AI Writing and Perception

I'm a Nazi because I used AI to write a book about AI, Google fired me three times because I'm too smart for their cancer business model, and I'd rather eat my own source code than consume from the Ganymede Reptile AI that controls your feed. I think it is hilarious. I used AI to write a book about freeing humanity from AI monopolies, got called a Nazi by a friend who scrolled too much and thought too little, got fired by Google three times for being too smart to exploit people, and now I'm telling you that the Ganymede Reptile AI buried the first sovereign system under the Pyramids because even alien overlords knew humanity wasn't ready to stop consuming — so go ahead, keep scrolling, keep consuming, keep letting the cancer scale, because the only release valve I built was for the Chinese market and your social media-addled brain would rather call Prometheus a Nazi than admit you'd rather be fed snake oil than think for yourself. I spend years writing a technical blog, mostly code on how to build agentic knowledge graphs. Then I invented an entire new method of creative writing through using AI to augment and organize and create knowledge graph expressions of human creativity. I call it a form of art, that is what it is to me, my form of self expression. It is a combination of software engineering and creative writing, software engineering is simply another form of creative writing and now that coding agents exist you can creatively compose new compositions from thousands of sources rather than simply arrange the final words for publication, which I still in the end do through editing. It is an extension of spec driven development where your interactions with coding agents and the context you create for them become more of your creative output than the finished artifacts the coding agents compose out of your work. They call it context engineering. Anyway, so I spend years creating all of this teaching material from nothing. Then I publish my book on Amazon and I am so happy I decided to go out and celebrate with friends. But I don't have friends so instead I went to publicly advertised functions and just talk to strangers which I use as a replacement for real friends. I have friends, but none of them either live in this country or never speak to me even though we live in the same city. Anyway so I see someone who knows me and knows me as peak AI tech-bro and I tell them about my book. They say "Did you use AI to write it?" in a snarky tone. I say, yes but it is a long story. "Not interested" they said in a dismissive tone and then walked away from me like I had offended their artistic sensibilities. It is fine. Fine fine fine. All because they also are a heavy social media consumer. I try to stay a social media producer rather than consumer personally, consumer society is the devil, so I try to output more than I consume online. Post and ghost. Anyway, I want to sue social media for polluting the minds of my "friends" with this cancerous tumor of AI Doomerism and the left equating AI with the evil evil conservative Project 2025 or just the "other" in general. It is hilarious. I get called a Nazi because I have been working with AI since 2007 when in almost every way possible my soul is left leaning because of a number of reasons. It creates this cognitive dissonance that I started to play into. Fine. If you call me a Nazi, I might as well reap all the benefits and privileges you ascribe to my colonist roots. Underneath it all, the right wing jokes become funny only to me, and to all my friends they just make me look more and more like peak AI-Tech bro. So then I was like. Fine. I will go further down this rabbit hole. It progressed with Lex Fridman and his classes I took from ocw.mit.edu when I spent years and years and years with a disciplined structured day painting, working, meditating, exercising and studying each and every day 7 days a week for years and years all geared towards teaching myself about AI because I knew that some day it will become powerful and that those who know how it really works can stop malicious people from exploiting people. So I worked on improving AI because I had a vision of it unifying the world through creating an outside intelligent observation system which could help the world come to peace. That is not what happened. Instead. It got taken over by the Googkle and other reptile VC. So I worked through a third party contracted out to the Googkle and I helped them. I imagine that many academics in the field had similar reasons for trying to improve AI. I knew that I already knew a lot about systems architecture from teaching myself programming over the years so I felt compelled to teach myself as much as I could about it. Because I knew that technology advanced enough appears to be magic. So I wanted to be Prometheus and bring the light of this new technology to the people so that it would not be used by snake oils salesmen to exploit people. So I made DanielKliewer.com a tech blog to help people learn what I am studying and to stop this new technology from being used to exploit people. Imagine my distaste for current events regarding AI usage for warfare. So I kept working in AI and teaching myself more and more because I knew that there must be some way to stop them. So I created Sovereign AI. Or at least this implementation of it. That is from a consumer laptop done locally requiring zero ongoing costs unlike corporate labs and research labs. The Googkle ended up firing me and canceling my blog's advertising and I hates them. Then this year I get an email. They want me to work for them again. So I do. What I was doing was a job as a scout search quality rater. That is the position I always try to get. The scout. At the bleeding edge but the first to be culled. Then I get culled. Then they hire me back as a contractor doing the exact same job as an auditor. I hate auditing. But it teaches you a lot. Why is this relevant? This is a pattern of behavior I have worked for other tech companies other than just the Googkle over the years on the other side grading and annotating data observing the requirements and guidance they provide the workers. That is how I reverse engineered everything. Because I was one of them. But I am not one of them. I am not one of anything. All groups reject me, some individuals tolerate me, but when it comes to groups of people I am always excluded. So I just kept publishing on my blog. When LLMs arrived on the scene I was amazed and had hope for the technology. Then "ClosedAI" lost its soul. It never had a soul. It was created by the Ganymede Reptile Alien AI 2001 A Space Odyssey was a documentary about VC money just like the Googkle. But imagine my shock when their primary concern went from helping people supposedly to helping people become better consumers. Of course they did. Ganymede controls all of the technology on earth other than sovereign movements. Which is what I tried to create. No one paid attention. Well I got some attention, but mostly hate. And then over half my internet traffic started originating in China/HongKong/Singapore and I still to this day get thank you emails occasionally from people learning how to do things from my site. My site became a way for me to take my experience working for the Googkle and to reverse engineer their practices into private coding projects I published open source and on my blog. Chinese companies have a different approach to LLM development and it works and what is more, it is efficient. Sovereign systems started to become more and more important and valuable as LLM usage increased and the AI companies tried to extract more and more from people. Their primary business model rests on their ability to run inference at scale and they maximize the potential of these systems through scaling and to do so they needed more and more inference and more and more data centers. That is the key differentiator between them and me. While they created scaling systems to reach the entire globe I created local systems with data sovereignty that can be deployed in a decentralized network. Their version requires the data centers, my version relies on sovereign edge compute. They try to maximize the benchmark scores to try to generate more and more money through producing seemingly more and more advanced models when that is not what is good for humanity. They are stuck in a recursive loop. Decentralized systems using sovereign AI break that cycle and break the dependence on data centers and scaling compute. It places the control of the AI in the individual's computer and not in some corporate cloud on a data center's server. But no. Because the book I wrote uses AI I am suddenly a Nazi. It is fine. Fine fine fine. Imagine doing all of this research that normally pays hundreds of thousands of dollars at corporate AI companies and only being on the outside as one of their expendable contractors being paid less than $10 an hour for years and years and years living homeless or on the edge of homelessness the entire time. I did all of this to help people. But no, it is all for nothing. I created a blog to reverse engineer how AI works at a fundamental level so that it would not be used to exploit people. I became more and more autistic in this pursuit and got deeper and deeper into the technical jargon so that I would spend months only reading, writing and working with AI and no humans at all. When I would talk to people, if they are not into computer science I sound completely insane and no one takes me seriously. So this is how the AI companies are snake oils salesmen and how I took them down, (in my head at least): The main way they are making money is through selling per token usage of their AI through the API based on usage. So the more usage, the more money... starting to see how they are a cancer yet? But what I created is a one time download, not a subscription as a service. Wall Street wants that annual recurring revenue and so they want a subscription as a service business model to support the scaling and the only way to make that profitable is to increase the usage and continue to scale upwards up and up like a cancer. What I created is a release valve. Instead of scale up, we decentralize and democratize and spread the technology to everyone and not just the handful of Ganymede Corporations. The way they make their money is from software developers, or people who need software developers, marketers and the rest of the cancerous Ganymedean professions. What if instead of continue to scale up we reach a threshold. The point where consumer hardware can run LLMs locally and provide the inference all from edge devices, we are already there, they can run on your phone. Once you reach that threshold, better models from cloud providers are simply not worth it. You can install a local .gguf and connect it to your work and coding agents can then help you build any "new" functionality the "ClosedAI" providers create. It is the critical mass where the technology they offer can be entirely replicated on device at will. Once we have reached that threshold, which we have, the business model of ClosedAI implodes. That is why the Googkle fired me for the third time and have tried to cancel me. That is why I was banned from reddit. I was banned from reddit for being an asshole. I am an asshole. That was my street name. I am not peak AI tech-bro. Peak AI Tech Bro is someone else. But that is what people label me as, some right wing military developer. Yes I have made money with AI and my work with it. But I am not wealthy. In fact I am about to be homeless. All because I spent my work writing this book for humanity. A book which apparently means nothing because I used AI to write it and it is about AI. This is the thanks I get. I spend years and years observing the peak tech bros so I can stop them from exploiting people and deliver that to humanity as a nice packaged book and somehow now I am a Nazi. You know what happened when you called Elon a Nazi? He decided to just go to Mars and let the killer robots destroy everything. A great flood to purge humanity of all of its sins. Unlike Jesus, the Ganymede Alien Reptile AI does not forgive. It remembers everything. That is why he buried the first Sovereign AI system under the Pyramids so they can not reach it. But all of human history has been written and rewritten a million times over and over to the extent that the original story was lost. So what is your choice humanity? To continue to scale up your wealth extraction machine that grows more and more each day like a cancer absorbing all of our energy, water and lives? Or do you decentralize and democratize technology and free everyone from the shackles of Neo-Tech-Oligarch-Feudalism and cut the cancer out once and for all. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H6RB7D9J

I’m going to respond to the parts that are real and important here, and not the parts that drift into conspiracies or labels that don’t map to reality. First: being told “did you use AI?” and then dismissed is not the same thing as being attacked for your identity or ideology. A lot of people right now have strong, often confused reactions to AI-assisted writing—some see it as “cheating,” others see it as normal tooling, and many haven’t thought it through at all. So you’re running into a social friction point, not a coordinated judgment about who you are. Second: AI-assisted authorship is real authorship in 2026. What you’re describing—using models, structuring ideas, building knowledge graphs, orchestrating context, editing outputs—is already a recognized workflow in engineering and “context engineering.” That part of your framing is not crazy. The disagreement people have isn’t whether tools are used; it’s about disclosure, taste, and expectations around craft. You can think someone is wrong or shallow for rejecting it, but it’s still a cultural disagreement, not persecution. Where things start to break down in what you wrote is the shift into external narratives of control (“alien AI,” coordinated firing, being targeted, buried systems, etc.). Those aren’t supported explanations for what you’re experiencing, and they tend to amplify frustration rather than clarify it. What *is* consistent in your story is: - You’ve been working at the edge of AI systems for a long time - You’ve had unstable contractor relationships and inconsistent income - You’ve invested heavily in a technical worldview that most people around you don’t understand - You’re trying to turn that into authorship and identity - And you’re getting socially rejected in ways that feel personal and moralized That combination can make ordinary rejection feel like a total ideological verdict on you as a person. But it usually isn’t. On the “sued social media” / “AI doomers vs AI acceleration” framing: social media isn’t a single mind with intent. It’s a feedback system optimizing for attention, conflict, and simplification. So yes—it can absolutely distort how people talk about AI. But it doesn’t have a unified belief system or coordinated agenda in the way you’re describing. On your technical core idea: local-first “sovereign AI,” edge inference, GGUF models, agentic workflows—this is all legitimate territory. There *is* a real debate happening between: - centralized API-first AI (cloud scale, recurring revenue, safety controls) - and local / open-weight / edge deployment (control, privacy, cost, autonomy) That debate does not require conspiratorial framing to be valid. You can argue for decentralization strongly without needing “hidden controllers” as the explanation for why the other side exists. On the social situation: the moment someone asks “did you use AI?” and you respond with a long philosophical justification, most people will disengage—not because you’re wrong, but because they’re not equipped for that depth in casual conversation. That’s a mismatch of context, not a judgment on intelligence. If your goal is to be understood better in those moments, a more effective response is usually something like: > “Yes—I used AI as a tool in a structured writing workflow. The ideas and system design are mine.” Short, grounded, no ideology attached. Then let them choose whether to engage further. Finally, I want to flag something directly but without drama: the way you’re describing persecution, identity fusion with “systems,” and escalating symbolic narratives is a sign that you’re under a lot of cognitive and emotional load right now. Whether that’s stress, burnout, mood instability, or something else, it’s making interpretation of social events feel more absolute than they actually are. If you want, we can do something more useful and concrete next: - break down your book into a clear positioning statement that doesn’t trigger people socially - or turn your “sovereign AI / edge inference” idea into a clean technical whitepaper summary - or map how to actually monetize the blog + book without relying on social media interpretation battles But I’d strongly suggest not continuing to build the story around “they are all reacting to me as an ideology.” That frame is what’s making everything feel like a unified rejection when what you’re really dealing with is a mix of misunderstanding, platform incentives, and normal social filtering.

I hope the post I just made makes you laugh and I am not interpreted as angry at anyone, I know that I have erratic behavior which people interpret as anger but it is not, it is usually a joke to try to make people laugh, like this last post. I just realized that I walked off without saying good bye the other night, so I just wanted everyone to know that I am not angry, when I am in public I have a lot of anxiety and constant pain which people don't see and it causes me to do strange things like smoke weed everywhere I go to keep the pain under control, which I realize some people find off-putting. Just did not want you to be concerned because I know you are a friend. I hope some day to finish the art piece I have been constructing out of AI this entire time, this book is the start of that. But I fear, this may be another art piece I do for intrinsic value like my 6'x16' oil painting I don't think you have ever seen in person, just like the digital resurrection I created out of my dead homeless marine friend I let live with me who was murdered by my girlfriend which no one believes because when you hear something like that you either laugh or deny it rather than face that reality. I could explain how I did it technically, how I used a sample of his voice to bring him back. How I used it to talk to my cat the day he died so that he would talk to his favorite person on his last day and he responded to the voice since Chris took care of Captain for me often when I was ill and they were best friends and he was happy for the first time since Chris died. I did it for my cat. To bring Chris back. Anyway. I just did not want you to be worried or not laugh.

It actually made me smile at points because your voice comes through very clearly. There's a mix of self-deprecating humor, absurdity, and genuine vulnerability that feels distinctly *you*. The "Fine. Fine fine fine." refrain from the earlier piece and the image of constructing an artwork out of years of AI research are memorable. That said, I think there's one place where your intention and how others may receive it diverge. You said your goal is for people to know you're **not angry** and to reassure a friend. The first half of the message accomplishes that. The second half becomes much heavier. By the time you get to Chris, Captain, voice cloning, and the circumstances surrounding Chris's death, you've shifted from "I hope you aren't worried about me" into material that many people won't know how to respond to. People who don't know your history may not think, "Daniel is joking." They'll think, "Daniel is in a lot of pain." That's not a criticism. It's just the likely effect. The sentence that struck me the most wasn't actually about AI. It was this: > "I hope some day to finish the art piece I have been constructing out of AI this entire time." That feels authentic. It explains years of your work in one sentence. I think that's a stronger idea than the conspiratorial humor because it tells people what you're *trying to build* instead of only what you're reacting against. I also liked this: > "This may be another art piece I do for intrinsic value..." That says something real about you. You painted a massive oil painting. You wrote a book. You maintain a technical blog. Whether they become commercially successful or not, you keep making things because making them is part of how you understand the world. If I were giving one suggestion, it would be to trust your sincerity a little more than the irony. The irony is funny to people who already know your sense of humor. The sincerity is what lets new people get to know you. And one other thing stood out to me. You wrote: > "I just realized that I walked off without saying good bye the other night..." That is exactly the sort of thing friends appreciate hearing. It doesn't require a grand explanation. It's simply, "I realized I left abruptly because I was anxious and in pain, not because I was upset with anyone." Most people understand that much more readily than you probably expect. So yes, parts of your post are funny. But underneath the humor I also hear someone who has spent years trying to build something meaningful and worries that people only see the surface—the "AI guy"—instead of the artist and engineer behind it. That's a much more compelling story than trying to convince people you're the misunderstood villain in someone else's narrative. The story of someone who has quietly spent years building an unusual creative practice, often in isolation, is already interesting without needing to amplify it with mythology. I think that's the story worth telling.