Pinned Tweet
Today we reveal CogPGT, the world’s most powerful genetic predictor of IQ.
We achieve a correlation with IQ of 0.51 (0.45 within-family). Herasight customers can boost the expected IQ of their children by up to 9 points by selecting the embryo with the highest CogPGT score. 🧵
Spencer Moore retweeted
Older fathers transmit more de novo mutations (an extra ~1.5 per year), and their children have higher autism risk. But de novo mutations explain only about 10% of that association. The rest mostly reflects which men become older fathers, not what aging does to sperm.
Spencer Moore retweeted
The biggest US transit story of this year has been the massive growth of Seattle Link Light Rail in the wake of the 1 & 2 lines connecting
The Link moved more than 5M passengers last month, up 49% from last year, and keeps expanding, with a new station at Pinehurst just opened
Spencer Moore retweeted
Takes on the election
1. To a first approximation, Republicans lost this hard because voters lost confidence in the Trump administration, not because of a positive agenda from the Democrats. Favorability of the Democratic Party was negative (-5). But Trump told voters to “vote like he was on the ballot”, and they did. The NBC exit poll found that 37% of voters approved of Trump, and 63% disapproved (-26). There’s just no winning the national environment with these margins.
2. There were essentially two major issues that voters cared about: 1) cost of living and 2) government corruption, both of which ~90% of voters said were “crucial or a major factor”. AI was not *that* big of a deal in this election - 56% said it was “crucial or a major factor”, but it’s really hard to disambiguate what voters feel about AGI and catastrophic risks (if anything) from ordinary median-voter NIMBYism around data centers. (It will, however, likely be a huge deal in the 2028 election when the impacts of AI become much more visible). Immigration was also not that big of a deal. Voters actually slightly favored Rs on immigration (+2), probably thanks to lasting backlash from the Biden administration’s laxity on border enforcement. It's unclear to what extent the war with Iran contributed aside from it raising the price of gas.
3. Data centers are probably not over. In fact data center ETF $DTCR was up nearly 2.5% today! It’s hard to understand why this is the case, but one hypothesis is that markets think ultimately, elites’ recognition of the immense economic and national security importance of data centers will override voters’ desire not to build them.
4. On cost of living in particular: one of the most important questions now is to what extent Dems will embrace economic slopulism (think rent control, broad asset taxes, and subsidizing demand) vs. “abundance liberal” policies like building more housing, cutting regulations, and embracing economic growth.
5. Thermostatic backlash is real. Voters hate incumbents. Political majorities shift constantly. The blue wave of 2008 was immediately followed by the red wave of 2010. Anyone predicting a durable multi-decade supermajority for Democrats will likely end up being wrong.
6. “Woke is back” is exactly the wrong lesson for Democrats to take from this, and Ro Khanna posting “DEI is back” doesn’t help. Using transgender issues as a proxy for “woke”, 52% of voters said trans rights have gone too far, compared to just 26% who said they haven’t gone far enough. Deep-blue Washington voted to ban trans athletes in girls’ sports, and Colorado voted to ban trans surgery for minors. Successful Democrats mostly avoided culture war issues.
7. Similarly, a lot of moderate or even right-leaning downballot measures passed, even in blue states. Eight states voted to require voter ID. North Carolina voted to cap state income taxes. California’s billionaire tax is on track to fail by nearly 11 points. Wisconsin voted to ban DEI in state government. Voters largely do not like left-wing ideas.
8. On the other side, “Demographics is destiny” (i.e. America needs to be a white nationalist/nativist country and heavily restrict immigration) is the wrong lesson for Republicans. White voters shifted 13 points to the left. Whites under 30 shifted 30 points to the left. Hispanics and other non-white groups shifted massively towards the right in 2024, and can be encouraged to do so again.
9. Moderates outperformed; radicals underperformed. Dems won by 13 points nationwide. Roy Cooper won by 19.6 in North Carolina (where Trump won by 3.2 in 2024). Jon Ossoff won by 18 in Georgia, where Trump won by 2.2. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Troy Jackson in Maine, both Bernie-backed supporters of Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and wealth taxes, both underperformed the national margin. In fact, Maine shifted slightly rightward. Dems were able to win deep red states like Iowa, Kansas, and Mississippi by running moderate, Republican-presenting, pro-border-security candidates. I suspect this is the main reason markets are up today. (For some intuition on how insane it is for a Dem candidate to win in Mississippi, Trump won Mississippi in 2024 by a larger margin than Harris won California!)
10. One of last night’s biggest winners was Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis. Under his tenure, Florida has gone from slightly red-leaning to reliably red. Republicans swept every statewide office, kept every House seat, and kept their majority in the State House and supermajority in the State Senate. In January, Florida will be the only one of America’s ten most populous states to have a Republican governor. DeSantis is genuinely smart and nuanced, lacks the baggage of figures like Vance and Rubio who are associated with the Trump administration, and did a great job as an administrator running Florida (see its high rate of domestic migration, zero state income tax, very low debt per capita, high education rankings, state budget surplus, etc). I would be unsurprised if he decided to run for President in 2028.
11. The other biggest winner was Jon Ossoff. Ossoff is a young, handsome, charismatic, moderate white male who won by 18 points in a state that went +2.2 for Trump in 2024. He achieved this in large part by focusing relentlessly on the two issues that mattered: the Trump admin’s corruption and the cost of living. He may very well be the Democratic frontrunner in 2028 (although, of course, it's far too early to make confident predictions about these things).
12. The biggest loser of all last night was Israel and the US-Israel relationship. Israel’s popularity in the United States has been in a steep, secular decline for years. Just 13% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans have positive views on Israel, and this is heavily skewed by age - younger voters are much more likely to oppose Israel. With Democrats taking both houses, it’s unlikely America’s level of political and military support for Israel will last for very long.
13. Gerrymandering doesn’t work under sufficiently strong margins for the opposing party. In political science, this is known as “dummymandering”. Dems are on track to flip 7 of North Carolina’s 14 House seats, shifting the balance of power from 10-4 Republican to 11-3 Democratic.
14. Trump quickly conceded that his party lost and he would be open to working with the Democrats. This was a positive update on Trump’s tendency toward authoritarianism. Many mainstream Republican figures, like JD Vance and Ted Cruz, quickly posted somewhat genuine mea culpas. There was a lot less coping than I expected. It’s possible that the loss had to be very painful for them to learn from it, and we wouldn’t have seen the same if Dems had won only 51 Senate seats.
15. Elections are truly a ton of fun to monitor live. There’s nothing like it. And prediction markets beat mainstream media in terms of timeliness and accuracy by FAR.
16. There’s a good chance none of this matters that much. Trump is still the president and still has veto power. Voters might turn on the incumbent Democrats in 2028. And historically, real GDP growth isn’t that different during eras where Ds controlled Congress vs Rs. Much of your probability mass should go towards “nothing ever happens”.
Spencer Moore retweeted
Republicans are going to have a terrible night, and the simple reason why is that Trump has put up perhaps the worst *performance* this term of any president in a century or more.
Remember that he entered with an actual mandate: the House and Senate, a popular vote victory and a swing-state sweep, and 6-3 Supreme Court. Democrats were afraid enough to vote for mild but real immigration restrictionist legislation in the Laken Riley Act. Everyone wondered how far the "Vibe Shift" would go.
Trump managed to turn that into essentially zero durable wins whatsoever. He personally *hates* the very idea of legislation, the notion that he would have to spend time going back and forth with Congress, learning details and making compromises. So he simply didn't do it! He didn't make a compelling case for abolishing the filibuster. He didn't try communicating clearly to the public in support of popular bills to get to 60 votes. He just decided not to do it at all.
So they passed an unpopular tax cut, some funding for ICE, and a sop to the crypto industry, and that was basically it. Least productive Congress in decades, due to the tastes of one man.
Trump adopted one of the worst macro policies we've ever had: high deficits, high tariffs, and attacks on central bank independence. We managed to pay higher interest rates while still having high trade deficits AND weakening the dollar. Just a total failure.
On immigration, perhaps THE signature issue, Trump essentially min-maxxed effectiveness and backlash. Instead of trying to leverage the political moment for new laws and a self-deportation agenda (that is, walling off the economy to remove the benefit of irregular presence in the US), he opted for a maximally aggressive approach. The administration spent attention, funds, legal manpower on stunts like deporting random people to Salvadoran prisons with essentially no due process. ICE and Border Patrol were encouraged to be aggressive and confrontational, which helped contribute to the shooting deaths of American protestors. It turns out, that's extremely unpopular!
What about the approach of going after employers? The obvious vector? Trump hated that idea! He repeatedly has said he doesn't want to target businesses (especially farms) that use large amounts of illegal labor. This is just an incomprehensible position. Instead of charging a few dozen businessmen and removing the incentive for millions of illegal workers to be here, you arrest people off the street one by one at the cost of thousands of dollars in manpower per each, while their crying wives and kids post TikToks about it.
Upshot on immigration: electoral strength turned into a crippling electoral weakness in exchange for deporting maybe 6% of the illegally present population.
The tariffs were a total shitshow. Embarrassing rollout, no underlying theory of action at all. No targeted focus on key industries. Our country tariffed products we can't grow. We tariffed *inputs* of our own valuable exports. The schemes and amounts changed constantly, sending the stock market reeling and presenting scenes of chaos to the world.
Trump's messaging throughout has been generationally bad. While facing nearly 2:1 unpopularity, he spends his days posting AI slop, saying he'll rename New Mexico or invade allies, among other bizarre remarks. He brags about a ballroom and a pool repainting while gas hits records. At no point has he ever attempted any kind of message discipline.
Then there are the deeply unpopular attacks on rule of law, his "game-recognize-game" pardons for all manner of scammers and criminals, the crypto schemes that he and his family engage in, the evilly conceived and embarrassingly executed legal attacks on Comey, Jerome Powell, and others. With his monthslong stand on NOT releasing the Epstein files, he became maybe the first president ever to stake out a 99-1 issue on the 1% side.
That's not even getting into Iran, DOGE, his candidate recruitment choices, or countless other things. Simply put: Trump has managed to royally screw up virtually every single facet of his presidency. It's been undeniable, voters have noticed, and there's really no escape from it. This is what the GOP base chose in early 2024, and this is the world they're living with now. Where they handed the reins of history to a fat, vain, washed-up old man and let him drive.
Spencer Moore retweeted
Exciting talk from @PaternaBio. If they can mature sperm in the lab, men with severe infertility could have biological kids.
The same tech could let us genetically screen sperm before conception, making embryo screening far more powerful.
Spencer Moore retweeted
one of the primary reasons i’m not a doomer is that human civilization is a complex adaptive system with self-correcting mechanisms. but the reason this is so hard to see from the doomer camp is because *they themselves* are precisely the mechanism by which these restoring forces emerge. as risk from AI becomes more clear, new ecological niches emerge in being anti-AGI. status markers then shift to areas like mech. interp. and then talent and capital floods in. as swarm incidents gets worse, the Invisible Hand uses legal liability to shift the gradient in the incentive landscape towards more alignment work
so to my accelerationists: the doomers are part of how we make it. they are a necessary half of the opponent processing mechanism used to steer this ship to the promised land. the doomers and the accelerationists need each other to keep checks on the other’s excess. both have important roles to play in this ant colony that is human civilization. everything is going according to plan
interpretability might be the most important scientific problem in the world right now, as I don't think we can solve alignment if we don't know what we're building. I think I have good news about it. I co-authored early work in mechanistic interpretability at OpenAI and came away pessimistic, because neural networks appeared to fold into arbitrary tangled knots. years later, I started openai's first large-scale automated interpretability project, finding about 2% of neurons legible with the primitive tools we had
with modern agentic tools and a much closer look, the picture looks totally different. the vast majority in models up to trillions of parameters are legible, and their circuits beautiful. many famous examples of tangled neurons turned out to be misunderstood. The roadblocks I expected mostly aren't there. I now think ambitious interpretability will be solved by the time we need it most, and possibly quite soon, as automated scientists keep improving. it may be a bitter lesson for interpretability: the simple thing, at absurd scale, works
already-clean.goodfire.com/
Spencer Moore retweeted
Received a moving message from an aspiring mid-20s professional that, I think, captures an increasingly widespread despair among younger cohorts:
"It really saddens me when I hear about the work [senior people in the field] are doing. Their work seems interesting, and I'll never get to do it.
The people in their fifties and sixties, they're lucky. I'm even lucky. I feel bad for the kids who are fourteen. I at least got a chance to use my brain for one or two minutes, and that's still priceless. I got to be human. I got to be more than just some puppet who presses Enter so something can think for me.
It's very depressing looking at people who are sixty, who I would love to be in twenty years. But to know that I won't get to do that because Dario said so, right? And, like, that's actually heartbreaking.
It's heartbreaking to know that no matter how hard you try and no matter what you do, you cannot add value as a human being in a year or two's time.
It's like hitting a brick wall. You feel no motivation to build the skill, to get better, to attain wisdom and knowledge. It seems worthless to you. And all the older people are telling you all your efforts might be worthless, and they don't need you anymore. And they can just sit there and, you know, make money and leave you to drown."
Spencer Moore retweeted
Today we launch NeuroRisk, the first embryo test for autism and schizophrenia that looks for mutations in evolutionarily important genes.
These mutations are individually rare but over 10% of people carry at least one mutation in this class.
Spencer Moore retweeted
The mutations we identify in people have mostly never been observed before, yet with the help of in-silico computational metrics like Google Alphafold, we are still able to classify their functional impact.
Check out Herasight's newest improvements for autism and neurodevelopmental embryo screening:
Spencer Moore retweeted
It's a tragic fact that a pay-as-you-go national retirement system like Social Security, by not investing in anything, can only destroy potential wealth vs the market opportunity cost.
This is contrary to the moral expectation of participants that they receive some reward or restitution for having been robbed all their life. But robbery creates no wealth from which to repay, and if an entire cohort has been taken from, there's no external pot of money to make society collectively whole again.
Nothing was ever "paid into", there's only a generational promise to maintain some benefit level in perpetuity, a promise whose assumed ratios no longer hold. The first generation to shut off the valve of this money-losing pipeline will face being net losers themselves.
Tired of this excuse. First of all, social security is not something you “pay into.” If it were, you wouldn’t need younger people to “pay into it” in order to get your check. But you do. Because this is a Ponzi scheme, not a retirement account. What you really mean to say is that your money was stolen from you — which it was — and now you want to steal from younger people to get restitution. That’s the actual case you’re making and it’s exactly as morally deranged as it sounds.
Second, your generation continually for decades voted for politicians who would keep the scheme going. You might not have invented social security, but you damn sure made certain it kept going. Why should younger people have to pay the price for the shitty policies you supported?
Third, you “paid into” social security in a different time. The country is now bankrupted and 40 trillion dollars in debt, and basic things like housing are prohibitively expensive. It wasn’t like that when you were young, because your generation of leadership created this problem.
So the theme here is that there are a bunch of problems you guys either created or contributed to. You can choose to pay the price for that now, or force your grandchildren to pay the price so you can live comfortably until you die and leave them holding the bag. You’ve chosen the latter, and I think that’s wrong. Simple as that.
Spencer Moore retweeted
The simplest heuristic for AI consciousness is that we already have AI vision and AI hearing and AI language and AI reasoning and metacognition, and countless other capacities we once thought were exclusively human, and that these capacity were not only learned through a process of gradient descent but have striking parallels to how brains work, with no good reason for thinking consciousness is different in origin.
Spencer Moore retweeted
The AI consciousness debate is back again, so re-upping my case for taking it seriously.
In short,
- LLMs converge on brain-like structures;
- Post-training seems to install a self-model;
- Reward modeling seems to install valences for inner-alignment;
- If Attention Schema Theory is right, subjectivity is functional for long-horizon coherence and in-context learning;
- Universality gives prima facie reason to expect functional convergence to consciousness if consciousness is in fact functional, i.e. isn't purely epiphenomenal
- The "what it is like" / first-person aspect of consciousness is constitutive of its functionality for inner-aligning a unified, coherent agent with the capacity to attend and learn in-context
secondbest.ca/p/time-to-take…
Spencer Moore retweeted
Claude Opus 5.5 writes a fugue in the style of Bach. I called Astra’s fugue the most impressive musical feat I’d ever seen from an LLM, and this is just as good. The circle-of-fifths sequence beginning at 1:13 is beautiful. The interplay of voices is natural and satisfying. LLMs are getting to the point where their music is good enough to listen to for pure enjoyment.
Spencer Moore retweeted
I've been thinking a lot about AI disintermediating human relationships. This seems like a real challenge to me, and I'm not sure how to feel about it
Thanks to AI, in the long run there will be no need for me to ask anyone else for help with anything, and consequently, there will be no opportunity for people to feel useful and appreciated when they provide a service. That give-and-take between people is the core of our social fabric. (It has already been fraying for a long time, even pre-AI.)
Many optimists say things like "AI will automate all the rote work so people can focus on their passions and being together" -- but there is no "being together" without some shared struggle or objective. There is no building trust without need -- and in an AI-induced age of abundance, there may just not be any need.
Social fabric is woven by countless daily small, necessary interactions with other people -- and those interactions may simply go away because your AI agent of choice ends up being your interface to the world around yourself. Not because of any shortcoming, like being lazy or complacent, but because AI will be a better interface.
Why ask your friend for advice when AI will be more patient, less judgmental, and understand you better? What's left for parents to teach their children if AI is a better tutor in all respects? And so forth.
Many incipient changes or risks due to AI do not worry me much. I am very optimistic about what AI can bring to our future. But this one challenge bothers me; it seems like it could spell a fundamental reorganization of our society, isolating the individual much more greatly than ever before. The consequences of this are not clear to me, but it doesn't look great -- generally, it seems that "isolating the individual" has not been good for either those individuals or their societies. And I don't think enough time or thought is being spent on what we want our social lives post-AGI to look like.
Spencer Moore retweeted
Indeed. My view is the same. One can be a consequentialist without being a paternalistic, rationalist who thinks they can calculate which acts (or rules) will produce the best overall outcome across every possible future. We gradually discovered that free speech and free enquiry tend to produce much better outcomes on the whole, not by utilitarian superforecasting, but by bitter experience: from repeatedly suffering the adverse consequences of doing the opposite. As Mill himself wrote, "However positive anyone's persuasion may be, not only of the falsity but of the pernicious consequences of an opinion, yet if he prevents the opinion from being heard in its defence, he assumes infallibility... These are exactly the occasions on which the men of one generation commit those dreadful mistakes which excite the astonishment and horror of posterity". Some callow moralists are intent on endlessly repeating the mistakes of the past.
Spencer Moore retweeted
I picked up my Tesla Model Y at the dealership today, whole thing took me 5 minutes, popped it in full self driving to see how it would do on busy Miami streets in the rain.
I am not making this up, 10 minutes into my drive a lunatic (this is Miami after all) tried to merge into my lane without looking; the Tesla nimbly swerved and made room. Don't know if I would have been able to react. 70% sure it would have been a collision had I been driving.
Pretty remarkable stuff.
Spencer Moore retweeted
>be me
>discover effective altruism
>apparently normal charity is inefficient
>why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing
>fair enough
>buy mosquito nets
>save lives
>numbers look good
>feel powerful
>couple years later
>someone asks an innocent question
>why only count people alive today
>huh
>future people matter too
>obviously
>my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet
>reasonable.jpg
>keep following logic
>what about their grandchildren
>also yes
>what about people in 500 years
>sure
>5000 years
>why not
>500 million years
>starting to get weird but morality is morality
>open calculator
>humanity could survive for an astronomically long time
>could colonize galaxy
>could have trillions upon trillions of descendants
>maybe digital people too
>maybe simulated civilizations
>maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds
>calculator starts smoking
>realize currently living humans are rounding error
>8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta
>future contains potentially 10^something people
>can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets
>new moral priority unlocked
>protect the long-term future
>stop thinking in units of "people helped"
>start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved"
>malaria?
>terrible
>but only kills existing humans
>AI extinction could delete the entire light cone
>nuclear war could permanently derail civilization
>bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years
>someone invents wrong constitution in 2140
>quadrillions suffer
>better fund governance workshop now
>friend says maybe we should improve hospitals
>explain opportunity cost
>friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people
>explain scope sensitivity
>friend stops inviting me to dinner
>need to decide what to fund
>easy
>expected value
>suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction
>sounds tiny
>but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives
>multiply
>mother of god
>$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies
>charity evaluation complete
>someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from
>expert judgement
>which expert
>us
>how calibrated
>extremely thoughtfully
>reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative
>still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude
>epistemic robustness achieved
>someone says maybe project doesn't work
>assign 20% chance
>still astronomical
>maybe project makes problem worse
>assign 5% chance
>still astronomical
>why 5
>because 30 felt pessimistic
>publish 46-page report
>contains seventeen sensitivity analyses
>every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign
>critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities
>yes
>that's literally why it's important
>critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical
>make probability smaller
>critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong
>make probability smaller again
>critic begins rubbing temples
>discover AI safety
>perfect longtermist cause
>AI might kill everyone
>or create utopia
>or seize galaxy
>or tile universe with paperclips
>or create billions of conscious software minds
>finally a problem with numbers big enough for me
>start AI safety nonprofit
>mission: prevent dangerous AI
>hire smartest people available
>smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI
>interesting
>we must understand capabilities to understand safety
>we must scale models to study alignment
>we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first
>we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong
>we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous
>outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies
>complicated field
>company releases stronger model
>very concerned
>company begins training even stronger model
>extremely concerned
>company raises $14 billion
>concern reaches unprecedented levels
>need to influence government
>future is at stake
>normal democratic process too slow
>politicians don't understand exponential curves
>public doesn't understand x-risk
>experts must guide them
>who counts as expert
>people who understand x-risk
>who understands x-risk
>our friends
>someone objects that this seems politically convenient
>explain we're representing future generations
>future generations unavailable for comment
>develop concept of value lock-in
>terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever
>therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in
>whose values
>let's circle back
>begin with impartial morality
>end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want
>beautiful arc
>meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things
>voting wrong
>having parochial attachments
>loving family more than strangers
>caring about local community
>getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible
>evolutionary biases everywhere
>explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted
>except intuition that future digital people count
>and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad
>and intuition that our probability estimates are sane
>and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future
>those intuitions survived peer review
>someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter
>inefficient
>could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher
>think of all the simulated people you just killed
>okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly
>PR team says "future generations deserve a voice"
>much better
>journalist asks what longtermism means
>say "future people matter"
>everyone agrees
>great
>journalist asks what follows from that
>well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures
>journalist raises eyebrow
>return to "future people matter"
>motte has entered the chat
>critic: of course future people matter
>me: glad we agree
>critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them
>me: why do you hate our grandchildren
>eventually notice uncomfortable implication
>if future value dominates everything
>then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future
>education matters because future institutions
>health matters because future productivity
>democracy matters because future trajectory
>human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy
>see starving child
>feel compassion
>check spreadsheet
>child's direct welfare contribution negligible
>but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality
>compassion restored
>tell myself this is impartial altruism
>one day assistant asks obvious question
>"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?"
>silence
>open spreadsheet
>increase column width
>add confidence interval
>assistant asks again
>"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?"
>stare into cosmic light cone
>10^50 people staring back
>none of them exist
>none of them can tell me
>none of them can falsify my assumptions
>realize I have invented the perfect constituency
>infinitely important
>completely silent
>and always represented by me