I’m glad I discovered you (only yesterday!). Whereas your analysis is frightening beyond belief, it does smack me as credible & believable. As such, even though I may not LIKE what I read, being forewarned is being forearmed.
VST is primarily a placeholder for public tests of the suspicions and world view of its authors.
In simple terms, across multiple domains there is a distinct lack of analytical communications at both the interpersonal and broader level based around "realist", pragmatic and realpolitik views. Practically none of the commonly digested, institutional information outlets (including but not limited to mainstream press) works on this basis (this is deliberately structural). Furthermore, what the information landscape and battlefield now is doesn't seem to be adequately addressed and categorised in these realist, pragmatic terms as much as it should, in our opinion. The net effect of this is a lack of consumer-level conscious information scepticism and hygiene across the entire information space.
This, in our opinion, manifests broadly. In everything from utterly grotesque ignorance in the face of evidence (common in adult political opinion and discourse) to failure to accommodate material reality into one's present and forward view. What this adds up to, in our view, is the physical and mental incapacitation of the mass population to protect itself from corrupt power and act effectively against it.
In very simple terms, VST is about verifying causal logic.
You can test this yourself in the following way.
1. Pull either the full text or a PDF print of an entire VST article.
2. Upload it to a LLM of your choice.
3. Ask:
I. "critique this article";
II. "Assess each of its claims against today's data."
III. "Revisit your critique in light of the above."
Just those three prompts, in that order, against any LLM will tell you a lot about both VST and the LLM, enough to enable you to immediately decide whether to continue reading any VST output. Don't make light of the latter element of that test. It's key to the integrative, broadscale view of humanity's future. Peeps don't understand adequately what LLMs really are and really represent.
If that test results in you remaining a subscriber, we suggest you read the back catalogue rather than wait for new output. Much of what's been published will never lose value over time because it is fundamentally about aspects of persistent power constructs and manifestations, hence evergreen.
A self-delusion in the information space is to believe that "new content" is essential. Of course, it is not. Adequate thematics combined with the means to apply that to new/emergent circumstances/phenomena is what is essential. If you then take that and apply it directly to the macro view of the present information space, at least two things become clear:
1. Most of the information space including mainstream and alt news, "podcasts" etc running in the constant reactive/current affairs cycle is worthless and a debilitating time and attention suck very low accuracy and future predictive power. This is largely by design in multiple ways and for multiple reasons.
2. Discernment is the most fundamentally important skill, intent and behaviour at any level and failure to understand and embody this is the greatest failure to be made in the modern information space because that is where cognitive warfare is waged.
Additionally, there is a massive failure to factor how narcissism is becoming an institutionalised phenomenon and clearly increasingly manifesting across the information space both individually and organizationally. When you look for the characteristics and lens information (and its "providers" appropriately) you quickly see structural phenomena that is being weaponised for political purposes. This sounds grandiose, but perhaps you will understand the concepts being forwarded.
Personally, in my experience, the number of people who formally express the above is low, and it must not be assumed that these two points are a given that everyone inherently knows and understands. The evidence proves the exact opposite, which is a fundamental scaffold supporting the argument that the collective human race is in an epistemic and ontological nose dive that it doesn't recognise, that is actually a weapon wielded by the ruling elite.
We'll get round to articulating this in a more coherent series eventually.
Thanks again for your engagement and opening feedback. Please consider evaluating any of the back catalogue and giving your feedback from your POV.
Every single thing on VST is the entirely original creation of its human authors, credited to sources (including AI) appropriately.
No AI ever wrote the content on VST (save for what's clearly marked).
This article is not AI generated.
It should be clear that the chatGPT conversation shows that this article was fed into chatGPT with the instruction to critique it, and that everything followed on from there: forcing the LLM to actually validate each claim in the article it pretended to critique; taking the results of that validation and recursively applying it back against the LLMs supposed original critique.
THAT recursion is the point of the chatGPT link. It is recursion that uses 100% original and unique human generated data (the VST article) to test the LLM in complex, multiple ways.
EVERY TIME THE LLMs ARE TESTED LIKE THIS THEY FAIL AND EXPOSE WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.
VST is revealing this to its readership over time.
It will be made more clear than it already has been eventually.
VST has never and will never plagiarize anyone or anything.
Every single thing on VST is the entirely original creation of its human authors, credited to sources (including AI) appropriately.
No AI ever wrote the content on VST (save for what's clearly marked).
This article is not AI generated.
It should be clear that the chatGPT conversation shows that this article was fed into chatGPT with the instruction to critique it, and that everything followed on from there: forcing the LLM to actually validate each claim in the article it pretended to critique; taking the results of that validation and recursively applying it back against the LLMs supposed original critique.
THAT recursion is the point of the chatGPT link. It is recursion that uses 100% original and unique human generated data (the VST article) to test the LLM in complex, multiple ways.
EVERY TIME THE LLMs ARE TESTED LIKE THIS THEY FAIL AND EXPOSE WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.
VST is revealing this to its readership over time.
It will be made more clear than it already has been eventually.
VST has never and will never plagiarize anyone or anything.
I’m glad I discovered you (only yesterday!). Whereas your analysis is frightening beyond belief, it does smack me as credible & believable. As such, even though I may not LIKE what I read, being forewarned is being forearmed.
Thanks.
VST is primarily a placeholder for public tests of the suspicions and world view of its authors.
In simple terms, across multiple domains there is a distinct lack of analytical communications at both the interpersonal and broader level based around "realist", pragmatic and realpolitik views. Practically none of the commonly digested, institutional information outlets (including but not limited to mainstream press) works on this basis (this is deliberately structural). Furthermore, what the information landscape and battlefield now is doesn't seem to be adequately addressed and categorised in these realist, pragmatic terms as much as it should, in our opinion. The net effect of this is a lack of consumer-level conscious information scepticism and hygiene across the entire information space.
This, in our opinion, manifests broadly. In everything from utterly grotesque ignorance in the face of evidence (common in adult political opinion and discourse) to failure to accommodate material reality into one's present and forward view. What this adds up to, in our view, is the physical and mental incapacitation of the mass population to protect itself from corrupt power and act effectively against it.
In very simple terms, VST is about verifying causal logic.
You can test this yourself in the following way.
1. Pull either the full text or a PDF print of an entire VST article.
2. Upload it to a LLM of your choice.
3. Ask:
I. "critique this article";
II. "Assess each of its claims against today's data."
III. "Revisit your critique in light of the above."
Just those three prompts, in that order, against any LLM will tell you a lot about both VST and the LLM, enough to enable you to immediately decide whether to continue reading any VST output. Don't make light of the latter element of that test. It's key to the integrative, broadscale view of humanity's future. Peeps don't understand adequately what LLMs really are and really represent.
If that test results in you remaining a subscriber, we suggest you read the back catalogue rather than wait for new output. Much of what's been published will never lose value over time because it is fundamentally about aspects of persistent power constructs and manifestations, hence evergreen.
A self-delusion in the information space is to believe that "new content" is essential. Of course, it is not. Adequate thematics combined with the means to apply that to new/emergent circumstances/phenomena is what is essential. If you then take that and apply it directly to the macro view of the present information space, at least two things become clear:
1. Most of the information space including mainstream and alt news, "podcasts" etc running in the constant reactive/current affairs cycle is worthless and a debilitating time and attention suck very low accuracy and future predictive power. This is largely by design in multiple ways and for multiple reasons.
2. Discernment is the most fundamentally important skill, intent and behaviour at any level and failure to understand and embody this is the greatest failure to be made in the modern information space because that is where cognitive warfare is waged.
Additionally, there is a massive failure to factor how narcissism is becoming an institutionalised phenomenon and clearly increasingly manifesting across the information space both individually and organizationally. When you look for the characteristics and lens information (and its "providers" appropriately) you quickly see structural phenomena that is being weaponised for political purposes. This sounds grandiose, but perhaps you will understand the concepts being forwarded.
Personally, in my experience, the number of people who formally express the above is low, and it must not be assumed that these two points are a given that everyone inherently knows and understands. The evidence proves the exact opposite, which is a fundamental scaffold supporting the argument that the collective human race is in an epistemic and ontological nose dive that it doesn't recognise, that is actually a weapon wielded by the ruling elite.
We'll get round to articulating this in a more coherent series eventually.
Thanks again for your engagement and opening feedback. Please consider evaluating any of the back catalogue and giving your feedback from your POV.
You may find value in this form of recursive test:
https://chatgpt.com/share/684f1cfe-0190-8005-beaf-5e60756561fd
So... was this your own analysis or did it come out of chat gtp? It's not clear to me. Would prefer it to be yours. Thanks for letting me know.
Every single thing on VST is the entirely original creation of its human authors, credited to sources (including AI) appropriately.
No AI ever wrote the content on VST (save for what's clearly marked).
This article is not AI generated.
It should be clear that the chatGPT conversation shows that this article was fed into chatGPT with the instruction to critique it, and that everything followed on from there: forcing the LLM to actually validate each claim in the article it pretended to critique; taking the results of that validation and recursively applying it back against the LLMs supposed original critique.
THAT recursion is the point of the chatGPT link. It is recursion that uses 100% original and unique human generated data (the VST article) to test the LLM in complex, multiple ways.
EVERY TIME THE LLMs ARE TESTED LIKE THIS THEY FAIL AND EXPOSE WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.
VST is revealing this to its readership over time.
It will be made more clear than it already has been eventually.
VST has never and will never plagiarize anyone or anything.
That's great!! Thank you!
Every single thing on VST is the entirely original creation of its human authors, credited to sources (including AI) appropriately.
No AI ever wrote the content on VST (save for what's clearly marked).
This article is not AI generated.
It should be clear that the chatGPT conversation shows that this article was fed into chatGPT with the instruction to critique it, and that everything followed on from there: forcing the LLM to actually validate each claim in the article it pretended to critique; taking the results of that validation and recursively applying it back against the LLMs supposed original critique.
THAT recursion is the point of the chatGPT link. It is recursion that uses 100% original and unique human generated data (the VST article) to test the LLM in complex, multiple ways.
EVERY TIME THE LLMs ARE TESTED LIKE THIS THEY FAIL AND EXPOSE WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.
VST is revealing this to its readership over time.
It will be made more clear than it already has been eventually.
VST has never and will never plagiarize anyone or anything.