Tag Archives: Binary

July 25, 2026 · 22:45

Rerun anyone?

As I wrote an article propping questions there. I see earlier today, the BBC is giving us ‘Warning shot or publicity stunt – how worried should we be about the OpenAI hack?’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9w22n9e4go) as such, I had some initial questions in my article: ‘Is it real or is it media?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/07/24/is-it-real-or-is-it-media/) where I posted the idea ““The ChatGPT-maker said its agent – an AI system which can operate alone after human instruction – was being tested in a controlled environment but, after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits.” Which is fine, but that is still programmer controlled. So as I see it “after finding weaknesses, was able to escape the test limits” it didn’t escape it merely found a weakness as its ML systems were taught to find out and went elsewhere. It reminded my of the 90s hacking setting where towards ‘password’ a clever hacker gave “1=1” invoking the ‘True’ setting. Then we get “OpenAI said the incident was “unprecedented”, and it was conducting an investigation alongside Hugging Face, whose boss Clement Delangue said in a post on X it was “mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously”.”” And now we see “Hugging Face said the hack was different from anything it had handled before because it was done at superhuman speed by an AI with little or no human guidance.” It is the “little” addition to the sentence that is validating my setting of “that is still programmer controlled”, because as I see it, “little guidance” might merely be human ‘adjusting’. And when we see “Hugging Face researchers guessed the mysterious attackers had used one of the big AI models but they had no idea who or where the criminals were.” So, the issues is even bigger, it could have been Organized Crime setting the parameters of a sandbox, I know it sounds outlandish, but there is either a massive shortage in structure and security of DML (Deeper Machine Learning) settings (so it could either be ML or DL) but the setting that this is out there whilst there is no oversight is something that most of the media is painting over with innuendo and whether this is given by some is not in question, also irrelevant. And we see this when we get to “The Scooby-Doo-style reveal was made even more bizarre – and worrying – because OpenAI said its bot did the whole thing on its own, without permission. The firm said it all went down during a test of its tech’s hacking skills.

Two new versions of ChatGPT, designed to be master hackers, broke out of a supposedly secure test environment and gained access to the internet.” We see “broke out of a supposedly secure test environment” implies that it was not secure and the testing facility (the sandbox) is lacking security and oversight. And the statement “OpenAI said its bot did the whole thing on its own” implies that the bot was not monitored or ‘left alone in limbo’ but we all know that any computer is never idle, it is always doing something and whilst it depends on human interactions it is fine. With autonomous systems it is a different matter and OpenAI should have known that. They are supposed whole lot better than I would ever be and I reckon that the larger issue is what did OpenAI know ad what are they hiding, because as I see it, they are hiding something. I am not sure what and it might be innocent in most cases but as I see it, hiding something is fear for some illumination. That has for themes nearly always been the case.

Then the BBC hits a note that I was playing all along a for the most I hinted to that in the previous article (listed above) but the BBC is giving us “Was it truly a stark warning about the future of AI? Or was it a publicity stunt by OpenAI to show off how powerful their models are? It’s the kind of scare marketing AI companies have been accused of for years and, since the much discussed launch of Anthropic’s Mythos model, cyber-security prowess has been a focal point. One of the top comments on OpenAI boss Sam Altman’s X post about the incident summarises this skepticism: “If y’all can’t understand that this was written to purely brag about the model then I don’t know what to tell you.”” And the ‘statement’ “If y’all can’t understand that this was written to purely brag about the model then I don’t know what to tell you” summarizes it nicely. We also get “The OpenAI and Hugging Face incident is a real-world example of a broader issue we’ve been highlighting for months,” said Dor Sarig from Pillar Security. “Sandboxes alone are not a sufficient security boundary for agentic AI.” And I tend to agree with that. Any Agentic system requires different security requirements. Whether it is Fake AI, True AI or simple ML AI. An agentic system does not work according to ‘human’ settings. I tend to go back to the original chess computers from the 80s. They will try any movement that is possible until they get the right result whilst replaying every chess match that was programmed into its memory. And the chess computer is relatively simple. Hacking into a system has all kind of places to pass. I gave the window example in my previous article. But the setting of software is that they are set to libraries that give abilities to a program. You see, a program gets linked to <stdio.h>, <stdlib.h> and <string.h>, but merely these three open up options in I/O operations, copy operations that are not part of the program, but they are in that system and it can run by all of them in mere seconds, optionally finding alternative options. Even this is not AI, a programmer had to program it in and regardless whether an agentic system does it autonomously, it only does it because it was handed that training and these instructions, and the agentic system started to combine options and learnings and it learned (using my previous examples) that it can leave a location via a window, it does not require to use a door. Which makes me remember an MSDOS program that turned the speaker into a device. So giving it the instruction:

Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:
Copy MontyPython SPKR:

And then wait from a distance, whist I added this to the autoexec.bat of a friend and watch him go nuts why his PC is singing the tune of Monty Python. It wasn’t me, someone programmed the setting of a speaker to become a SPKR: drive. So when an agentic program gets creative it might take routes no programmer could anticipate, not even when he/she programmed it. Because the reality of the setting is that no sandbox suffices to any agentic program. As I see it, it requires a sandbox in a sandbox and when the agentic program gets out of the inner sandbox the arms of the outer sandbox go off and as I see it, because it was unmentioned, that setting seemingly does not exist. So whilst I understand the position given by “Cyber security Professor Alan Woodward from Surrey University told reporters OpenAI had “egg on it’s face”, and Katie Moussouris from Luta Security went further, suggesting the AI industry is failing to control its dangerous inventions.” I kinda disagree and it comes from the plain setting that AI does not yet exist. And all this is the consequence of ‘experts’ covering each other by making claims that all this is AI, whilst it is mere ML/DL (I call it DML) and it comes from a programmer. And even as they are covering each other, and clapping each other on the back. They know that the wrong settings are in place, but they are in too deep and it will hinder whatever comes next. There is one upside, you see, the AI Kill Switch Act might be in place before True AI comes to town and that could be the one great good thing.

I get the doubt thrown my way and I get that a lot of people have no idea, even though they gave all their IP and data to ChatGPT. I never used it and until there is a real AI, I will never use it to grow ideas. So whilst IBM (decently recent) gave us “Key concerns include autonomous system risks, data privacy violations, algorithmic bias, widespread misinformation, and intellectual property challenges” which is something I gave several times in the past and it all comes from a programmer, and as soon as they get connected to some sort of organized criminal enterprise the fence is broken open and all that IP will go anywhere and everywhere. That is the larger setting and no one is examining the ML/DL libraries that these players are making and as such when these class actions are placed beyond the settlements that they can afford, the ‘sudden’ revelation comes out and that is the moment these programmers can’t remember anything. And whilst the setting comes to point that the dollar sign no longer validates the setting of “Tech companies argue that training AI on public data falls under legal “fair use,” while creators argue it is unauthorized commercial exploitation” we will get a whole new ballgame and whilst this all plays out, the tech companies are creating new libraries with these agentic knowledge basis making a secure sandbox even more difficult. Optionally it might even contain three sandboxes in a nested structure, but that is merely my view on the matter and I might be incorrect in that assessment.

So whilst we are facing rerun after rerun and optionally faked settings of Google vs OpenAI, both against Anthropic and all against each other when xAI enters the fold. And all that time the are still figuring out both a Trinary system (I see that as an essential setting for True AI) and how that is voiced into data systems, because they will have ramifications. Which is why I see that Oracle and Snowflake have the largest chances in that respect. I am certain that this is a race that Microsoft is unable to get into and I have no idea where Google is there. I am decently certain that IBM figured this out before I did and optionally they have this ‘under control’ through what was LISP and is now optionally coming to systems in some point in the future. Because as I see it, the setting of a trinary driven system with what I tend to call an Epsilon processor would require a LISP driven setting where the optional inclusion and exclusion would run simultaneously and this requires some form of LISP setting (a personal speculation) and all this would come with IBM shallow circuits. And all this gives IBM the largest head start, even Google might not be able to compete and I reckon that IBM might have talked to someone like Oracle on these settings. I have no idea where IBM is in databases, because in the end any true AI system is depending on the data it has. The question becomes in the meantime, how to transform binary (fake) AI into trinity true AI. The setting will become the discussion among data experts in the next few years and it hold bearing to all this, because it also impacts on how sandboxes are designed and monitored.

And it it important because as I see it, trinary data takes a fifth of the space whilst gaining 4 times the speed of processing. And that is the setting these data farms will have to content with. As such there is plenty of evolution coming, but in this the stages of security becomes essential and whilst you consider rate quote from Katie Moussouris from Luta Security giving us “the AI industry is failing to control its dangerous inventions” and we are nowhere near the setting of true AI and that is where sandboxes require a nasty upgrade and soon, because soon enough, the kill switch might all there is between our data and whomever has access to data farms. And with security failing like we see now, we might not have that much time left and that is where I saw the need for security, because there is every chance that some AI ‘dealers’ already know that their fortune is set towards who has the most data and there is a need that we need to keep our data safe, but others might not want to do anything about it. Naming names is highly speculative because we aren’t shown the real issues and these people don’t want the real issues to come out because when the game is up, these people are playing for all the marbles in the world and there can only be one winner. That is how I see it and I might be wrong, but at present I feel that I am more right than even I think I should be.

Have a great day today, I am now a mere 80 minutes away from Sunday.

In my mind

This is not some setting from “because I say so”, but it is a setting that I expect. To see what trinary systems (some call them ternary systems) can do ‘because of’ “Potentially higher speed and efficiency, allowing for less storage space per bit and more compact circuitry. Balanced ternary handles negative numbers natively.” The IT world is relying on the setting (because it knocks them of their throne) with “Difficult to design, higher power consumption in some implementations, and a lack of mature research compared to binary.” They are not wrong, but trinary is tomorrow and it is set to actual and factual true Artificial Intelligence. As such in my mind the system created 1,000,000 possible culprits, but the setting to identify this (with much in the middle of the data) we see a cube with a 100 layers of 100 by 100 people. Each person has over 100 elements and that is still a decent data setting. The binary solution gives us 4 reds (highly likely culprits), two dozen orange (people who are not to be dismissed as a suspect at present) and the rest is cleared, it took the binary solution 47 seconds. So in comes the trinary solution and it gives us two reds and 5 orange and it does so in 6 seconds. That is the setting that trinary beers binary gives us on 1,000,000 people. So when (lets for arguments sake say Oracle) gives the people the impact of that and the gain in computational power as well as offer higher information density and theoretical efficiency. The sales talk is done at that point and consider the amounts of data sources have, we can say that at that point Binary solutions are done for in a world where time matters and where efficiency is goal. You should not dismiss Fake AI that easily, because some people cannot afford trinary solutions before 2040-2050. But that setting if computational power is not to be dismissed. No matter what the binary tycoons claim. So in 6 seconds, the 19 non-dismissible people were disregarded on the foundation of the SAME data, because that was part of the exercise. And I reckon that shallow circuits will be a much stronger solution in a trinary setting that it ever could be in a binary setting. Don’t get me wrong, it will help heaps. 1 million people with over 100 elements is still 100,000,000 settings in a true/false environment. This is why I disregard (at present) as all AI, simply as fake AI. And for the people stating this is merely in my mind. You are right and fortunately I had an education from UTS and a degree in internet working. So we all have had that setting of data and non-repudiation. And don’t forget in a trinary setting non-repudiation is more than a simple equation. It will figure out that you and only you could have done something like that. This is why I valued Oracle (and optionally Snowflake) above all the others, by the time you are done with listening to the salespeople from Azure stating that this is the way to go, you are hooked and that is where you lose the fight. And when Oracle set up whatever they call there trinary database system, there will be a population of one in the forefront of real AI and those who were ‘enticed’ by the sales talk of others, because those salespeople don’t care about you, they care about their own product and they are set to do the best that their solution can do for you. Here language and legal settings matter, because they never outspokenly lie, they merely omit factors that they regard don’t concern you. Even Google Gemini give us “ternary remains limited by manufacturing complexity and lower reliability.” Every one who knows me knows that I am a huge Google fan, so where did Gemini gets that data? (simple: reddit) and it gives the source, but how was it verified and validated? And at present it is a true setting, but if you realise that this technology is still well over a decade away (at best) are they lying? You need to see the bigger picture, especially when these vendors trow phrases like “AI” around and when people are cluing up that it is all Fake AI, we will see carefully phrased denials like “they were all doing it, we just followed them” and that is where you see that these proclaimers are merely following one another. What a tangled web we weave.

Still I reckon that Snowflake and Oracle will have transference systems in development, because I am not the ‘genius of one innovator’ others have similar setting in mind and they are preparing to give their customers the best that is possible with the current technology in place.

So as we are looking at a day of rest (or like me slaughtering people in Skyrim), we need to consider the media frenzy that is evolving around us and be very careful what you accept as true. Even my statements should be examined. The one stating “My data is without flaw” is the liar in your inner circle. And be careful who you let into your inner circle because that is your decision and it will cost you the moment you allow the wrong person in your midst.

Have a great day. So don’t think of this ‘article or story’ as valid, it is a collection of thoughts that are mine and even as I presume that it is all factual, it remains a story unless I can verify and validate the data I have and some of this was collected through fake AI, so I know there are parts that are not aligning.

Can prose lead to presumption?

Yes, a mystery for sure, but then the universe tends to have a warped sense of humour. This all started yesterday when the Dutch NOS gave me the idea with ‘This is how we seek for life in the Universe’, you see, we can search the quadrillion of stars that might give us the answer, or we can look at 1,000,000 places the will give us the answer. The riddle was never scientific, it was a set of variables that an engineer could use to find what he needs, and therefor we see wht others need too.

Before we take that journey, we need to take heed of one part, the US allegedly have found the solution to a working fusion reactor. This might switch on the lights in a city, but for space travel not really a working solution. To see this I need to give you an example. Most people remember the age of the Moped, a 2 stroke system almost 50cc. It works but for what we need, we would need a Triumph Rocket R3, a very nice bike that will not get you anywhere with a 2-stroke engine. You need more powerful fuel and a big ass engine. The problem is that Uranium is pretty much the best we can do on this world.

We are a temperate world and you need layer 7 elements to get anywhere.

The first element
The first element is not the most vital one, but has essential abilities. It is Negrinium, it has a black crystalline structure and the rings of Saturn have a decent supply of it. When these crystals are shaped like a comb and fusion energy is pushed through it, the Negrinium will align and direct the energy, it is a great way to direct fusion power. It is not the most essential part, but you will get 10%-25% better use of fusion power. Negrinium is found not unlike Amethyst in rocks, the crystals are on the inside. The rocks are slightly harder (read: tougher) than granite, but it keeps the Negrinium safe.

The second element
This is a more difficult one. Like Uranium there is a 235 and 238 version. This one, named Klaventium comes in 4 versions, the largest one is the right one, the other three create a very toxic version of waste and the only place to story it is on the world you found it in the first place and it better be safely stored for over 150,000 years. The biggest version is the good one, it burns clean leaves no mess and has 500 times the power of Uranium. The closest place is Jupiter and you can start finding it 3-5 miles below the surface and there is a setback. In the first that stuff can never be on earth. If you would ‘hide’ a piece of Klaventium the size of a rice grain in an envelope, set in a hidden corner on Fifth Avenue and 23rd Street. Whatever comes within 80 meters of the place will die in 30 days, it is radiation poisoning on steroids. There is no cure and klaventium will not leave any normal signal like gamma radiation, it is out of our scope to monitor it and it is a way to deal with the surplus population, but not in a nice way. Also mining that stuff can only be done by reinforced droids or drones). Yet the impact on engines will be seen, a 7ft container will be enough to power a ship the size of one of those star wars vehicles all the way to Alpha Centauri with a compliment of 250,000 people. The downside is that all fusion goes wrong at some point, there is no solution, things happen and when fusion goes bad, the ship will be gone, there is no exception and anyone say there is is out of his (or her) mind.

The third element
This is the problem and it is a universal one. We need an essential part, a noble gas named Celestrium. It has a very nice side effect and the problem is that there is only one place in the universe where this stuff can be found (It is not Arrakis). You see Celestrium can only be found in a system with multiple stars (like Binary and tertiary systems). When the stars get close enough the rays will have a nice side effect. As EVERY star has a different frequency, two stars will create an area of effect. This creates Celestrium and the side effect is that Celestrium stops fusion, it inhibits it. It is the universe way of stopping suns to become a little too hot tempered. And there is the one element every Engineer in the universe needs. Celestrium! And it also answers the question where life is. It is not on that system, binary or tertiary systems do not allow for temperate planets. But the star adjacent to it will and there is your answer. You see, when this gas in mined the radiation print will change, it will fluctuate between values, when normally that is a scientific impossibility, mining is the answer to that impossibility. So if we had a powerful telescope like the James Webb Space Telescope, we could monitor these worlds. For us, I reckon about 50 of them should be within scanning range, so the search for life went from quadrillion to 50 in mere seconds.

Not bad?

So when my diary in the future states “I have had magnificent sex with a beautiful Swedish woman, and I got a Nobel price to boot. Today my life is awesome! (Many thanks to the Nobel committee in Stockholm)” I will not be kidding!

Have a lovely day and let your imagination run amok with you too! It might make your day less dreary.

Tag Archives: Binary

Rerun anyone?

In my mind

Can prose lead to presumption?

Recent Posts

Archives