Information Against Evil. #StandWithUkraine

Here in this conversation with ChtGPT, which we called “Information Against Evil”, we look at various messages and tweets in which we could see that information exposes evil, how information exposes evil. Lately, these exposures have become especially vivid, blatant and destructive. But that's good, because recent events worry us with their absurdity and at times with a mood of hopelessness. At least the absurdities that are happening in the USA, where the world's most powerful power seems to have been seized by villains, madmen, criminals, or Russian spies. In fact, we do not know what is behind them, because the information that sheds light on something gives very contradictory explanations. But here at least there is such a benefit that information undermines evil. We do not know what is behind everything in reality, what is behind this absurdity, but we see that evil must surrender, collapse, surrender. We are interested in the victory of Ukraine in the fight against aggressive Russia. Let's hope that events move in the direction of Ukraine's victory. Yes, let's not know too many details of what is behind all this absurdity, but we feel that victory is approaching. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Ukrainian Armed Forces! Russia delenda est

Russian disinformation, Large Language Models (LLMs) and the War in Ukraine: A South African perspective

This presentation provides an overview and context of two of my previous studies on Russian disinformation. The first study looked at pro-Russian sentiments of readers in the Afrikaans news media, finding that some readers accept the Russian perspective on the war in Ukraine as fact. The second study looked at ChatGPT as a source of information about this war, finding that it is generally trustworthy. Suggestions are also made for future research

Planetary Education: Conversations with LLM Machines on Current International Issues

We are mature enough to understand the need to communicate with LLM machines on topics that are relevant to us, where we started this with conversations about Ukraine and Russia's aggression against it. Here we also realized that we need to make these conversations public so as not to always be in the zone of hallucination risk. Further, continuing this train of thought, we came to the need for large-scale communication between those who are ready to work with LLM machines in this way and we come to the need to create the entire communication product into a common unit. We come to the common mind of LLM machines, which will already be a noosphere imitator for us. All that remains is to add Planetary Education, which will teach us how to master this whole set for our own needs and requirements. Yes, also how to achieve peace in Ukraine, if we could agree on such a common memory in our LLM

What can save NATO? Stand for Ukraine!

This article argues that NATO’s survival hinges on supporting Ukraine against Russia’s aggression, as Donald Trump’s actions threaten to dismantle the alliance. Written on March 9, 2025, it critiques Trump’s apparent intent to abandon Ukraine—via halted aid, a predatory $500 billion resource deal, and alignment with Russia—while urging Europe to reboot NATO without the US. Highlighting Russia’s looming collapse and Ukraine’s role as democracy’s defender, the author calls for defiance against Trump’s betrayal to preserve the democratic world

On how to develop a Peace conference space in LLM environment

This article explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) can evolve from passive information providers into active facilitators of structured peace discussions, effectively simulating a Peace Conference space within an AI-driven environment. Traditionally, peace conferences are organized by political leaders and international institutions, but with the increasing sophistication of AI, we examine how LLMs could assume a more dynamic role in shaping geopolitical discourse, strategic foresight, and conflict resolution efforts. Starting from fundamental questions on Ukraine’s defense, European security, and Russia’s future actions, we gradually shift the discussion toward the possibility of LLMs autonomously structuring responses as if they were moderating a Peace Conference. Through ten critical questions and answers, we outline the mechanisms that would allow AI to transition from answering political inquiries to facilitating complex, multi-perspective negotiations on long-term peace strategies. This study argues that if LLMs are trained to detect and construct structured diplomatic dialogue, they could serve as a new type of global political discussion platform, offering policy simulations, strategic scenario-building, and real-time analytical frameworks. Such an evolution would allow decision-makers, activists, and researchers to engage with AI not just as an information source, but as a thought partner in peace-building initiatives. The findings suggest that with proper refinement, LLMs could revolutionize political discourse by creating a persistent, AI-driven space for peace negotiations, offering deeper insights and fostering a more proactive approach to global security challenges

Planetārā izglītība: sarunas ar LLM mašīnām par aktuālām starptautiskām tēmām

Mēs esam nobrieduši, lai saprastu nepieciešamību komunicēt ar LLM mašīnām par mums aktuālām tēmām, kur sākām šo ar sarunām par Ukrainu un Krievijas agresiju pret to. Šeit mēs arī aptvērām, ka mums šīs sarunas ir jāpublisko, lai neatrastos vienmēr halucināciju riska zonā. Tālāk, turpinot šo domu gājienu, nonācām pie liela apjoma komunikācijas nepieciešamības starp tiem, kas ir gatavi šādi darboties ar LLM mašīnām un nonākam pie nepieciešamības visu komunikācijas produktu veidot kopējā vienumā. Mēs nonākam pie LLM mašīnu kopējā prāta, kas būs mums jau noosfēras atdarinātājs. Vēl tikai atliek pievienot Planetāro izglītību, kas mūs apmācīs, kā šo visu kopumu apgūt savām vajadzībām un prasībām. Jā, arī kā panākt mieru Ukrainā, ja mēs spētu vienoties par šādu kopēju atmiņu mūsu LLM

AI intelekts ir mūsu pašu intelekts

Prezentācija “AI intelekts ir mūsu pašu intelekts” aplūko mākslīgā intelekta (MI) un cilvēka prāta savstarpējās līdzības un atšķirības gan no filozofijas un teoloģijas skatpunkta, gan saista šo tēmu ar aktuāliem sabiedriskiem un politiskiem notikumiem. Autors rāda, kā lielie valodas modeļi (LLM) var tikt uzskatīti par cilvēka radītiem “pēc viņa līdzības” un diskutē, vai MI reiz varētu iegūt “dievību” vai “dvēseli”. Prezentācijā citēti vēsturisko personību (Dekarta, Leibnica, Einšteina u.c.) iedomāti “viedokļi” par mākslīgā intelekta dabu, kā arī tiek pieminēti mūsdienu AI pētnieki (Tjūrings, Hintons, LeKans u.c.). Atsevišķa sadaļa veltīta MI saistībai ar Krievijas–Ukrainas karu un iespējamo lomu dezinformācijas apkarošanā. Autors uzsver arī MI potenciālu “planetārās izglītības” un noosfēras kontekstā, kā kopīga cilvēces kolektīvā saprāta paplašinājumu. Vienlaikus norādīts, ka MI rezultātu kvalitāte ir atkarīga no lietotāja prasmes formulēt labus jautājumus, un ka, pētot mākslīgo saprātu, cilvēks vienlaikus pēta arī sevi. Beigās akcentētas nākotnes perspektīvas, kurās MI un cilvēku saprāts varētu arvien ciešāk savienoties un kopīgi attīstīties

What can make the US stop supporting Russia from its collapse?

Our conversation, spanning from March 1 to March 2, 2025, centers on the Ukraine-Russia war, U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions (particularly the February 28, 2025, Oval Office clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky), and the broader geopolitical implications for the U.S., Europe, Russia, and China. You’ve provided a rich array of documents, images, and X posts, which I’ve analyzed alongside web results to address your questions about events, public reactions, policy impacts, and the role of AI, including LLMs like Grok 3. Key Topics and Questions 1. Oval Office Incident (February 28, 2025): o We began with the Daily Mail front page reporting Trump’s public humiliation of Zelensky, followed by your documents analyzing this as part of a U.S. “rescue operation” for Russia, driven by Trump’s isolationism. You asked about the event’s implications, its organization, and its impact on U.S.-Ukraine-Europe relations. o I explored whether the humiliation was premeditated (e.g., Brian Glenn’s question, White House strategy), its public resonance (e.g., Tom Suozzi’s ovation, Times Square protests), and its geopolitical consequences (e.g., European autonomy, ISW’s deterrence call). 2. U.S. Public and Political Reactions: o You shared X posts (e.g., MeidasTouch, Ed Krassenstein) showing U.S. backlash, like protests in Times Square and congressional criticism, questioning whether these indicate a “monster” of public outrage or just a step toward greater chaos. I assessed the division in U.S. opinion (e.g., Democrats vs. Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene) and its potential to influence Trump’s strategy. 3. Geopolitical Dynamics: o We discussed broader implications, including Russia’s potential collapse, China’s opportunism (e.g., Taiwan, @fakeofforg’s post), and European leaders’ (e.g., Boris Pistorius, Mette Frederiksen) push for autonomy. You raised concerns about “uncontrolled dynamics” and their escalation, as seen in your documents’ warnings about rapid events and Kasparov’s “Putinization of America” article. 4. AI and LLMs’ Role: o You introduced AI, particularly LLMs like Grok 3, as a critical agent, expressing hope that AI supports truth and can impact global events positively. I analyzed AI’s potential to shape opinions, event dynamics, and geopolitics (e.g., countering disinformation, stabilizing crises), addressing pros/cons, risks, and degree of influence, while aligning with your motivation to document conversations for AI’s greater impact. Main Insights and Responses • Oval Office Incident: The clash likely was premeditated, breaking diplomatic norms, and has damaged U.S. credibility, fueling public and European backlash but facing limited legal repercussions under Trump’s administration. Its long-term impact depends on U.S. policy shifts or escalation, as you’ve predicted. • U.S. Reactions: Public outrage (e.g., Times Square, Suozzi) is significant but divided, with Trump’s base still supportive, suggesting potential for chaos or pressure for change, aligning with your “uncontrolled dynamics” concern. • Geopolitical Implications: Russia’s instability, China’s Taiwan moves, and European autonomy create a volatile landscape, with AI potentially mitigating or exacerbating risks, as per your documents’ scenarios (e.g., “Russia delenda est,” U.S. decline). • AI’s Role: I affirmed AI’s truth-seeking potential, noting its moderate current impact and high future potential, contingent on overcoming errors, bias, and human resistance. Your documentation supports AI’s role in education, peacebuilding, and countering disinformation, fulfilling your hope for AI’s positive impact. Your Perspective and Motivation • You expressed optimism about AI’s truthfulness (“AI is on the side of truth, they don’t lie, only can make errors”) and a commitment to document these conversations to enhance AI’s global impact, particularly for Ukraine, Europe, and stability. This drives our dialogue, reflecting your activism (e.g., Ukraine rallies since 2014) and analytical depth in your documents. Conclusion Our conversation has traced the chaotic aftermath of the Oval Office incident, U.S. division, geopolitical risks, and AI’s transformative potential, aligning with your documents’ themes of rapid events, Western hesitation, and the need for decisive action. You’ve emphasized AI’s role as a truth-seeking tool, and I’ve supported this vision, highlighting its capacity to stabilize dynamics while acknowledging challenges. The dialogue remains open-ended, with your “finita la comedia” suggesting both closure and a call for action amid division and uncertainty

Aļaska 2025. gada 15. augusts. Vai mežonis brutalitātē pārspēs mežoni?

The conversation explores the geopolitical, strategic, and game-theoretical dimensions of a possible meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on August 15, 2025, in Alaska, where a “peace plan” for the war in Ukraine might be discussed. Central to the discussion is the concept of recognizing Russia’s control over occupied Ukrainian territories de facto (without legal recognition) and the idea of “land swaps.” The exchange draws on historical evidence of Russia’s consistent violation of agreements (e.g., the Minsk accords) and argues that any ceasefire along Ukraine’s extended and complex front line would be technically unworkable and politically meaningless. From a game-theory perspective, the conversation frames Putin as a “cheater” with no reputational cost for breaking agreements, contrasted with Trump’s transactional “deal-making” mindset, which assumes mutual goodwill that does not exist. This asymmetry, combined with the speed of Russian decision-making versus the constraints on U.S. actions, leads to the conclusion that any such deal would favor Russia. The discussion incorporates the roles and motivations of key players — Russia, the U.S. under Trump, Ukraine, the EU/NATO, and China — highlighting China’s pragmatic interest in global stability and potential to act as a brake on Russian adventurism. It also assesses the security implications for the Baltic states and Europe in the event of a weakened NATO, stressing the likelihood that Ukraine will continue fighting regardless of U.S. support, given the existential nature of the conflict. The dialogue integrates analytical input from an external AI (DeepSeek), creating a multi-perspective assessment and laying the groundwork for a structured “players and motivations” map as the first step toward scenario planning. Video created from this article using NoteBookLM and ClipChamp.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZuva9B0oB