It's AI-assisted content, but has good reference links.

> Apr 21, 2025

why is this posted now?

Here's the author's description of their work:

  ## Methodology and Tools

  This investigation was conducted by a human researcher who directed all research decisions, selected sources, evaluated findings, and wrote the public-facing posts. Claude Code (Anthropic's CLI tool, running Claude Opus) was used as a research assistant for:

  - Bulk data processing: parsing 4,433 IRS Schedule I grant records, 59,736 DAF recipients, 132MB of Colorado TRACER campaign finance data, and IRS Business Master File extracts covering all US tax-exempt organizations
  - Cross-referencing findings across 24 analysis files and identifying patterns that span multiple research threads
  - Drafting intermediate working documents and structured data summaries
  - Web searches against public databases (OpenSecrets, ProPublica, state lobbying portals, WHOIS/DNS, Wayback Machine)

  Claude Code did not independently choose what to investigate, decide what constitutes a finding, or determine what to publish. Every factual claim in this repository cites a primary source (IRS filing, Senate disclosure, state database, legislative record, or published reporting) that can be independently verified. The tool does not change whether Meta's LD-2 filing lists H.R. 3149, whether DCA has an EIN, or whether Stefanski admitted tech funding under oath. The records exist or they don't.

  If you want to verify any finding, the source URLs and database identifiers are provided throughout. Start with the primary records, not with this repository.

I find it valuable to know the author was responsible for selecting what sources & questions to analyse.

is there a reason, other than general faith in humanity, to assume those '1573 sessions' are real?

I do not see any link or source for the data. I assume it is to remain closed, if it exists.

Its our own sessions, from our team, over the last 3 months. We used them to develop the product and learn about our usage. You are right, they will remain closed. But I am happy to share aggregated information, if you have specific questions about the dataset.

it's reasonable to note that w/o sharing the data these findings can't be audited or built upon

but i think the prior on 'this team fabricated these findings' is v low

Never occurred to me to try that, because I assumed I would get banned for doing it, until today.

Nah, as long as you aren’t demanding and rude, you’ll either get a reply or not, and if you get a reply, it’ll either be “we’ll look into it”, “we looked into it and acted in some way”, or “we looked into it and decided it isn’t actionable”; often with some supporting explanation.

(I suppose if you open with e.g. “wtf is wrong with you mods” they might well ask you to reconsider your approach or else clock a ban — I’ve never tried that!)

Looks like gradual disempowerment is already happening - the minority of humans who are capable of spotting AI content are losing the struggle for attention on all major social networks

but there is no trained 100b param model? "can run a 100B BitNet" is about the inference implementation, not about the existence of any such model

I think they used a dummy model or else they would have linked to it. Just google '1-bit 100b model' and you'll only see references to this project without any download links.

People care, when they can tell.

Popular content is popular because it is above the threshold for average detection.

In a better world, platforms would empower defenders, by granting skilled human noticers flagging priority, and by adopting basic classifiers like Pangram.

Unfortunately, mainstream platforms have thus far not demonstrated strong interest in banning AI slop. This site in particular has actually taken moderation actions to unflag AI slop, in certain occasions...

> I understand that many of you find alone-ness to be natural, and even required.

Anyone who identifies as a 'loner', 'introverted', etc. is method acting. The label only matters if there are people to convey it to. Remember that the only reason you know of people claiming this, is because they said it to an audience, not themselves.

> I'm finding it hard to actually do any of that

Figure out how to. Don't internalize psychological excuses. Use the gun-to-your-head test with extravagance.