’m beginning to wonder if there’s anyone out there willing to wonder at all.

Everyone’s in a rush in a world “[where] the machine has taken the soul from the man.” And anything that doesn’t conform — doesn’t compute, as new ideas and insights are “locked up from those who hurry ahead.”

AI/Grok Can Gut the Truth or Take You to It: It’s Up to You and Always Will Be

“One Voice Became Two — And Two Became Three”: The Last of the True Believers?

Richard’s Substack

Discussion about this post