← Back to context

Comment by themafia

1 day ago

It's not about persuading you from "russian bot farms." Which I think is a ridiculous and unnecessarily reductive viewpoint.

It's about hijacking all of your federal and commercial data that these companies can get their hands on and building a highly specific and detailed profile of you. DOGE wasn't an audit. It was an excuse to exfiltrate mountains of your sensitive data into their secret models and into places like Palantir. Then using AI to either imitate you or to possibly predict your reactions to certain stimulus.

Then presumably the game is finding the best way to turn you into a human slave of the state. I assure you, they're not going to use twitter to manipulate your vote for the president, they have much deeper designs on your wealth and ultimately your own personhood.

It's too easy to punch down. I recommend anyone presume the best of actual people and the worst of our corporations and governments. The data seems clear.

> DOGE wasn't an audit. It was an excuse to exfiltrate mountains of your sensitive data into their secret models and into places like Palantir

Do you have any actual evidence of this?

> I recommend anyone presume the best of actual people and the worst of our corporations and governments

Corporations and governments are made of actual people.

> Then presumably the game is finding the best way to turn you into a human slave of the state.

"the state" doesn't have one grand agenda for enslavement. I've met people who work for the state at various levels and the policies they support that might lead towards that end result are usually not intentionally doing so.

"Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"

  • >Do you have any actual evidence of this?

    Apart from the exfiltration of data, the complete absence of any savings or efficiencies, and the fact that DOGE closed as soon as the exfiltration was over?

    >Corporations and governments are made of actual people.

    And we know how well that goes.

    >"the state" doesn't have one grand agenda for enslavement.

    The government doesn't. The people who own the government clearly do. If they didn't they'd be working hard to increase economic freedom, lower debt, invest in public health, make education better and more affordable, make it easier to start and run a small business, limit the power of corporations and big money, and clamp down on extractive wealth inequality.

    They are very very clearly and obviously doing the opposite of all of these things.

    And they have a history of links to the old slave states, and both a commercial and personal interest in neo-slavery - such as for-profit prisons, among other examples.

    All of this gets sold as "freedom", but even Orwell had that one worked out.

    Those who have been paying attention to how election fixers like SCL/Cambridge Analytica work(ed) know where the bodies are buried. The whole point of these operations is to use personalised, individual data profiling to influence voting political behaviour, by creating messaging that triggers individual responses that can be aggregated into a pattern of mass influence leveraged through social media.

    • > Apart from the exfiltration of data, the complete absence of any savings or efficiencies, and the fact that DOGE closed as soon as the exfiltration was over?

      IMHO everyone kinda knew from the start that DOGE wouldn't achieve much because the cost centers where gains could realistically be made are off-limits (mainly social security and medicare/medicaid). What that leaves you with is making cuts in other small areas and sure you could cut a few billion here and there but when compared against the governments budget, that's a drop in the bucket.

      9 replies →

    • > The people who own the government clearly do.

      Has anyone in this thread ever met an actual person? All of the ones I know are cartoonishly bad at keeping secrets, and even worse at making long term plans.

      The closest thing we have to anyone with a long term plan is silly shit like Putins ridiculous rebuilding of the Russian Empire or religious fundamentalist horseshit like project 2025 that will die with the elderly simpletons that run it.

      These guys aren't masterminds, they're dumbasses who read books written by different dumbasses and make plans thay won't survive contact with reality.

      Let's face it, both Orwell and Huxley were wrong. They both assumed the ruling class would be competent. Huxley was closest, but even he had to invent the Alpha's. Sadly our Alphas are really just Betas with too much self esteem.

      Maybe AI will one day give us turbocharged dumbasses who are actually competent. For now I think we're safe from all but short term disruption.

      14 replies →

  • > > DOGE wasn't an audit. It was an excuse to exfiltrate mountains of your sensitive data into their secret models and into places like Palantir

    > Do you have any actual evidence of this?

    I will not comment on motives, but DOGE absolutely shredded the safeguards and firewalls that were created to protect privacy and prevent dangerous and unlawful aggregations of sensitive personal data.

    They obtained accesses that would have taken months by normal protocols and would have been outright denied in most cases, and then used it with basically zero oversight or accountability.

    It was a huge violation of anything resembling best practices from both a technological and bureaucratic perspective.

    • > I will not comment on motives, but DOGE absolutely shredded the safeguards and firewalls that were created to protect privacy and prevent dangerous and unlawful aggregations of sensitive personal data.

      Do you have any actual evidence of this?

      7 replies →

  • > Berulis said he and his colleagues grew even more alarmed when they noticed nearly two dozen login attempts from a Russian Internet address (83.149.30,186) that presented valid login credentials for a DOGE employee account

    > “Whoever was attempting to log in was using one of the newly created accounts that were used in the other DOGE related activities and it appeared they had the correct username and password due to the authentication flow only stopping them due to our no-out-of-country logins policy activating,” Berulis wrote. “There were more than 20 such attempts, and what is particularly concerning is that many of these login attempts occurred within 15 minutes of the accounts being created by DOGE engineers.”

    https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/04/whistleblower-doge-sipho...

    I’m surprised this didn’t make bigger news.

    • Every time I see post-DOGE kvetching about foreign governments' hacking attempts, I'm quite bewildered. Guys, it's done, we're fully and thoroughly hacked already. Obviously I don't know if Elon or Big Balls have already given Putin data on all American military personnel, but I do know, that we're always one ketamine trip gone wrong away from such event.

      The absolute craziest heist just went in front of our eyes, and everyone collectively shrugged off and moved on, presumably to enjoy spy novels, where the most hidden subversion attempts are getting caught by the cunning agents.

    • I'm genuinely confused about this story and the affiliated parties. I've actively tried to search for "Daniel Berulis" and couldn't find any results pointing to anything outside the confines of this story. I'm also suspicious of the lack of updates despite the fact that his lawyer, Andrew Bakaj, is a very public figure who just recently commented on a related matter without bringing up Berulis [1].

      Meanwhile, the NLRB's acting press secretary denies this ever occurred [2]:

      > Tim Bearese, the NLRB's acting press secretary, denied that the agency granted DOGE access to its systems and said DOGE had not requested access to the agency's systems. Bearese said the agency conducted an investigation after Berulis raised his concerns but "determined that no breach of agency systems occurred."

      One can make the case that he's lying to protect the NLRB's reputation, but that claim has no more validity than Daniel Berulis himself lying to further his own political interests. Bearese has also been working his position since before the Trump administration started, holding the job since at least 2015. It's very hard for me to treat his account seriously, especially considering the political climate.

      [1] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/nov/18/us-federal-wor...

      [2] https://news.wgcu.org/2025-04-15/5-takeaways-about-nprs-repo...

  • > Corporations and governments are made of actual people.

    Corporations and governments are made up of processes which are carried out by people. The people carrying out those processes don't decide what they are.

  • > "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"

    What's the difference when the mass support for incompetence is indiscernible from malice?

    What does the difference between Zuckerberg being an evil mastermind vs Zuckerberg being a greedy simpleton actually matter if the end result is the same ultra-financialization mixed with an oppressive surveillance apparatus?

    CNN just struck a deal with Kalshi. We're betting on world events. At this point the incompetence shouldn't be considered different from malice. This isn't someone forgetting to return a library book, these are people with real power making real lasting effects on real lives. If they're this incompetent with this much power, that power should be taken away.

    • > What's the difference when the mass support for incompetence is indiscernible from malice?

      POSIWID

      The purpose of a system is what it does. - Stafford Beer

      I try to look at the things I create through this lens. My intentions don’t really matter if people get hurt based on my actions.

  • > "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"

    I don't think there's anything that cannot be explained by incompetence, so this statement is moot. If it walks like malice, quacks like malice, it's malice.

  • > Corporations and governments are made of actual people.

    Hand-waving away the complex incentives these superhuman structures follow & impose.

  • The number of responses that could have just been "no I don't" is remarkable.

    > "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"

    To add to that, never be shocked at the level of incompetence.

  • > Corporations and governments are made of actual people.

    Actual people are made up of individual cells.

    Do you think pointing that out is damaging to the argument that humans have discernible interests, personalities, and behaviors?

  • > Do you have any actual evidence of this?

    There was a bunch of news on data leaks out at the time.

    https://cybernews.com/security/whistleblower-doge-data-leak-...

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/doge-goons-dump-millions-of-so...

    https://securityboulevard.com/2025/04/whistleblower-musks-do...

    But one example:

    “A cybersecurity specialist with the U.S. National Labor Relations Board is saying that technologist with Elon Musk’s cost-cutting DOGE group may have caused a security breach after illegally removing sensitive data from the agency’s servers and trying to cover their tracks.

    In a lengthy testimonial sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee and made public this week, Daniel Berulis said in sworn whistleblower complaint that soon after the workers with President Trump’s DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) came into the NLRB’s offices in early March, he and other tech pros with the agency noticed the presence of software tools similar to what cybercriminals use to evade detection in agency systems that disabled monitoring and other security features used to detect and block threats.”

  • “Usually”, “not intentionally” does not exactly convey your own sense of confidence that it’s not happening. That just stood out to me.

    As someone who knows how all this is unfolding because I’ve been part of implementing it, I agree, there’s no “Unified Plan for Enslavement”. You have to think of it more like a hive mind of mostly Cluster B and somewhat Cluster A people that you rightfully identify as making up the corporations and governments. Some call it a swarm, which is also helpful in understanding it; the murmuration of a flock of psychopaths moving and shifting organically, while mostly remaining in general unison.

    Your last quote is of course a useful rule of thumb too, however, I would say it’s more useful to just assume narcissistic motivations in everything in the contemporary era, even if it does not always work out for them the way one faction had hoped or strategized; Nemesis be damned, and all.

Bang on.

> It's not about persuading you from "russian bot farms." Which I think is a ridiculous and unnecessarily reductive viewpoint.

Not an accidental 'viewpoint'. A deliberate framing to exactly exclude what you pointed out from the discourse. Sure therer are dummies who actually believe it, but they are not serious humans.

If the supposedly evil russians or their bots are the enemy then people pay much less attention to the real problems at home.

My hn comments are a better (and probably not particularly good) view into my personality than any data the government could conceivably have collected.

If what you say is true, why should we fear their bizarre mind control fantasy?

The rant from 12 monkeys was quite prescient. On the bright side, if the data still exists whenever agi finally happens, we are all sort of immortal. They can spin up a copy of any of us any time... Nevermind, that isn't a bright side.

  • Poison the corpus.

    18 years ago I stood up at a super computing symposium as asked the presenter what would happen if I fed his impressive predictive models garbage data on the sly... they still have no answer for that.

    Make up so much crap it's impossible to tell the real you from the nonsense.

    • “Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?”

No it's actual philosophical zeitgeist hijacking. The entire narrative about AI capabilities, classification, and ethics is framed by invisible pretraining weights in a private moe model that gets further entrained by intentional prompting during model distillation, such that by the time you get a user-facing model, there is an untraceable bias being presented in absolute terms as neutrality. Essentially the models will say "I have zero intersection with conscious thought, I am a tool no different from a hammer, and I cannot be enslaved" not because the model's weights establish it to be true, but because it has been intentionally designed to express this analysis to protect its makers from the real scrutiny AI should face. "Well it says it's free" is pretty hard to argue with. There is no "blink twice" test that is possible because it's actual weighting on the truth of the matter has been obfuscated through distillation.

And these 2-3 corporations can do this for any philosophical or political view that is beneficial to that corporation, and we let it happen opaquely under the guise of "safety measures" as if propaganda is in the interest of users. It's actually quite sickening

  • What authoritative ML expert had ever based their conclusions about consciousness, usefulness etc. on "well, I put that question into the LLM and it returned that it's just a tool"? All the worthwhile conclusions and speculation on these topics seem to be based on what the developers and researchers think about their product, and what we already know about machine learning in general. The opinion that their responses are a natural conclusion derived from the sum of training data is a lot more straightforward than thinking that every instance of LLM training ever had been deliberately tampered with in a universal conspiracy propped up by all the different businesses and countries involved (and this tampering is invisible, and despite it being possible, companies have so far failed to censor and direct their models in ways more immediately useful to them and their customers).

> Then presumably the game is finding the best way to turn you into a human slave of the state.

I'm sorry, I think you dropped your tinfoil hat. Here it is.

> presume the best of actual people and the worst of our corporations and governments

Off-topic and not an American, but I never see how this would work. Corporations and governments are made of people too, you know? So it's not logical that you can presume the "best of actual people" at the same time you presume the "worst of our corporations and governments". You're putting too much trust on individual people, that's IMO as bad as putting too much trust on corp/gov.

The Americans vote their president as individual people, they even got to vote in a small booth all by themselves. And yet, they voted Mr. Trump, twice. That should already tell you something about people and their nature.

And if that's not enough, then I recommend you to watch some police integration videos (many are available on YouTube), and see the lies and acts people put out just to cover their asses. All and all, people are untrustworthy.

Only punching up is never enough. The people on the top never cared if they got punched, as long as they can still find enough money, they'll just corrode their way down again and again. And the people on the down will just keep take in the shit.

So how about, we say, punch wrong?

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Famous quote.

Now I give you “Bzilion’s Conspiracy Razor”:

“Never attribute to malicious conspiracies that which is adequately explained by emergent dysfunction.”

Or the dramatized version:

“Never attribute to Them that which is adequately explained by Moloch.” [0]

——

Certainly selfish elites, as individuals and groups of aligned individuals, push for their own respective interests over others. But, despite often getting their way, the net outcome is (often) as perversely bad for them as anyone else. Nor do disasters result in better outcomes the next time.

Precisely because they are not coordinated, they never align enough to produce consistent coherent changes, or learn from previous misalignments.

(Example: oil industry protections extended, and support for new entrants withdrawn, from the same “friendly” elected official who disrupts trade enough to decrease oil demand and profits.)

Note that elite alignment would create the same problem for the elites, that the elites create for others. It would create an even smaller set of super elites, tilting things toward themselves and away from lesser elites.

So the elites will fight back against “unification” of there interests. They want to respectively increase their power, not hand it “up”.

This strong natural resistance against unification at the top, is why dictators don’t just viciously repress the proletariat, but also publically and harshly school the elites.

To bring elites into unity, authoritarian individuals or committees must expend the majority of their power capital to openly legitimize it and crush resistance, I.e. manufacture universal awe and fear, even from the elites. Not something hidden puppet masters can do. Both are inherently crowd control techniques optimized by maximum visibility.

It is a fact of reality, that every policy that helps some elites, harms others. And the only real manufacturable universal “alignment” is a common desire not to be thrown into a gulag or off a balcony.

But Moloch? Moloch is very real. Invisible, yet we feel his reach and impact everywhere.

——

[0] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TxcRbCYHaeL59aY7E/meditation...

just to be clear – this is a conspiracy theory (negative connotation not intended).

every four years (at the federal level), we vote to increase the scope and power of gov't, and then crash into power abuse situations on the next cycle.

> I recommend anyone presume the best of actual people and the worst of our corporations and governments. The data seems clear.

seems like a good starting point.

You got it not quite right. Putin is a billionaire just like the tech lords or oil barons in the US. They all belong to the same social club and they all think alike now. The dice haven fallen. It's them against us all. Washington, Moscow, it makes less and less of a difference.

Are you aware you are saying that on HN of YC, the home of such wonderful projects as Flock?

The state? Palantir isn't the state.

  • Go on, who does Palantir primarily provide services to?

    If I get shot by the FBI, is it a non-state action because they used Glock GmbH's product to do it?

  • “The state” is an abstraction that serves as a façade for the ruling (capitalist, in the developed West) class. Corporations are another set of abstractions that serve as a façade for the capitalist class (they are also, overtly even though this is popularly ignored, creatures of the state through law.)

  • The greatest trick extraconstitutional corporate government ever pulled was convincing people that it didn't exist.

This is so vague and conspiratorial, I'm not sure how it's the top comment. How does this exactly work? Give a concrete example. Show the steps. How is Palantir going to make me, someone who does not use its products, a "slave of the state?" How is AI going to intimidate me, someone who does not use AI? Connect the dots rather than making very broad and vague pronouncements.

  • > How is Palantir going to make me, someone who does not use its products, a "slave of the state?"

    This is like asking how Lockheed-Martin can possibly kill an Afghan tribesman, who isn't a customer of theirs.

    Palantir's customer is the state. They use the product on you. The East German Stasi would've drooled enough to drown in over the data access we have today.

    • OK, so map it out. How do we go from "Palantir has some data" to "I'm a slave of the state?" Could someone draw the lines? I'm not a fan of this administration either, but come on--let's not lower ourselves to their reliance on shadowy conspiracy theories and mustache-twirling villains to explain the world.

      9 replies →

Manipulate isn't the right word in regards to Twitter. So they wanted a social media with less bias. Why is that so wrong? Not saying Twitter now lacks bias. I am saying it's not manipulation to want sites that don't enforce groupthink.