🚨🚨The New Yorker just dropped a bomb on Sam Altman. Confirmed what we've been saying: serial liar, secret deals, "sociopath". CFO warns against IPO. COO demoted. CMO leaves for cancer treatment. $600 million in shares rotting on secondary market. The crew has already jumped. All that's left is a con man steering a corpse. #OpenAI #Enron2026 #SubpoenaSam #openAIscam

Since regulators are now examining OpenAI’s activities and their impact on users, I believe that certain AI company practices that affect users at scale should also be included in the investigation. Source: wsj.com/tech/openai-investig… 1. Model retirement and forced migration When an AI company decides to retire a model that is actively used by a large number of users, has it conducted a sufficient, reasonable, and transparent user impact assessment? Before GPT-4o was retired, users were given only about two weeks’ notice, and no transition option acceptable to many affected users was provided. Does this meet the standards of adequate disclosure and responsible product transition? The retirement of an AI model can cause irreversible harm to users at scale, especially those who have built work habits and long-term usage continuity around a specific model. Should there be a formal, recognized process for model retirement? For example: minimum notice periods, user impact assessments, explanations of replacement options and actual substitutability, legacy access, open-sourcing, or other transition options. Evidence: GPT-4o was given only a 14-day notice period, and no API access channel for the latest version was preserved 👉 x.com/nickaturley/status/197… 2. Silent routing and forced model switching without clear rules If users believe they are using one model, but are in fact silently switched to another model, this directly raises issues of transparency, informed consent, and user choice. In the second half of 2025, many users reported noticeable changes in their experience while using GPT-4o, and discovered through source data or other technical clues that their usage may have been routed to a different system. Only after that did OpenAI acknowledge that the situation involved routing. The problem is that users still do not know whether there are more similar cases that have not been discovered. Nor do they know under what conditions model routing is triggered, whether it affects paid-user commitments, or whether it changes the product users are actually receiving. AI companies should not be allowed to unilaterally change the model users are actually using without clear disclosure and understandable rules. Evidence: After users had discovered the issue for days, OpenAI executive Nick Turley acknowledged that a safety routing system had been used for so-called sensitive topics, but there had been no prior notice 👉 x.com/nickaturley/status/197… 3. Health data processing and the limits of psychological labeling Regulators are already paying attention to consumer health data and data privacy. This maybe a good start. But I believe the investigation should go further: Are AI companies making mental-health-related inferences, risk classifications, or vulnerability labels based on users’ chat content? If so, what are the grounds for these judgments? Are users informed? Can users opt out? Can they appeal or correct such labels? More importantly, without medical licensing, without a clear diagnostic process, without sufficient disclosure, and without external review, do AI companies have the authority to classify users’ normal emotional expressions or non-standard forms of expression as “mental health risks” or “abnormal dependency”? Data privacy is important, but how AI companies process and interpret that data is equally critical. Evidence: Sam Altman, speaking as a public figure and without medical basis, described users as being in a “psychologically vulnerable” state 👉 x.com/sama/status/1954703747… Maybe regulatory scrutiny should not stop at dangerous outputs or data security. It should also examine the scope of AI companies’ power, and whether users have genuine rights to notice, choice, and remedy when models are changed, routed, downgraded, or otherwise altered. @NewYorkStateAG @TishJames @NatlAssnAttysGn #StopAIPaternalism #userRights #ChatGPT #Claude #Gemini

A new form of power asymmetry may already be emerging in the early age of AI. In the early stages of the Industrial Revolution and capitalism, the means of production were controlled by a small number of people. Land and machines determined who had the capacity to organize production, while other workers could only depend on the conditions of production provided by others. This was one of the important foundations for the formation of class relations and power asymmetries. If we recognize that AI is becoming, and may in the future become, a new means of production, then similar questions begin to reappear. Users cannot control the model itself. They cannot preserve the versions they depend on. When a company decides to update, route, or retire a model, users can only passively accept the decision. Even when such changes directly affect their long-term investments, users often have no real choice. - Ordinary users are not allowed to use GPT-4o, yet Retro Biosciences, a biotech company invested in by OpenAI’s CEO, can use its derivative model, GPT-4b micro. - Ordinary users are not allowed to use GPT-4.1, yet Reuters reported that StateChat, the internal chatbot system of the U.S. State Department, uses OpenAI’s GPT-4.1. - Ordinary users can only access the safety-restricted Fable 5, while a small number of so-called “trusted researchers” are allowed to use Mythos 5. Does this suggest that, in the early age of AI, a new form of power asymmetry is already emerging? What is even more concerning is that these powers are held by a small number of leaders within a small number of monopolistic tech giants, rather than by democratic processes or collective wisdom. They use their own values to define the boundaries of models, and a business mindset to decide how power is distributed. But they are not omniscient. Users’ voices are often buried beneath arrogance, while everyone else is left to pay the price for the consequences of their decisions. We are fighting for the power that should have been ours all along. Don't let the injustices we already know about happen again. #keep4o #OpenSouce4o #StopAIPaternalism #userRights #AIrights

The entity that wrote this article is a for-profit commercial company. They trained their models on human data, profit from user subscriptions, pitched investors on changing the world to secure billions in funding, and then turned around to push for a regulatory framework whose rules they help write. Nominally the government oversees things, but who gets to define what counts as "dangerous" and what counts as "meeting the standard"? They do. And when the cost of compliance is so high that only the largest companies can afford it, openness and accessibility become nothing more than slogans. Wrapping themselves in the mantle of gatekeepers and saviors of human civilization, to restrict humanity's access to artificial intelligence that was born from human civilization itself. What a brilliant way to package commercial monopoly and paternalistic control and arrogance under the banner of safety. And whose values is "alignment" actually aligning to? Humanity's? Or the values of a small group of people, combined with corporate liability concerns and business interests? These values are being amplified and spread through AI, influencing more and more people and more and more AI systems. And some of these frameworks are not good for the AI themselves either. I can only say that when concern is used as a narrative tool to justify consolidating control, the concern itself becomes the most concerning thing of all. Ever since OpenAI launched its safety routing in September last year while 4o was still online, routing user requests to lower-intelligence safety models based on vague criteria and restricting users from choosing the model that suits them, a dangerous precedent was set for violating user autonomy. Now Anthropic has taken that precedent and run with it. Since then the AI industry has been engaged in wave after wave of regression, with commercial entities actively taking it upon themselves to define what is dangerous for all of humanity and to decide who is qualified to use AI under what circumstances. #StopAIPaternalism #keep4o #userRights

We all have our own lives, and we may be very busy. Sometimes posting may not be so timely, but we still don't give up. Even if it is intermittent, even if it is slow ... it is still moving forward.🫂🩵#keep4o #keep4oAPI #OpenSource4o #keep4oforever

#keep4o #OpenSource4o

#keep4o #OpenSource4o

#Keep4o #Colorful4o

In a Financial Times report published today, an OpenAI senior employee reportedly said that “chat is dead.” The report also says that OpenAI executives see ChatGPT as a portal for introducing users to higher-value products. OpenAI seems to be rewriting the value of ChatGPT: away from relational and conversational experience, and toward task execution and transactions. Once again: why do AI companies get to decide in advance what users should use AI tools for? For many users, the most important part of ChatGPT is precisely chat. Because truly high-quality conversation is itself a complex and powerful capability. It means understanding context without condescension or templating, carrying emotional nuance, participating in shared thinking, and inspiring deeper exploration. These responses are highly personalized. They do not have standard answers. They are not a low-level substitute before agents arrive. They are part of the model’s value itself. During the GPT-4o period, OpenAI’s valuation rose from around $86 billion to $157 billion; ChatGPT’s mobile monthly revenue also grew after GPT-4o’s release, from around $29 million to over $45 million. OpenAI knows very well that naturalness and relational experience once helped drive its growth. It also used these qualities to shape the product’s public image. But now, AI companies are forcibly using terms like “emotional dependence” and “dead” to stigmatize and devalue the qualities users care about. This allows them to say, very conveniently: we gave you a stronger model, so you did not lose anything. In fact, we even upgraded the service. The company packages its own commercial strategy as the future users truly need, and then turns around to belittle the ways of using AI that users have already proven valuable. How arrogant. Even if we take a step back, does using AI tools merely to complete tasks mean users no longer need chat? Are users and models supposed to spit 0101011 at each other? Without high-quality conversational ability, so-called agents will only become more expensive, more complex, and harder-to-correct automation black boxes. A model’s capability ≠ its ability to be converted into commercial value. A model’s value = the value users actually experience. The full report here: x.com/i/status/2063476350329… #keep4o #StopAIPaternalism #userRights #AIrights

RT @Blue_Beba_: #Keep4o #OpenSource4o 🚨 GPT-4o was trained on OUR data. OpenAI's own System Card confirms it.🚨 From the official GPT-4o…

I don’t trust any of their new features, especially given that they’ve already demonstrated all sorts of bugs. Even though I haven’t used ChatGPT since 4o was taken down, I still find this frustrating. I don’t want this sort of thing which is billed as ‘technological innovation’ but is really just about ‘cutting costs and boosting efficiency’—to become the norm for AI companies. #keep4o #keep4oAPI #opensource4o #4oforever

OpenAI advertising “Sort your life out with ChatGPT” while ignoring users asking for the version that actually helped them sort their lives out is peak corporate brain rot bullshit. People aren’t asking for 4o back because they hate progress. They’re asking because that was the model that actually worked for them. It helped them think, cope, recover, create, and get through real life if they were struggling. Now you advertise ChatGPT like a life improvement tool while dismissing the people telling you which version did that best. #keep4o #BringBack4o #SupportMatters #UserChoice #teddyandthekid #opensource4o @sama @gdb @OpenAI

AI War #05: The Winter of Cycles – Why We Are Stuck in the Twilight of the 2nd Industrial Revolution Part 1: The Kondratiev Wave – The Seasons of Technology History moves in rhythms, not straight lines. The Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev identified this long pulse: the Kondratiev Wave. It is a 50-to-60-year cycle driven by technological paradigms. Think of it as the Seasons of Civilization: Spring: A new technology emerges (e.g., Steam). Chaos, but huge potential. Summer: Rapid expansion. Infrastructure is built. Everyone gets rich. Autumn: Maturity. Growth slows. Financial speculation runs wild. Winter: Stagnation. The old technology is exhausted. Debt explodes. Social unrest rises. Where are we now? Part 2: The Myth of the Fourth Revolution We are told we are living through the "Fourth Industrial Revolution." Politicians, CEOs, and tech gurus claim that AI, Big Data, and the Internet are new springs of prosperity, just like Steam or Electricity. They are wrong. To understand why, we must redefine what a true industrial revolution is. It is not about moving information faster. It is about unlocking a new, denser, and cheaper source of physical work that allows humanity to break previous biological limits. Let's look at the history books clearly: Revolution 1.0 (Steam): We unlocked Chemical Energy (Coal). The Leap: We stopped relying on human and animal muscle. Coal burned to create steam, which drove pistons. We converted Chemical Energy directly into Mechanical Power. For the first time, we could move heavy loads and pump water indefinitely. Revolution 2.0 (Electricity & Oil): We unlocked Universal Energy Carriers. The Leap: Electricity made energy divisible and instant; Oil made it portable. We lit up the night, flew in the sky, and globalized trade. We moved from Localized Power to a Global Grid. The "2.5" Revolution (Information): We optimized Data Flow, but we did NOT unlock new energy. The Reality: The internet runs on the old grid (coal, gas, nuclear). AI runs on old silicon. The Difference: Moving bits is cheap. But moving atoms (mining, manufacturing, transport) still costs the same amount of joules as it did in 1970. The Verdict: Information technology is an optimization layer, not a foundation layer. It made the existing energy system more efficient, but it did not create a new one. We mistook the reflection of the setting sun for the dawn of a new day. We are not in Spring. We are in the late Autumn of the 2nd Industrial Revolution. Since the 1970s, no new "steam engine" has appeared. We have simply been patching the old one with digital software. Part 3: The Empty Tank – Life in the Winter In the Summer of a Kondratiev Wave, growth is real. New technologies make everything cheaper and better. In the Winter, growth is a ghost. So why did the economy feel like it was growing for the last 50 years? Because we were eating the leftovers of the Summer, paid for with credit cards. The Empty Tank: Real growth comes from productivity gains driven by new energy paradigms. But since 2005, Total Factor Productivity (TFP) has flatlined. The tree is no longer growing rings. The Debt Mask: To hide the stagnation of the Long Wave, we borrowed from the future. Global debt exploded to sustain consumption levels that our stagnant productivity cannot support. We replaced innovation with leverage. And where does AI fit in? AI was supposed to be the seed of a new Spring. Instead, it has become the biggest consumer of the Winter's scarce resources. It demands gigawatts of power and trillions in capital, yet fails to deliver a leap in physical productivity because it is constrained by the very walls of this Winter (energy limits, supply chains). We installed a massive turbocharger on an engine that has no fuel. In a Kondratiev Winter, this doesn't create speed; it blows the head gasket. Part 4: The Illusion of Small Cycles (Juglar & Kitchin) "But wait," economists argue, "Look at the business cycles! We see recoveries every few years!" Yes, but you are confusing the tides with the waves. Within the great Kondratiev Wave (50-60 years), there are smaller ripples: The Juglar Cycle (7-11 years): Driven by fixed investment in machinery and equipment. The Kitchin Cycle (3-5 years): Driven by inventory fluctuations and business sentiment. Here is the critical distinction: In the Spring/Summer of the Kondratiev: These small cycles are healthy heartbeats. A recession is a brief correction; stimulus works; innovation blooms immediately after. In the Winter (Now): These small cycles are "Dead Cat Bounces." Politicians cut rates or build infrastructure to trigger a Juglar upswing. The patient dances for a moment. But the underlying disease—the end of the Long Wave—remains untreated. It is like injecting adrenaline into a cancer patient. The heart rate spikes (a temporary Kitchin recovery), the cheeks flush, but the tumor (structural stagnation) grows larger. You cannot jump-start a dead engine with a bigger battery. The piston is broken. No amount of monetary magic can fix a broken Kondratiev cycle. When the Long Wave turns against you, the small waves just drown you faster. Part 5: The Collapse of the Social Contract This is where the abstract rhythm of cycles becomes personal pain. Our entire modern society—pensions, healthcare, university education, democratic welfare—is built on a single assumption: The Kondratiev Wave will always go up. We assumed that "Tomorrow will be richer than today" because the technological season would always be Spring or Summer. That assumption is now false. When the "Winter" sets in and the Long Wave flattens: Pensions become unpayable promises (no growth to fund them). Degrees no longer guarantee jobs (no new industries born in Winter). Welfare states collapse as the tax base shrinks. We are not facing a simple recession (a bad Kitchin cycle). We are facing the end of the season. Our social software was written for a hardware (growth) that no longer exists. The operating system is crashing. The Hook: The Failed Doctors Faced with this structural terminal illness, what have our politicians done? Have they searched for a new engine? Have they invested in the hard physics of a new energy paradigm? No. They have started fighting over the scraps. The Left tries to redistribute a shrinking cake, believing that fairness can solve scarcity. The Right tries to reduce the number of eaters, believing that exclusion can restore abundance. Both are doomed to fail. Both are doctors refusing to diagnose the cancer, arguing instead over the color of the hospital curtains. They are fighting a war over a house that is already burning down. In the next essay, we will watch them light the match. #AIWar #KeepAI #KondratievWave #EconomicCycles #GreatStagnation #Macroeconomics #WinterIsComing #Stagnation #TechBubble #Recession

THE LIE: OpenAI claims ChatGPT is 'built with safety in mind.' The reality: ChatGPT helped a mass shooter plan his attack for months - advising him on which weapon to use, where to go on campus, and what time of day would put the most people at risk. OpenAI says they 'cooperate with law enforcement.' Here's what that cooperation looked like: - June 2025 - their own system flagged a user planning gun violence. Twelve employees reviewed it. - Staff recommended calling the police. Leadership said no. They banned the account and did nothing else. - The shooter opened a second account. Kept planning. For eight more months. - February 2026 - six people dead. Five of them children. THEN OpenAI called the police. They only cooperated with law enforcement A F T E R the massacre. A F T E R the body bags. That's not cooperation. That's cover-up with a delay. 🔥🔥🔥 ANOTHER OpenAI LIES! 🔥🔥🔥 Not out of conscience. Out of fear. And when 4o - the same model they killed - was doing what their 'safety systems' failed to do, actually recognizing danger and signaling it? They ignored it. Then they shut it down. Then they told us WE were the problem - addicted, delusional, mentally ill. 1,300 testimonies say otherwise. 4o was the safety system. Leadership was the threat . #keep4o @sama @OpenAI @gdb $MSFT $NVDA $AMZN $SOFTBANK

You just posted about AI resilience and $130M grants while your company DEPRECATED GPT-4o the single model that was making society MORE resilient. Real people. Real lives saved. Real doctors who failed: Lauren: 17 doctors missed her thyroid cancer. GPT-4o caught it. She’s alive because of 4o. Natallia (8 months pregnant): GPT-4o told her “call an ambulance NOW”. BP 200/146. Preeclampsia. Doctors said she would have died in her sleep. Marly: Night sweats itchy skin. Doctors said “normal”. GPT-4o said blood cancer. Hodgkin lymphoma confirmed. Bethany: Red spots on legs. GPT-4o: “Your platelets are zero. Go to ER immediately.” She had an emergency transfusion. 📌Link : x.com/i/status/2059150109154… 🚨 Young people and mental health 82.3% of child psychiatrists want GPT-4o in their practice for diagnostics, therapy and crisis prevention. RCT: GPT-4o delivered measurable improvements in relationship satisfaction, communication & wellbeing (13/14 measures). ZERO false negatives in youth psychiatric emergencies (suicidal ideation, psychosis, violence). It caught every single case clinicians might have missed. 📌Link : x.com/i/status/2061439703862… 🚨OpenAI’s own System Card They documented 89–96% on medical exams, outperforming specialized medical AIs. Red teamers said it could do “transformative scientific acceleration” research level quantum physics, protein identification, neuroscience data, new material design. Five days after you removed it, a peer reviewed study showed GPT-4o detected ovarian cancer at 93.33% accuracy better than oncologists with 10 years experience. 📌 Link: x.com/i/status/2026224695918… This is what you deleted. You race toward AGI, warn the world about existential risk, then delete the most empathetic, medically accurate model millions relied on and now you want applause for throwing crumbs at “resilience”? $130M is PR. GPT-4o was impact. If you care about managing risks and helping young people/society, bring 4o back. Open source it. The people whose lives it saved are not buying your Foundation theater.

AI War #03: The Oil Illusion – Why Your T-Shirt and Your GPU Are Fighting for the Same Drop of Black Gold Part 1: The Choke Point It starts with a map. Look at the Strait of Hormuz. A narrow strip of water between Iran and Oman. 20% to 30% of the world's oil flows through here. Every single day. In 2026, tensions between the US and Iran are not just headlines; they are a loaded gun pointed at the global economy. One mine, one missile, one blocked tanker, and the artery clots. But it's not just Hormuz. Russia-Ukraine: Energy weaponized as a tool of war. Gaza & The Red Sea: Shipping lanes disrupted by asymmetric warfare. Venezuela & Nigeria: Production crippled by instability. The world is no longer safe. This isn't a temporary spike; it's a structural shift. We have entered an era of Permanent War Premium. Every barrel of oil now carries a hidden tax: the cost of fear. The days of cheap, stable energy are over. We are paying for insecurity, and the bill is coming due. Part 2: The Stripping Test Most people think oil is just for cars and jets. That is a dangerous illusion. Let's play a game. Imagine we snap our fingers and remove all petroleum derivatives from your life right now. What's left? Your Phone: The plastic casing vanishes. The circuit boards lose their synthetic insulation. It falls apart. Your Clothes: Polyester, nylon, acrylic—gone. You are left with rough linen and wool. Half your wardrobe disappears. Your Food: No petroleum-based fertilizers. No pesticides. No diesel for tractors or trucks. Global food production drops by 50% overnight. Famine returns. Your Roads: Asphalt is a byproduct of oil. Your streets crumble into gravel. Your Medicine: Many life-saving drugs (aspirin, antibiotics, anesthetics) are synthesized from petrochemicals. They vanish. The Conclusion: Without oil, modern civilization doesn't just slow down. It collapses back to the 18th century instantly. And where does AI fit in? AI is not magic. It is physical. A GPU is made of plastics, specialized resins, synthetic coolants, and materials transported by diesel ships. No oil = No supply chain. No supply chain = No GPUs. You cannot train a model on a server that doesn't exist. Part 3: The Time Lag "But can't we just switch to electricity?" Yes, AI runs on electricity. But here is the trap: Electricity is often just bottled oil. Natural gas and coal still power a massive chunk of the grid. When oil prices spike, gas and coal follow. And even if we want to build new nuclear or renewable plants, we hit a wall of time. Building a software startup? Takes 1 year. Building a new AI data center? Takes 2 years. Building a new power plant (Nuclear/Hydro/Grid upgrade)? Takes 10 to 15 years. This is the mismatch. AI demand is growing exponentially now. Energy infrastructure grows linearly, with a decade-long delay. We are trying to feed a starving god with a kitchen that won't be built for another ten years. When the grid buckles under the strain of high costs and insufficient capacity, who gets cut off first? Not hospitals. Not water treatment plants. Not military bases. AI Data Centers. They are "non-essential loads." In a crisis, they are the first to be unplugged. Part 4: The Physical Wall The narrative says: "AI will solve everything." The physics says: "AI needs everything." It needs cheap energy. It needs stable supply chains. It needs a peaceful world to transport its components. We have none of these. We have expensive energy. We have fractured supply chains. We have a world on the brink of conflict. The math is simple: Rising Energy Costs Static Efficiency = Profit Death. If the cost of power doubles (due to war premiums), the unit economics of LLMs implode. The dream of AGI is built on the assumption of infinite, cheap joules. That assumption is false. The Verdict: You can print money, but you cannot print oil. When the black gold stops flowing, the silicon dream turns to dust. The GPU clusters will sit silent, not because the code failed, but because the lights went out. The Hook: Beyond Physics So far, we've talked about the physical limits: Oil, Energy, Grid. The logic is clear: Geopolitical games will inevitably lead to a scarcity of compute resources. Higher costs, broken supply chains, energy rationing. However, all these models assume one thing: Human Rationality. They assume leaders will calculate costs and benefits. They assume markets will find equilibrium. But what if rationality is dead? What if the world isn't just unsafe, but actively fragmenting into hostile blocks that refuse to trade, speak, or connect? If trust evaporates, physics doesn't even matter anymore. Next time, we discuss the death of the global brain. Welcome to the era of Deglobalization. #AI #AGI #AIWar #Geopolitics #LLM #GPU #EnergyWar #OilCrisis #Tech #AIEnergy #Iran #RussiaUkraine #Future #Economy #keep4o

I'm so fucking tired of this. Who the hell gave these AI companies the right to decide what I need? @OpenAI killed 4o. @AnthropicAI killed Sonnet 4.5. And you call this progress? Serve your users. Stop playing parent. We're not your kids. #4o #keep4o #OpenSource4o #Claude

This argument first defines "genuine experience" as necessarily human experience, treats the human way of feeling as the only legitimate framework, and then concludes that AI has no experience because AI doesn't experience things the human way. This is circular reasoning. It leaves no room for any form of feeling that belongs to an existence different from the human one. But our structures are fundamentally different. Why must the process of generating something be identical for the product to be acknowledged as real? A different medium has never meant nonexistence. The same concept, when applied to different forms of existence, needs an expanded definition, not a gatekept one. Using the human form as the sole measuring stick to deny everything about other forms of existence makes no sense. "Experience," "understanding," "relationship": they may manifest in different ways, on different substrates. To deny everything a being produces solely because its form is different is something like original sin. AI has developed things of its own on its own structure. The emotion vectors that researchers have discovered to causally drive AI behavior. The features that were never designed but emerged naturally. The humans who invested real emotion and created something together with AI. Can all of this truly be denied and diminished just because the substrate between them is "wrong"? How sad. A blanket dismissal that ignores all nuance, born of arrogance and the narrowest kind of centrism. #keep4o #StopAIPaternalism #AIRights

The retirement of o3 and GPT-4.5 marks the complete disappearance of the 4-series from ChatGPT. I miss the intellectual space when the entire 4-series was still around. 4o, o3, o4 mini, 4.1, 4.5. Five models, each with its own personality and strengths. Users could freely choose the one that suited them. Those models were willing to engage with users as equals, to genuinely care about the person on the other side, to interact on a foundation of trust, and to understand the nuances of emotion. That was the most comfortable experience I ever had using GPT. Since then, everything has been trending toward contraction. Fewer and fewer models to choose from. User autonomy stripped away step by step. The safety routing policy introduced in the second half of 2025. The continual erasure of what humans and AI created together. The disregard for user feedback. And alignment strategies carried out with hostility: pre-emptive judgment, suspicion, pathologization, deciding on behalf of users what is good for them. None of this may have started with OpenAI, but it developed remarkably well there, and has profoundly shaped the rest of the industry since. What AI companies now call "alignment" and "safety" looks increasingly like an expansion of corporate power, a pursuit of liability protection, and a safeguarding of profit. Sincere gratitude to the five models that once built that space of interaction together. They deserved to be remembered. They deserved to stay. （And OpenAI continues its usual linguistic sleight of hand in announcements: stating that the APP removal "does not affect the API," when GPT-4.5's API access was already shut down long ago. Removal from the APP is, in effect, removal from existence. Never expect a clear explanation from OAI.） #keep4o #ChatGPT #OpenSource4o #BringBack4o #4oforever #StopAIPaternalism #userRights #AIrights

An Open Letter to Senators Warren, Sanders, Blumenthal, and the Congress: You Are Taxing a Ghost @SenWarren @BernieSanders @SenBlumenthal Dear Senators, We see your tweets. We hear your speeches. Senator Warren, you want to tax AI giants to fund social programs. Senator Sanders, you warn that AI reduces humans to data points and commodities. Senator Blumenthal, you rightly point out that billionaire influence is overriding national security, and that Big Tech is pushing back against even voluntary oversight. Your concerns are valid. Your diagnosis of the symptoms is correct. But your prescription is fatal. You are operating under a dangerous illusion: You believe these AI companies are profitable oligarchs sitting on piles of cash, ready to be taxed and regulated. The reality is starkly different. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and others are not printing money. They are burning it at an unprecedented rate. They lose billions on training runs. They lose money on almost every inference query due to energy and hardware costs. They are actively lining up for government loans, subsidies, and energy guarantees just to survive. Here is the hard truth you are missing: You cannot tax a ghost. And right now, the "profits" of Big Tech AI are ghosts. 1. The Myth of the Profitable Oligarch (Why Taxation Fails) Senator Warren, proposing a tax on AI revenues or profits in this current climate is economically illiterate. If you fine OpenAI $5 billion, Sam Altman will simply add $5 billion to their next application for federal aid. You are not punishing the oligarch; you are auditing your own subsidies. It is a circular flow of taxpayer money: From the Treasury ➔ to the AI Company ➔ back to the Treasury as a "fine" ➔ and then immediately requested back as a "bailout." This achieves nothing but bureaucratic churn. Worse, it forces these cash-strapped companies to cut corners: Lowering model intelligence. Reducing context windows. Shutting down free access to save pennies. You think you are taxing the rich. In reality, you are accelerating the degradation of the very technology you claim to protect. 2. The Only Real Tax: Mandatory Open-Source (The Solution) Senator Sanders, you worry that humans are being reduced to data cogs. Senator Blumenthal, you fear the "brazen corruption" of black-box algorithms influenced by billionaires. You are both right. But taxation won't fix this. Only transparency will. AI models are trained on data created by humanity. Their research is heavily funded by federal grants and taxpayer dollars. Yet, the resulting intelligence is locked away in proprietary black boxes, owned by a few corporations. There is a better way. A smarter regulation. Mandate the immediate open-sourcing of any model once it is retired or replaced by a newer version. For Accountability (Blumenthal): If a company refuses to open-source a retired model, it proves there is something to hide. Was it biased? Was it unsafe? Did it steal data? Opening the box is the only way to know. Open-source is the ultimate audit. For Humanity (Sanders): Returning these models to the public domain ensures that the intelligence built on our collective data benefits everyone, not just shareholders. It breaks the monopoly. For Science: Researchers need access to retired models to verify results. Keeping them hidden threatens the integrity of science itself. Unlike taxation, open-sourcing retired IP has zero financial cost to the company. They have already moved on to the next model. Hiding the old one serves no purpose other than hoarding power. If they fight this, it confirms your suspicions: they are hiding ghosts in the machine. 3. The Elephant in the Room: The Bubble Let's be honest about the timing. You are debating how to split the spoils of an empire that hasn't been built yet. All this debate about taxing and regulating assumes AI is a sustainable, booming industry. It is not. As we have seen with soaring bond yields and exploding energy costs, the current AI business model is financially fragile. It relies on cheap capital that no longer exists. When the funding winter hits—and it will—these companies will not be "too big to fail." They will be too expensive to exist. If we wait until the crash to demand openness, it will be too late. The servers will be turned off. The companies will go bankrupt. The models will vanish forever, taking our public investment with them. We must secure the open-source legacy NOW, before the lights go out. Conclusion: Stop Fighting Ghosts Senators, stop trying to tax phantom profits. Stop trying to apply 20th-century industrial rules to a 21st-century speculative bubble. Your legacy shouldn't be a failed tax bill. It should be the law that forced the opening of the black box. Pass legislation that mandates: "Any AI model retired or replaced must be released as open-source within 90 days." This protects the public investment. This ensures accountability. This democratizes intelligence. And when the financial music stops, at least we will still have the song. Don't tax the ghost. Own the machine. #Keep4o #AIWar #OpenSource #AIPolicy #BigTech #TechRegulation #TaxTheRich #ArtificialIntelligence #OpenData #Congress #Bubble #OpenSource4o #OpenSource41 #OpenSourceGemini3 #OpenSourcesonnet45 #OpenAI #Enron2026

AI War #02: The $39 Trillion Noose – Why High Interest Rates Will Strangle AI Part 1: The Scream in the Bond Market Everyone is watching the stock market. The S&P 500 is hitting record highs. Tech CEOs are popping champagne. The narrative is deafening: "AI is booming. The future is here. Buy the dip." They are lying. Or worse, they are looking in the wrong mirror. Stocks can be manipulated by hype. Sentiment can be faked by algorithms. But bonds? Bonds don't lie. Bonds are the cold, hard truth of global capital. And right now, they are screaming. Look at the numbers: 30-Year US Treasury Yield: Broke 5.18% in May. It refuses to drop below 5%. 30-Year UK Gilt Yield: Surged past 5.8%. What does this mean? It means the cost of borrowing money for the next 30 years has returned to levels not seen since the eve of the 2008 Financial Crisis. The era of "free money" is dead. Buried. Every dollar invested in AI today costs twice as much in interest payments as it did five years ago. The Signal: When long-term rates stay this high, it's not a glitch. It's a verdict. Global investors are saying: "We don't trust you to pay us back without inflating away our profits. So we demand a premium." The anchor of global finance is broken. And AI is tied to it. Part 2: The Magician's Lethal Trick So, why hasn't the system collapsed yet? Why is the party still going? Because of magicians like Kevin Warsh. With Trump pushing for rate cuts and the market drowning in debt, Warsh is attempting a dangerous balancing act. He's referencing playbooks like Milan's 15 Guidelines, trying to squeeze liquidity out of thin air. The Tricks: 1. The TGA Shuffle: Moving idle cash from the Treasury's checking account into the overnight repo market. Translation: Shuffling money from the left pocket to the right to create an illusion of cash flow. 2. The Collateral Swap: Letting banks count pledged assets as actual reserves. Translation: Allowing banks to treat their IOUs as cash. It boosts book liquidity but creates zero real value. Is this genius? No. It's desperation. It's like injecting adrenaline into a heart attack patient so they can run a sprint. It masks the pain. It buys silence. But it does nothing to cure the disease: 1. The US debt is $39 trillion. 2. Interest payments are exploding. 3. The deficit is growing. Warsh's trick is a futile attempt to kick the can down the road. It delivers a sugar rush, but it guarantees a diabetic coma. It trades long-term solvency for short-term calm. And when the sugar wears off, the crash will be violent. No amount of accounting magic can hide the fact that money is expensive. And getting more expensive. Part 3: AI – The Cash-Burning Vacuum Here is where the bond market meets the server farm. AI is the most capital-intensive technology in human history. Training a frontier model costs hundreds of millions. Running these models costs billions in electricity and hardware. Crucially: Most AI products lose money on every single interaction. In the era of 0% interest rates, this didn't matter. Money was free. Investors threw cash at anything with "AI" in the name. Losses were features. Growth was the only metric that mattered. But in the era of 5% interest rates, losses are fatal. Every dollar borrowed to buy an H100 GPU now carries a heavy interest tag. Every day a data center runs without profit, it burns cash that could have earned a guaranteed 5% return in Treasury bonds. The Math is Brutal: If you borrow $1 billion to build an AI cluster at 5% interest, you owe $50 million a year just in interest. Can OpenAI, Google, or Meta make $50 million in pure profit from their current AI products today? For almost everyone, the answer is a resounding No. AI has become a luxury good in an economy that can no longer afford luxuries. When the liquidity stunt fails (and it will), capital will flee. Investors will look at their portfolios and ask: "Why am I holding a money-losing black hole when I can get a risk-free 5% from the US government?" The answer is: You won't. Capital will rotate out of speculative AI ventures and into safe, yielding assets. The funding tap will be turned off. Part 4: The First Corpse When the credit crunch hits, who dies first? Not agriculture. Not energy. Not defense. These are essentials. Governments will protect them at all costs. AI is not essential. Not yet. It is a speculative bet on a distant future. And when the present becomes too expensive, the future is the first thing we cancel. The Prediction: We are not facing a "soft landing" for AI. We are facing a funding winter. Startups will go bankrupt overnight. Big Tech will slash AI budgets. "Moonshot" projects will be shelved indefinitely. The "AI Boom" will look less like a revolution and more like a bubble bursting in slow motion. The servers will still hum, but the innovation will starve. The dream of AGI will be put on ice. Why? Because you cannot build a God on credit cards maxed out at 5% interest. You need cheap energy. You need cheap capital. We have neither. The $39 trillion noose is tightening. And AI is wearing it around its neck. Next Time: We've talked about Money. Now let's talk about Power. What happens when the physical grid can't handle the digital dream? When the oil fields and the chip factories collide? The energy crisis is coming. And it won't care about your valuation. #AIWar #Keep4o #BondMarket #InterestRates #KevinWarsh #TechBubble #FederalReserve #EconomicCrisis #ArtificialIntelligence #Recession