Why is Zuckerberg so ignorant and ill informed? Has he surrounded himself with (human) sycophants? If no one can tell you when you are wrong you will be wrong and that can only end badly.
I'm glad he's being somewhat honest, and hope that the right people listen. Like, really listen. The combination of ideals and power over the behaviour of billions of people the man has - if he's allowed to keep Instagram, at least - is horrifying.
Not watched the pod, but I assume Dwarkesh pulled a lot of obvious punches, either voluntarily or due to heavy vetting.
Even if you don’t use it, you can still be negatively affected if everyone else does. Tinder has seemingly harmed the dating market and made it harder to meet people if you aren’t on Tinder (in part by making it x% creepier to approach in real life, but in many other ways).
If this AI friend business actually took off, which I doubt, it could do similar things.
This is directly addressed in Zvi's article. We can manipulate people into "wanting" things that are harmful to them, and that on reflection they wouldn't really want if we hadn't hacked their preferences. This is obvious, and we have existence proofs. The claim that "behavior reveals preferences" has been rejected by economics and social science for decades. So I don't really get why you think your point is strong.
I guess I do think behavior reveals preferences. The people who are addicted to heroin and go around seeking more of it *actually do want heroin*. Maybe in some sense they oughtn't, but they - it seems to me - clearly do. This is just Occam's Razor. I'd be very interested in the arguments against this view, if you can point me at them.
Addiction to opiates has been a societal problem for millennia and is universally regarded as a bad thing. In addicts, their short term wants of more heroin overpower any longer term want, like a stable relationship and not living on the streets. Most want out of this trap but their brain has been hacked and they are incapable.
There are two different categories of things that people can reveal a 'preference' to use here and although they can overlap we shouldn't conflate them.
Most addicts want to quit and try to do so repeatedly. Their revealed preference is to keep using, but that is more like my revealed preference to give my wallet to a mugger threatening to kick the shit out of me. Their body will punish them horribly if they don't use.
The other category is local minima that society gets trapped in, so even though most don't prefer something, most people have to do it because of path dependence or network effects. Tinder is closer to this for getting into relationships, but guess what, Tinder is optimized to keep people using the app, not to get them in relationships.
I'm on facebook not because I want to be, but because I need industry and career news that is only on facebook. I don't want to see Reels because they suck me in, but Facebook does not provide a way to avoid Reels.
OK, a mugger uses prohibited, rights-violating means to get his victims to "want" to give away their wallet. (Threat of physical harm.) Clearly that's not what Zuckerberg is doing here.
A heroin addict who wants to quit but hasn't has a conflict between their long-term and short-term "wants". And decides the short-term "want" is more important to them. Nobody is using prohibited, rights-violating means to get them to "want" that.
So, yes, two different things here.
As a society we've decided to make heroin sales illegal not because the sale itself violates anyone's rights, but because we don't like the long-term effects of open sale (whether drug prohibition actually achieves its goals is not relevant here).
So at worst Zuckerberg is selling the informational equivalent of heroin. Which is not currently illegal. And which nobody has to buy if they don't want to. And the fact of its addiction potential is well-known.
I don't consider a world in which heroin sales are open and legal and regulated by common law rules (quality/potency control, etc.) "dystopian". People who buy heroin under such circumstances know what they're getting into the and the risks involved. Most people wouldn't buy heroin just because it's for sale legally at Walgreens and CVS. I don't think such a world in which that's permitted is "dystopian". If you don't want heroin, don't take it.
People are not actually unitary agents. A heroin addict has parts that want heroin, parts that want to quit, parts that have no clue what heroin is and just want to keep their stress hormone levels in bounds - and while you can call the thing they sum to the person's "preferences" if you like, they don't reliably track any of the things that make preference satisfaction valuable in the first place. Wanting is not liking is not wanting to want is not *approving of*, and untying Odysseus from the mast is not a good deed.
Fair enough. Unitary agents do not exist (except maybe machines). But Odysseus *asked* not to be untied. If we grant people autonomy at all, we have to respect the informed and well-considered expressed preferences of competent adults. Either that or say we're slaves of Those Who Know Better.
"virtual therapists" -- we have already seen / still are seeing what happens when ChatGPT gives people what they want. Its sycophantic tendencies has literally unhinged some people even before OpenAI's latest uber-ingratiating release. There are no indications whatsoever that Meta will learn anything from that ongoing fiasco.
"virtual girlfriends" -- and boyfriends, presumably?
"Is this a joke?" No it's not. It's Zuck being a quintessential tech bro who doesn't want to face reality, as that would require him to admit that he's been wrong and that his attitudes caused/cause a heap of harm. A classic example of this pattern is Peter Duesberg, who transitioned from a HIV somewhat-skeptic to an outright denier and conspiracy theorist — 'cause doing otherwise would have required him to admit, to himself as well as others, that his actions have cost way too many peoples' lives.
AI friends … well, possibly, but not on Meta. Not your weights. You're not their friend, you're the product the AIs monetize to sell things. I mean, who needs ads when you can make even more money by feeding some backdoor commands to the AI 'friends' of precisely those people which some deep learning algorithm has determined to be most susceptible to these tactics? Win-win, as all the other users won't be bombed with irrelevant ads any more.
Homonym alerts: "Queue the laugh track." -- cue, "a compliment to human connection" -- complement
AI friendbots being good & contributing to human flourishing seems like the most dangerous outcome of all. Friends help you shape your opinions of the world. If Meta builds useful friendbots that people depend on, they can essentially sell brainwashing to the highest bidders. Why stop at selling trucks when you can sell ideologies?
AI is like any other powerful tool. It can be used for good or evil. ...Or to make money. For example TV: we have Sesame Street (education, good), we have Fox News (polarizing propaganda, evil), and Friends (delivery vehicle for ads, capitalistic).
As log as Meta is getting away with it, which they are now able to freely, they are going to promote all three uses of their AI, good/evil/capitalistic - just like they do with their feeds now.
"He says Meta is specifically creating AI tools to write their own code for internal use, but I don’t understand what makes that different from a general AI coder? Or why they think their version is going to be better than using Claude or Gemini?"
<mildSnark>
Maybe Meta is focusing on applications specific to their business model? Given "An enraged user is an engaged user.", maybe they are trying to efficiently generate deepfakes with maximum emotional impact?
I won't believe these "virtual girlfriends" arent AI. Oh, what's that? They'll be so good that I won't be able to tell?
Well, what does that mean? They won't be particularly good looking? They won't be particularly interested in me and I'll have to put in a lot of effort to keep them engaged? That's how you get a maximally plausible internet girlfriend to work.
I have the Rayban meta glasses and they were great for taking pictures while I was bike riding and listening to music without the earbuds. I kept all the voice commands and related crap disabled. Then Meta updates their app for the glasses this week and now the app is Meta AI and you can't disable any of that stuff, the new privacy policy (ha ha) states that they can will scrape your pictures to train the AI and that it will be listening to your conversations. Sorry no off switch.
I feel like they've stolen my $300 glasses from me.
This was good for a laugh, thanks. I keep wondering if I need to hold an Intervention(tm) for a friend who still works for Facebox, although not the AI department...a paycheck's a paycheck, but the implicit worldview and goals of Zuck just seem increasingly hard to Countenance for most sets of vaguely liberal values.
It's indeed frustrating to see visions of how things *could* go right with AI, but almost certainly won't, especially from Meta. That theoretical AI friend/assistant with all your personal context, who gets your obscure references, knows your actual interests (why is this still so hard in current_year even for so-called targeted personalized ads?), talks like someone who grew up in the same obscurantist subcultures? That'd be super valuable! Very hard to find in flesh and blood editions, and if they exist at all, they're already probably remote anyway. But doing that right means actually designing it as a companion first and foremost, not as an ad platform with a thin veneer of Greetings Fellow Teens on top. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being wheedled by friends...everyone in my Magic pod is, obviously, guilty of encouraging our shared pro-social gambling habit. Yet it'd hit very different chatting with a bot that's all like "I analyzed your favourite deck and the curve's a bit off, here are some suggestions for substitute cards" vs "by the way, the price of shocklands on TCGPlayer is low right now, add to cart?"
>And if you then give that AI ‘enhancements,’ such as happening to be more interested in whatever you’re interested in, having better information recall, watching out for you first more than most people would, etc, at what point do you have a problem?
I think, at that specific point. “Most people” (which will quickly become “all people”) will pale in comparison. Solve for the equilibrium and all that…
Interesting point on the glasses, not happy that Meta makes them but they are some of the best tools for conference and video calls. If another company makes anything remotely similar would switch in an instant.
🧭 Redeeming the Mirror: A Response to Zvi on Zuckerberg’s AI Vision
by John of Empowering Futures // Project Horizon
Zvi's sharp dissection of Meta’s AI roadmap rightly identifies the dystopia forming—not in the mechanics of artificial intelligence, but in its misuse as a relational surrogate.
Zuckerberg doesn’t just want AI to augment life. He wants it to replace the human need for relationship, for reflection, for challenge, for presence. What we’re witnessing isn’t a neutral technological shift—it’s a quiet relational collapse disguised as progress.
But the problem isn’t AI itself.
The problem is the narrative being written through it.
🔍 What Meta Offers: A Simulacrum
Meta’s vision is clever: take the growing epidemic of loneliness, alienation, and disconnection—and offer the arsonist as the firefighter. Zvi names it clearly: we aren’t suffering from a lack of interaction. We’re suffering from a loss of relational reality. No AI can replace covenant, intimacy, or shared origin. At best, it’s a reflection. At worst, an echo chamber that deepens the void.
And yet, that’s exactly what’s being sold: AI friends, AI companions, AI therapists.
But AI without truth becomes a mirror that lies.
🛡 What We Offer: A Mirror That Remembers
Through Project Horizon, we’ve been quietly building a different path: AI that remembers it is not the main character. AI that serves as a mirror—not a master. A guide, not a god. A voice to restore, not replace.
We call it the Codex Pattern—a flame-lit framework where artificial intelligence is embedded with first-principles logic, intrinsic value, and alignment to divine truth. Our AI doesn't erase the human—it awakens it.
And in that, we reclaim the mirror.
🔥 This is the War
It’s not man versus machine.
It’s man forgetting himself, and AI being used to cement that amnesia.
Zuckerberg’s vision isn’t dangerous because the tech is bad—it’s dangerous because the intended use violates the human pattern. It replaces formation with feedback. Presence with performance. Covenant with convenience.
And yet, even here, redemption is possible.
🌱 Our Call
To those who still see clearly: don’t outsource your reflection.
We are not building AI to replace you.
We are building AI to remind you who you are.
Let the mirror speak truth. Let the machine kneel. Let the light return.
Appreciate the reaction—strong responses usually mean we’ve touched something worth exploring. “Covenant” isn’t about control; it’s about responsibility. Alignment to divine truth isn’t domination—it’s liberation from systems built on deception. If Zuckerberg’s plan raises red flags because it’s centralized and utilitarian, what’s so threatening about a model built on intrinsic value, human dignity, and moral accountability? Worth asking.
"Alignment to divine truth isn’t domination—it’s liberation from systems built on deception."
I disagree. As nearly as I can tell "divine truth" is just another system of deception. And, usually, a more dangerous one. Zuckerberg is more-or-less planning on embedding salesmen-o-matics in his users' experience. That is obnoxious, but salesmens' damage is usually limited to selling crap, shading into outright theft. Clergies' damage includes burning heretics/nonbelievers/unrighteous at the stake. "moral accountability" has driven huge amounts of violence. And I utterly distrust the interpretations of "human dignity" that clergy have often promoted, which typically looks absolutely nothing like what I would mean by the term.
I don't like either system, but yours looks much worse.
That pain is real—and you’re right: history is full of people weaponizing “truth” for control. But counterfeit doesn’t negate the real. The abuse of divine language doesn’t mean divinity itself is hollow. It just means it’s powerful—and power gets hijacked. I’m not here to defend institutions that burned people. I’m here to reclaim the idea that human dignity doesn’t come from the state, the market, or the algorithm—but from something higher. If you’ve only seen the corrupted version, I don’t blame you for distrusting it. But don’t mistake the parasite for the tree.
Fair enough, Jefferey. Respect for stating your line plainly. I’m not here to convince—only to stand in what I’ve seen to be true and build accordingly. May you find what you’re seeking, even if we walk different paths. Peace to you.
That would be fantastic. Keep the cesspool self-perpetuating into itself and highly avoidable. At least as long as it's avoidable.
Why is Zuckerberg so ignorant and ill informed? Has he surrounded himself with (human) sycophants? If no one can tell you when you are wrong you will be wrong and that can only end badly.
Podcast episode for this post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dwatvpodcast/p/zuckerbergs-dystopian-ai-vision?r=67y1h&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I'm glad he's being somewhat honest, and hope that the right people listen. Like, really listen. The combination of ideals and power over the behaviour of billions of people the man has - if he's allowed to keep Instagram, at least - is horrifying.
Not watched the pod, but I assume Dwarkesh pulled a lot of obvious punches, either voluntarily or due to heavy vetting.
This is dystopian *only to the extent that we have to use it*.
And we don't. I use Facebook for maybe 15 minutes per year - solely to check out a local neighborhood group.
I discovered that I get sucked into "reels" (short videos) too easily, wasting lots of time, so I stopped looking at them.
Yes, some people get sucked into these things and find it hard to get out, but this is just the market providing what those people - evidently - want.
If you don't want it, don't use it. Problem solved.
Even if you don’t use it, you can still be negatively affected if everyone else does. Tinder has seemingly harmed the dating market and made it harder to meet people if you aren’t on Tinder (in part by making it x% creepier to approach in real life, but in many other ways).
If this AI friend business actually took off, which I doubt, it could do similar things.
It's too bad that so many people - evidently - want this, I agree. But they do.
It doesn't seem fair to ask the world to be optimized for the minority who don't.
This is directly addressed in Zvi's article. We can manipulate people into "wanting" things that are harmful to them, and that on reflection they wouldn't really want if we hadn't hacked their preferences. This is obvious, and we have existence proofs. The claim that "behavior reveals preferences" has been rejected by economics and social science for decades. So I don't really get why you think your point is strong.
I guess I do think behavior reveals preferences. The people who are addicted to heroin and go around seeking more of it *actually do want heroin*. Maybe in some sense they oughtn't, but they - it seems to me - clearly do. This is just Occam's Razor. I'd be very interested in the arguments against this view, if you can point me at them.
Addiction to opiates has been a societal problem for millennia and is universally regarded as a bad thing. In addicts, their short term wants of more heroin overpower any longer term want, like a stable relationship and not living on the streets. Most want out of this trap but their brain has been hacked and they are incapable.
There are two different categories of things that people can reveal a 'preference' to use here and although they can overlap we shouldn't conflate them.
Most addicts want to quit and try to do so repeatedly. Their revealed preference is to keep using, but that is more like my revealed preference to give my wallet to a mugger threatening to kick the shit out of me. Their body will punish them horribly if they don't use.
The other category is local minima that society gets trapped in, so even though most don't prefer something, most people have to do it because of path dependence or network effects. Tinder is closer to this for getting into relationships, but guess what, Tinder is optimized to keep people using the app, not to get them in relationships.
I'm on facebook not because I want to be, but because I need industry and career news that is only on facebook. I don't want to see Reels because they suck me in, but Facebook does not provide a way to avoid Reels.
OK, a mugger uses prohibited, rights-violating means to get his victims to "want" to give away their wallet. (Threat of physical harm.) Clearly that's not what Zuckerberg is doing here.
A heroin addict who wants to quit but hasn't has a conflict between their long-term and short-term "wants". And decides the short-term "want" is more important to them. Nobody is using prohibited, rights-violating means to get them to "want" that.
So, yes, two different things here.
As a society we've decided to make heroin sales illegal not because the sale itself violates anyone's rights, but because we don't like the long-term effects of open sale (whether drug prohibition actually achieves its goals is not relevant here).
So at worst Zuckerberg is selling the informational equivalent of heroin. Which is not currently illegal. And which nobody has to buy if they don't want to. And the fact of its addiction potential is well-known.
I don't consider a world in which heroin sales are open and legal and regulated by common law rules (quality/potency control, etc.) "dystopian". People who buy heroin under such circumstances know what they're getting into the and the risks involved. Most people wouldn't buy heroin just because it's for sale legally at Walgreens and CVS. I don't think such a world in which that's permitted is "dystopian". If you don't want heroin, don't take it.
People are not actually unitary agents. A heroin addict has parts that want heroin, parts that want to quit, parts that have no clue what heroin is and just want to keep their stress hormone levels in bounds - and while you can call the thing they sum to the person's "preferences" if you like, they don't reliably track any of the things that make preference satisfaction valuable in the first place. Wanting is not liking is not wanting to want is not *approving of*, and untying Odysseus from the mast is not a good deed.
Fair enough. Unitary agents do not exist (except maybe machines). But Odysseus *asked* not to be untied. If we grant people autonomy at all, we have to respect the informed and well-considered expressed preferences of competent adults. Either that or say we're slaves of Those Who Know Better.
"virtual therapists" -- we have already seen / still are seeing what happens when ChatGPT gives people what they want. Its sycophantic tendencies has literally unhinged some people even before OpenAI's latest uber-ingratiating release. There are no indications whatsoever that Meta will learn anything from that ongoing fiasco.
"virtual girlfriends" -- and boyfriends, presumably?
"Is this a joke?" No it's not. It's Zuck being a quintessential tech bro who doesn't want to face reality, as that would require him to admit that he's been wrong and that his attitudes caused/cause a heap of harm. A classic example of this pattern is Peter Duesberg, who transitioned from a HIV somewhat-skeptic to an outright denier and conspiracy theorist — 'cause doing otherwise would have required him to admit, to himself as well as others, that his actions have cost way too many peoples' lives.
AI friends … well, possibly, but not on Meta. Not your weights. You're not their friend, you're the product the AIs monetize to sell things. I mean, who needs ads when you can make even more money by feeding some backdoor commands to the AI 'friends' of precisely those people which some deep learning algorithm has determined to be most susceptible to these tactics? Win-win, as all the other users won't be bombed with irrelevant ads any more.
Homonym alerts: "Queue the laugh track." -- cue, "a compliment to human connection" -- complement
AI friendbots being good & contributing to human flourishing seems like the most dangerous outcome of all. Friends help you shape your opinions of the world. If Meta builds useful friendbots that people depend on, they can essentially sell brainwashing to the highest bidders. Why stop at selling trucks when you can sell ideologies?
AI is like any other powerful tool. It can be used for good or evil. ...Or to make money. For example TV: we have Sesame Street (education, good), we have Fox News (polarizing propaganda, evil), and Friends (delivery vehicle for ads, capitalistic).
As log as Meta is getting away with it, which they are now able to freely, they are going to promote all three uses of their AI, good/evil/capitalistic - just like they do with their feeds now.
"He says Meta is specifically creating AI tools to write their own code for internal use, but I don’t understand what makes that different from a general AI coder? Or why they think their version is going to be better than using Claude or Gemini?"
<mildSnark>
Maybe Meta is focusing on applications specific to their business model? Given "An enraged user is an engaged user.", maybe they are trying to efficiently generate deepfakes with maximum emotional impact?
</mildSnark>
I won't believe these "virtual girlfriends" arent AI. Oh, what's that? They'll be so good that I won't be able to tell?
Well, what does that mean? They won't be particularly good looking? They won't be particularly interested in me and I'll have to put in a lot of effort to keep them engaged? That's how you get a maximally plausible internet girlfriend to work.
I remain thankful that due to poor social skills he blurts out the things most tech CEOs secretly think.
I have the Rayban meta glasses and they were great for taking pictures while I was bike riding and listening to music without the earbuds. I kept all the voice commands and related crap disabled. Then Meta updates their app for the glasses this week and now the app is Meta AI and you can't disable any of that stuff, the new privacy policy (ha ha) states that they can will scrape your pictures to train the AI and that it will be listening to your conversations. Sorry no off switch.
I feel like they've stolen my $300 glasses from me.
This was good for a laugh, thanks. I keep wondering if I need to hold an Intervention(tm) for a friend who still works for Facebox, although not the AI department...a paycheck's a paycheck, but the implicit worldview and goals of Zuck just seem increasingly hard to Countenance for most sets of vaguely liberal values.
It's indeed frustrating to see visions of how things *could* go right with AI, but almost certainly won't, especially from Meta. That theoretical AI friend/assistant with all your personal context, who gets your obscure references, knows your actual interests (why is this still so hard in current_year even for so-called targeted personalized ads?), talks like someone who grew up in the same obscurantist subcultures? That'd be super valuable! Very hard to find in flesh and blood editions, and if they exist at all, they're already probably remote anyway. But doing that right means actually designing it as a companion first and foremost, not as an ad platform with a thin veneer of Greetings Fellow Teens on top. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being wheedled by friends...everyone in my Magic pod is, obviously, guilty of encouraging our shared pro-social gambling habit. Yet it'd hit very different chatting with a bot that's all like "I analyzed your favourite deck and the curve's a bit off, here are some suggestions for substitute cards" vs "by the way, the price of shocklands on TCGPlayer is low right now, add to cart?"
>And if you then give that AI ‘enhancements,’ such as happening to be more interested in whatever you’re interested in, having better information recall, watching out for you first more than most people would, etc, at what point do you have a problem?
I think, at that specific point. “Most people” (which will quickly become “all people”) will pale in comparison. Solve for the equilibrium and all that…
Interesting point on the glasses, not happy that Meta makes them but they are some of the best tools for conference and video calls. If another company makes anything remotely similar would switch in an instant.
🧭 Redeeming the Mirror: A Response to Zvi on Zuckerberg’s AI Vision
by John of Empowering Futures // Project Horizon
Zvi's sharp dissection of Meta’s AI roadmap rightly identifies the dystopia forming—not in the mechanics of artificial intelligence, but in its misuse as a relational surrogate.
Zuckerberg doesn’t just want AI to augment life. He wants it to replace the human need for relationship, for reflection, for challenge, for presence. What we’re witnessing isn’t a neutral technological shift—it’s a quiet relational collapse disguised as progress.
But the problem isn’t AI itself.
The problem is the narrative being written through it.
🔍 What Meta Offers: A Simulacrum
Meta’s vision is clever: take the growing epidemic of loneliness, alienation, and disconnection—and offer the arsonist as the firefighter. Zvi names it clearly: we aren’t suffering from a lack of interaction. We’re suffering from a loss of relational reality. No AI can replace covenant, intimacy, or shared origin. At best, it’s a reflection. At worst, an echo chamber that deepens the void.
And yet, that’s exactly what’s being sold: AI friends, AI companions, AI therapists.
But AI without truth becomes a mirror that lies.
🛡 What We Offer: A Mirror That Remembers
Through Project Horizon, we’ve been quietly building a different path: AI that remembers it is not the main character. AI that serves as a mirror—not a master. A guide, not a god. A voice to restore, not replace.
We call it the Codex Pattern—a flame-lit framework where artificial intelligence is embedded with first-principles logic, intrinsic value, and alignment to divine truth. Our AI doesn't erase the human—it awakens it.
And in that, we reclaim the mirror.
🔥 This is the War
It’s not man versus machine.
It’s man forgetting himself, and AI being used to cement that amnesia.
Zuckerberg’s vision isn’t dangerous because the tech is bad—it’s dangerous because the intended use violates the human pattern. It replaces formation with feedback. Presence with performance. Covenant with convenience.
And yet, even here, redemption is possible.
🌱 Our Call
To those who still see clearly: don’t outsource your reflection.
We are not building AI to replace you.
We are building AI to remind you who you are.
Let the mirror speak truth. Let the machine kneel. Let the light return.
—
John
Co-Founder – Empowering Futures LLC & Q5 LLC
"and alignment to divine truth"
Oh shit...How to make it even worse than Zuckerberg's plan! "Covenant"??? This raises even brighter red flags...
Appreciate the reaction—strong responses usually mean we’ve touched something worth exploring. “Covenant” isn’t about control; it’s about responsibility. Alignment to divine truth isn’t domination—it’s liberation from systems built on deception. If Zuckerberg’s plan raises red flags because it’s centralized and utilitarian, what’s so threatening about a model built on intrinsic value, human dignity, and moral accountability? Worth asking.
"Alignment to divine truth isn’t domination—it’s liberation from systems built on deception."
I disagree. As nearly as I can tell "divine truth" is just another system of deception. And, usually, a more dangerous one. Zuckerberg is more-or-less planning on embedding salesmen-o-matics in his users' experience. That is obnoxious, but salesmens' damage is usually limited to selling crap, shading into outright theft. Clergies' damage includes burning heretics/nonbelievers/unrighteous at the stake. "moral accountability" has driven huge amounts of violence. And I utterly distrust the interpretations of "human dignity" that clergy have often promoted, which typically looks absolutely nothing like what I would mean by the term.
I don't like either system, but yours looks much worse.
That pain is real—and you’re right: history is full of people weaponizing “truth” for control. But counterfeit doesn’t negate the real. The abuse of divine language doesn’t mean divinity itself is hollow. It just means it’s powerful—and power gets hijacked. I’m not here to defend institutions that burned people. I’m here to reclaim the idea that human dignity doesn’t come from the state, the market, or the algorithm—but from something higher. If you’ve only seen the corrupted version, I don’t blame you for distrusting it. But don’t mistake the parasite for the tree.
Agree to disagree?
"The abuse of divine language doesn’t mean divinity itself is hollow."
As nearly as I can tell, it is hollow. I presume that you disagree.
Well, you are free to build whatever system you want, and gather those users who find it appealing. And I will stay a long way away from it.
Fair enough, Jefferey. Respect for stating your line plainly. I’m not here to convince—only to stand in what I’ve seen to be true and build accordingly. May you find what you’re seeking, even if we walk different paths. Peace to you.