Teaching people how to use AI for maximum benefit

Knowledge is also our shield

A question here yesterday about qualms about a Pxy response to a complex set of queries elicited the response I post below. One worry was about Pxy's response to the role that China played in the American opioid (fentanyl) crisis and excess deaths, presumably opioid-caused.

I post this to explain why I post so much here about using Pxy and how to get the best out of Pxy and AI generally.

1.Pxy can be asked any question, including any hypothetical question. Pages of text (a few, dozens or hundreds), essay or analysis can be pasted in and questions asked about that. A Word (maybe also pdf) file can be attached to a set of questions. The vast range and structure of questions that AI can be asked is a big part of what I am desperately trying to teach people. That is why I keep showing so many Qs&As. It's not me being pompous or arrogant. It's me desperately trying to get people up to speed.** The thought was that if people see how it is done enough times, they will be less intimidated about trying AI for themselves. 

** The vast amount and sophistication of political demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpottery, irrational emotional manipulation, etc., in the MSM and everywhere else is now overwhelming. Old-fashioned Google searching, now fully crapified for profit, doesn't come close to what is needed as a defensive response. As best I can tell, people's best defense is knowing how to use AI in self-defense. AI is probably the average person's best defense against the dark arts in politics, and probably everything else too.

It's better to teach a person how to fish than it is to give them a fish. Hence, I talk a lot about Pxy and AI generally.  

2. AI query sets must have a detailed error and bias reduction protocol added to the end of each query set. The protocol I coaxed out of Pxy is posted at this link -- bookmark it and use it every time: https://dispol.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-final-ai-error-reduction.html. Add that instruction set to the end of each new set of queries, otherwise the response tends to seek out your own bias and feed it. Pasting in the accuracy protocol once per thread works for Pxy, i.e., the first set of questions gets the accuracy protocol, and that is automatically applied to subsequent queries in the same thread.

Regarding the accuracy protocol, I have repeatedly fed it to Pxy for reanalysis and critical revisions. I also show Pxy its own errors and ask for whether the flaw that gave rise to a particular error rises to the level of needing to be put in the accuracy protocol. I am now at the point of diminishing returns and don't make many new revisions because Pxy says it would be counterproductive. "Asymptotically impossible" is the way Pxy describes further protocol attempts at perfection.  

3. Do not use pro search mode for politics questions. Most of Pro mode answers are too shallow and too error or bias riddled. For politics queries, always search in research mode with the "Academic" and "Social" data sets included with the default "Web" data. Academic get you scholarship and Social sometimes gets you some needed human nuance. Politics is too complex for Pro mode (1) searching, and (2) analysis. Searching and analysis are two separate things, with two possible separate query instructions. The accuracy protocol is my default analysis guidance, and sometimes other factors are separately added for better focused AI analysis. 

4. By now I know how to ferret out an AI response that is more credible regarding China and fentanyl. Maybe the response would be significantly different, but maybe not. That answer has already been passed through the accuracy protocol. Coming up with a better way to ask the question is the kind of learning one has to take time to get a feel for. Learning to ask questions correctly to get the most likely mostly right answer takes a lot of time and practice. Well, at least for me it did. It would take significant time to dive deeper into China and fentanyl related to housing. It would probably require a series of complex query sets, each of which gets run through the accuracy protocol. 

Got a few strange ideas to run by you, just for the heck (conversation) of it...

This is gonna get contorted but try to stick with me. Do you ever wonder if what we are experiencing now is the resulting afterlife of what we foresaw/imagined before? Cryptic, I know, but let me try to explain. 

Before, when we wondered if there was some sort of afterlife, but had no clue as to what it would be like (if it indeed existed), we may have imagined an afterlife via some sort of (e.g.,) religious writings (like we do in this, our now). But that maybe, with this now, we are actually now in it, that previous life’s suspected afterlife. Yeah, the more I try to explain, the deeper I dig, and probably the more I’m confusing you. Bottom line (to summarize): Is the current now the afterlife we imagined before?

Think about comparing what I said to the “infinity mirrors” phenomenon. Always another “next” image, as we (possibly) iterate through infinite time. 

Like this.

Which begs a related question: Do you ever wonder if you have “always been alive?”  Meaning, like that errant electron, we came/popped into existence at some point in (so called) "time" and, even though we experience death, we, like the infinitely mirror, just move on to the next (let’s call it) frame of the movie film?

Or, think about this. Maybe you are alive in many states of existence all at the same time (like Kaku talked about with the quantum computing process). IOW, we are constantly in a superposition state, and once the wave function collapses into a reality, we then actually experience/“realize” a particular moment in time.  So again, to try to summarize: We exist in infinite possibilities all at the same time, where any one realized moment in time is a result of the collapsed wave function.  I mean, we are made of those same particles that create the rest of our reality. 

I know this probably sounds like eastern type philosophy or the reincarnation thing. But these strange ideas occur to me at times. It’s like I can “ESP sense” them in some sort of “once removed” way. Like they are happening in a parallel universe kind of way. 

Q1: Why couldn’t these things be possible? 

You may say, but we know how these things (in particular hard reality) work, through logic and experience.  But don’t you see, logic and experience are irrelevant when it comes to these things. Our current (small slice of) reality works on its own unique set of (let’s call them) standards and rules. We can claim X to be true only because we are operating in a limited environment; the only one we have to compare/reference to.

Only our resident brainiacs (you know who you are) and/or like thinkers need respond. Otherwise just ignore me. Just typing out loud in my (let's call it) unorthodox way. 🤷‍♀️

Q2: Does anyone else here like talking and thinking about these things?  Or, as I often suspect, it’s basically just me? More 🤷‍♀️.

(by PrimalSoup)

About drug prices & MAGA propaganda tactics

A NYT article, Trump Moves to Crack Down on Drug Advertising, talks about djt talking about limiting drug ads on TV, as was the case in the 1990s. Chances of that happening are low, maybe ~2% in the next 18 months. It would be wonderful to not be carpet bombed by drug ads on broadcast TV, but there's just too damned much money in it for everyone involved. People involved in carpet bombing us with obnoxious drug ads will purchase enough $TRUMP meme coin, donate to his presidential library, give him a huge jet airplane, and/or otherwise bribe djt into dropping this idea. The idea is very likely DOA, i.e., dead on arrival. 

The NYT included some comments by Dr. Brainworm (RFK Jr). “Pharmaceutical ads hooked this country on prescription drugs. We will shut down that pipeline of deception and require drug companies to disclose all critical safety facts in their advertising.” Interest. Brainworm called the TV ads deceptive.

Something about this smells fishy. 

Last June, a post here focused on djt telling us he was gonna drop drug prices in the US to match the lowest price anywhere in the world. The prediction there was that affected drug companies and other special interests would quietly bribe their way out of the problem. Since it's been three months since djt's last blast of propaganda about drugs, I asked Comet (the agentic part of Pxy) for an update on how well djt's "effort" to drop US drug prices is proceeding. The answer is exactly as expected, it ain't gonna happen. Maybe the real "effort" here is to coerce money out of affected special interests like wealthy drug companies.

Q: This blog post from last June, https://dispol.blogspot.com/2025/06/thinking-about-how-politics-is-done.html, discussed Trump promising to drop drug prices in the US. Has that happened yet, or has the idea quietly died after sufficient bribery (free speech) of Trump got him to drop the idea? (error reduction instructions added here)

A: Trump's Drug Price Promises: Status Assessment as of September 10, 2025

Current Timeline and Promises

Sources indicate that Trump signed an executive order on May 12, 2025, titled "Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients". On July 30, 2025, he sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical companies demanding they lower U.S. prices to match international rates, setting a September 29, 2025 deadline for "binding commitments".

Industry response 

Industry-Wide Spending (Entire Pharmaceutical/Health Products Sector):

• Q1 2025: $121.4 million

• Q2 2025: $105.4 million

First Half 2025 Total: $226.8 million. The pharmaceutical industry has significantly increased lobbying expenditures, spending a record $227 million in the first half of 2025, with the industry on pace to easily surpass its all-time high of $388 million for 2024.

Implementation Challenges

Legal experts note significant enforcement limitations. The administration's demands amount to a request that drug companies act voluntarily because there is limited** clear legal authority to enforce price reductions. Trump's previous 2020 attempt at Most Favored Nation pricing was blocked by federal courts due to procedural failures.

** I think limited legal authority means no legal authority.

Corporate Influence Dynamics
Major pharmaceutical companies contributed substantially to Trump's inauguration, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Gilead, and Bayer (each $1 million), with Eli Lilly contributing $500,000. PhRMA contributed $1 million despite later opposing Trump's drug pricing executive order. Industry access continues through Mar-a-Lago meetings.

Recent Developments
As of September 9, 2025, Trump's most recent drug-related action focused on pharmaceutical advertising rather than pricing, signing a memorandum to crack down on direct-to-consumer drug advertisements. This represents a shift from core pricing issues to peripheral regulatory matters.

Assessment of Promise Status
Promises Made: Trump has claimed drug price reductions of "50 to 80 or 90%" would occur "almost immediately" and has demanded companies provide "binding commitments" by September 29, 2025.

Current Reality: The September 29 deadline has not yet passed. Limited evidence suggests minimal company compliance beyond preliminary discussions. The administration has shifted focus to advertising restrictions rather than direct price controls.

Q2: In view of all current evidence in the public record about Trump and MAGA politics, estimate how much money will need to flow from affected parties to Trump before he quietly drops the idea of decreasing drug prices.

A2: .... long analysis ....

FINAL ASSESSMENT 

Based on available evidence, a coordinated pharmaceutical industry effort in the range of $100-300 million across multiple funding channels over 6-12 months would likely be sufficient to secure a quiet abandonment of Trump's drug pricing initiatives. However, this estimate carries substantial uncertainty due to the unpredictable nature of Trump's decision-making and the complex political dynamics surrounding healthcare policy.

Critical limitations: This analysis cannot account for external factors, public pressure, or Trump's personal motivations beyond documented financial patterns.

Q3: So, given Q1 and Q2 spending of $226.8 million, the pharmaceutical industry may have already purchased relief from Trump's threat of drug price decreases?

A3: .... moderate analysis ....

Conclusion 

The pharmaceutical industry's substantial lobbying investment appears to have successfully purchased policy moderation. While Trump maintains rhetorical pressure, the policy trajectory suggests meaningful drug price reductions are unlikely to materialize, consistent with his established pattern of accommodating major donors while preserving populist messaging. The $226.8 million may indeed represent a successful "insurance premium" against serious drug pricing reform.

That analysis makes sense. Shifting his rhetoric from drug prices to TV ads helps the public forget about djt's original drug price drop promise. That's a nice deflection tactic. Good 'ole dark free speech.

The Epstein saga; The Israel-Palestine saga; MAGA's Authoritarianism creep

The NYT and lots of others report that the House Oversight Committee released some files turned over by Epstein’s estate. The release includes a copy of a sex note that djt wrote to Jeff. 

As expected for an embarrassment like this, the White House denies that it is a letter from djt. His letter to Jeff was in a book for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. It shows an imagined conversation between the two. In typical MAGA style, press secretary and shameless liar Karoline Leavitt claims the Wall Street Journal article "PROVES this entire 'Birthday Card' story is false". 

Once again, MAGA elites tell us that direct evidence of MAGA sleaze proves the sleaze is non-existent. By now, that is standard operating procedure for MAGA demagogues.

Last July, July, Vance dismissed the letter's alleged existence as "complete and utter bullshit," questioning its authenticity and asking "Where is this letter?" In response to Vance's question about the letter, Gavin Newsom snarkily commented "That aged well".

This Epstein thing has remarkable staying power. Quite unexpected.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

In a NYT opinion, Michelle Goldberg seems to tentatively reach the same conclusions about Israel-Palestine and the two-state solution that two authors assert in their new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine. Goldber's opinion is entitled, These Peace Negotiators Say It’s Time to Give Up on the Two-State Solution. The author's conclusions are that (1) the possibility of any two-state solution has vanished, (2) it may have always been a futile goal, and (3) two state had no chance of succeeding while the United States refused to exert significant pressure on Israel.

The first two of those conclusions seemed pretty obvious in Nov. 1995 after Rabin's assassination by an Israeli Zionist zealot with a gun. By then decades of peace talks and negotiations had failed. In the last year or two, there has been a trickle of observers who have come to at least the first two conclusions. 

The third conclusion, US pressure was necessary but never came, raises a matter of profound moral significance. If it was up to the US to force the parties into a two-state solution and the US failed, what does that say about the two sides? They could have voluntarily come to an agreement on their own, but they did not. Staunch Israel supporters will blame the Palestinian people and terrorists. The Palestinians will blame the Israeli government and Israelis. At this point, the bitter disagreements and bloodshed will not end until the Palestinian side is crushed into complete submission. But it is a fact, or close to it, that the possibility of a two-state solution has vanished.

Goldberg asserts what is arguably obvious and undeniable:

I’m the sort of person [the authors] refer to in their book, someone who has lost faith that there will ever be a Palestinian state but can’t envision a workable, tolerable alternative. Israel is not going to dismantle itself.

Yup, Israel is not going to dismantle itself. A tolerable alternative is not on the horizon. Diplomacy failed. Brute force won.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

In some ways, embodied authoritarianism is like any other embodied ideal or ideology. Groups and institutions built around an ideology like MAGA's sacred kleptocratic authoritarianism can (usually do?) undergo mission creep if they can do so. When it happens, it almost always comes with an attendant expansion of scope and power. An example is the expansion of MAGA authoritarianism built on the ideal of illegal immigration as a fearsome enemy. Base human sentiments of intense bigotry and blatant racism mostly power the growth of this strand of MAGA authoritarianism.

The American Prospect reports that the DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security) is now claiming that bystanders who videotape ICE agents and raids on targeted people and locations constitutes violence. Elite MAGA thugs and ICE agents use that expanded definition of violence to justify assaults on journalists who have documented detentions of allegedly illegal immigrants. ICE arrests and disappearances is happening on streets, workplaces, and courtrooms. ICE arrests and detentions now routinely occur without due process. DHS brazenly claims that recording such illegal activity is an act of “violence” and will be dealt with accordingly. 

According to the TAP article, last July MAGA DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that violence is "anything that threatens [DHS agents] and their safety. It is doxing them. It is videotaping them where they're at." A DHS spokesperson also commented: "We will prosecute those who illegally harass ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law." That videotaping 

This is an example of MAGA authoritarianism sweeping aside constitutional rights, e.g., the 1st Amendment guarantee of a right to criticize and report government abuse. This is what American authoritarian mission creep looks like as it kills democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties.