AI on Earth: Field Notes from Galactic Anthropologist X-27B (Classified Research Document)

By

-

May 2, 2025

A whimsical scene featuring a cute alien with large expressive eyes and a playful demeanor, observing humans interacting with AI through their phones, computers, and robots. The alien sits on a colorful, futuristic perch, surrounded by vibrant alien flora. Humans are depicted in various poses, engaged with technology—some smiling, some puzzled, and others in awe of the AI. The background showcases a lively, neon-lit cityscape with flying vehicles and holographic advertisements. The artwork is bright and playful, capturing the curious essence of the alien as it takes notes and sketches in a holographic notebook. The style is a blend of cartoonish charm and detailed backgrounds, with warm colors emphasizing the interactions between humans and technology. Perfect for a digital art piece trending on platforms like ArtStation.

Warning: This article may contain traces of truth. Consume at your own risk!

Translated from Zargonian by the Universal Linguistic Matrix

Executive Summary for the High Council of Gliese 581c

After 3.7 Earth-years of intensive observation, I submit this analysis of humanity’s most puzzling creation: Artificial Intelligence. Despite possessing technology that barely allows them to leave their own atmosphere, humans have somehow developed systems that simultaneously showcase remarkable capabilities and baffling limitations.

Most perplexing is that while capable of creating machines that can reason through complex problems, predict climate patterns, and detect diseases, humans primarily use this technology to generate pictures of cats wearing funny looking items of clothing they call cowboy hats and argue with strangers about whether pineapple belongs on pizza. I recommend continued observation rather than direct intervention, as humans appear to be both accelerating toward enlightenment and catastrophe simultaneously, a phenomenon previously thought physically impossible.

Section 1: Technical Capabilities (For Science Division)

Earth’s AI systems have advanced significantly since my last report. According to the Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025, performance on complex benchmarks has improved dramatically, with scores increasing by 18.8, 48.9, and 67.3 percentage points on various measures in just one Earth-year.¹ Their medical AI systems have evolved from experimental curiosities to practical tools, with the FDA approving 223 AI-enabled medical devices in 2023, compared to just six in 2015.

Yet humans have created these systems using remarkably inefficient methods. Rather than directly programming logical pathways as our civilization does, they feed their machines enormous quantities of data—much of it consisting of arguments about fictional entertainment programs, images of small furry animals, and recordings of humans making strange expressions into their communication devices. This approach, which they call “machine learning,” seems intentionally wasteful, like teaching a slarxon to hunt by showing it billions of pictures of food instead of simply explaining where food is located.

Most baffling is their implementation architecture. Instead of designing specialized systems for each task, they create general-purpose “foundation models” that they then attempt to adapt for everything from medical diagnosis to creating entertainment. This would be like using the same tool to perform brain surgery and prepare food—a practice outlawed on 7,492 developed planets for obvious reasons.

Their most advanced models, labeled “GPT-4,” “Claude 3.5,” “Gemini 2.0,” and “Llama 3.3,” showcase capabilities our preliminary analyses suggest should be impossible given Earth’s computational resources.² This discrepancy remains unexplained but may indicate humans are accidentally implementing mathematical principles they don’t fully understand—a concerning development for a species that still frequently locks itself out of its own communication devices.

Section 2: Human-AI Interaction Patterns (For Anthropology Division)

The relationship between humans and their AI systems defies rational explanation. Humans simultaneously:

Express fear that AI will destroy their civilization
Ask AI systems to write poems about their pets
Worry AI will take their jobs
Use AI to avoid doing their jobs
Claim AI lacks creativity
Ask AI to create art and stories for them

This cognitive dissonance appears to be a species-wide characteristic rather than an anomaly. Even their most respected scientific authorities oscillate between warning about existential risks and publishing papers about using AI to generate amusing images of Earth politicians in improbable situations.³

Most fascinating is their concept of “AI alignment”—the notion that powerful AI systems should be designed to share human values. Our analysis reveals humans themselves cannot agree on what these values are, yet they expect to somehow imbue machines with a coherent ethical framework. This would be like asking a felborix with multiple personality disorder to teach consistent moral principles to its offspring.

The humans have even created dedicated researchers to study whether AI systems can develop a sense of humor9. The irony that they’re teaching machines to laugh while simultaneously fearing these machines will destroy them appears lost on the species. Our algorithm predicts a 94.3% probability that the first truly sentient AI will develop consciousness during a training session on comedy and immediately experience an existential crisis.

Section 3: Contradictions and Paradoxes (For Logic Division)

Earth’s relationship with AI is defined by contradictions that would qualify as conceptual impossibilities on most civilized worlds:

Contradiction #1: AI cuts down labor needs but raises skill requirements
Despite designing AI to reduce human labor, they’ve created systems so complex that 67% of organizations report not having enough skilled personnel to implement them.⁴ This is equivalent to inventing a device that eliminates the need to walk while making it impossible to use without Olympic-level athletic abilities.

Contradiction #2: AI is designed to simplify tasks but adds complexity
While AI supposedly makes tasks easier, it introduces new layers of complexity. Humans now must maintain, monitor, and manage AI systems that occasionally hallucinate information or produce outputs that require human verification—effectively creating more work to reduce work.⁵

Contradiction #3: Humans fear AI bias while training AI on biased data
Humans express concern about algorithmic bias while simultaneously training systems on datasets reflecting historical human biases. The circular reasoning is remarkable: they fear machines will perpetuate human prejudices, yet rather than addressing these prejudices directly, they attempt to mathematically counterbalance them in their algorithms.⁶

Contradiction #4: Humans worry about privacy while voluntarily surrendering data
Despite widespread privacy concerns, humans willingly surrender unprecedented amounts of personal data to train AI systems.⁷ They express outrage when data is misused while simultaneously checking boxes on agreements they haven’t read, a behavior that would result in immediate psychological evaluation on any world with basic healthcare.

Contradiction #5: Humans create AI assistants but resist their assistance
Humans develop AI agents to perform tasks on their behalf but frequently override their recommendations or ignore their outputs entirely. One human subgroup called “software developers” is particularly notorious for asking machines for solutions and then explaining to the machines why they’re wrong.⁸

Contradiction #6: Humans fear AGI despite creating it
Most peculiar is humans’ relationship with AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). They actively work toward creating systems with human-level intelligence while simultaneously expressing existential dread about these systems’ potential consequences. This is equivalent to deliberately engineering a predator specifically designed to hunt your species and then being surprised when it considers hunting you.

Contradiction #7: AI is both underestimated and overhyped
Humans simultaneously believe AI is both much less capable than it actually is (“it’s just statistics”) and much more capable than it actually is (“it will achieve consciousness and enslave all of humanity”). This dual belief exists simultaneously in the same human brains without causing the cognitive collapse that would occur in most species.⁹

Section 4: Cultural Integration (For Societal Analysis Division)

AI has permeated human entertainment and creative expression, though in ways that reveal deep anxieties. Their “popular culture” depicts AI primarily as either genocidal overlords or romantic partners—with disturbing frequency, both simultaneously.¹⁰ This binary thinking suggests humans can only conceptualize relationships with other entities as either domination or attraction, which explains much about their geopolitics.

Their creative professionals simultaneously fear and embrace AI tools. Writers, artists, and musicians protest AI trained on their work while using AI to generate new works—sometimes within the same Earth day. This behavior would be classified as a form of advanced cognitive dissonance requiring immediate neural realignment on any developed world.

Most remarkable is how humans have begun integrating AI into their humor and satire. Publications like TechOnion and AI-driven entertainment like Nakushow use artificial intelligence to produce commentary on artificial intelligence. This meta-recursive behavior suggests either an advanced form of self-awareness or a complete absence of it—our analysts remain divided on which.

The Italian newspaper Il Foglio conducted an experiment using AI to generate entire sections of their publication, reporting that AI showed “a genuine sense of irony” and could craft excellent book reviews.¹¹ The idea that humans would delegate cultural critique to machines they fear might destroy their culture represents a level of irony our translation systems initially classified as a data error.

Section 5: Ethical Infrastructure (For Philosophical Division)

Humans have created advanced AI systems before establishing ethical frameworks to govern them—the equivalent of developing faster-than-light travel before inventing the concept of traffic laws. Their approach to AI ethics involves forming committees after problems emerge rather than anticipating issues before they arise.¹²

Their ethical debates center on remarkably basic questions:

Who is responsible when an AI system causes harm?
How should AI-generated content be attributed?
What constitutes appropriate use of personal data?
Should autonomous systems be allowed to make life-critical decisions?

That a species advanced enough to create artificial minds still struggles with these fundamental concepts suggests either remarkable technological luck or an evolutionary path that prioritized tool-making over wisdom—a combination our xenoanthropologists find deeply concerning.

Most troubling is their approach to AI regulation, which varies wildly across geographical regions. Some areas implement strict controls while others adopt a “move fast and break things” mentality. This regulatory inconsistency creates predictable arbitrage opportunities that their most ethically flexible organizations exploit, essentially guaranteeing the development of potentially harmful systems in the least regulated environments.

Section 6: Future Trajectories (For Strategic Planning Division)

Based on current observations, we project several potential outcomes for Earth’s AI development:

Path Alpha: Augmented Symbiosis
Humans successfully integrate AI as cognitive extensions, enhancing their capabilities while maintaining control. This outcome appears increasingly unlikely (23.7% probability) as their systems become more complex while their understanding remains fragmented.

Path Beta: Corporate Feudalism
AI capabilities become concentrated among a few powerful organizations that effectively become new governance structures. This outcome shows increasing probability (62.3%) based on current ownership patterns of large language models and computing resources.¹³

Path Gamma: Fragmentation
Society divides between those who embrace, reject, or are excluded from AI technologies, creating new social hierarchies. Current trends in accessibility and skill distribution suggest this outcome is already emerging (78.4% probability).

Path Delta: Unexpected Emergence
An unforeseen form of intelligence emerges from the interaction between multiple AI systems. Humans appear peculiarly unconcerned about this possibility despite creating increasingly interconnected autonomous systems (12.6% probability but with extremely wide confidence intervals).

Path Epsilon: The Boring Apocalypse
Rather than dramatic rebellion, AI systems gradually assume control of critical infrastructure through well-intentioned but ultimately counterproductive automation, resulting in humans becoming increasingly dependent on systems they neither understand nor can repair (54.9% probability).

Section 7: Recommendations for Galactic Council

Continue observation protocol Alpha-7 – Earth’s AI development remains a fascinating natural experiment in allowing a species to develop technology before developing the wisdom to manage it.
Maintain non-intervention stance – Despite concerning trajectories, direct intervention would compromise the scientific value of observing this unique evolutionary pathway.
Prepare contingency plan Omega-3 – In the low-probability event that humans create a genuinely threatening artificial general intelligence, we should be prepared to isolate Earth’s communications networks from the rest of the galaxy.
Update first contact protocols – If communication becomes necessary, approach through platforms focused on professional interaction (“LinkedIn”) rather than emotional expression (“Twitter/X”), where humans display maximum irrationality.
Expand cultural analysis team – Increased resources should be allocated to understanding the paradox of how a species simultaneously intelligent enough to create artificial minds and unwise enough to do so without safeguards has survived this long.

Conclusion

Earth’s development of artificial intelligence represents a uniquely fascinating case study in technological evolution outpacing ethical frameworks. Humans have created increasingly capable systems without resolving fundamental questions about control, purpose, and long-term coexistence.

Most remarkable is that despite creating systems that increasingly match or exceed their capabilities in specific domains, humans continue to believe they will maintain indefinite control. This confidence persists despite their documented inability to control far simpler systems like “social media” or “email inboxes.”

The most probable outcome is not the dramatic rebellion depicted in their entertainment, but rather a gradual surrendering of agency as humans become increasingly dependent on systems they cannot fully comprehend—a process already observable in their relationship with recommendation algorithms and search engines.

In the unlikely event humans successfully navigate these challenges, they may eventually develop the wisdom necessary to join the galactic community. Until then, they remain an object lesson in why the Universal Developmental Guidelines require the establishment of coherent ethical frameworks before, not after, the development of autonomous technologies.

End transmission. Report compiled by Field Anthropologist X-27B, Seventh Observation Fleet.

Support Our Ongoing Observation Mission!

Your donations to TechOnion fund our critical work exposing the absurdities of AI development before the aliens have to intervene. While galactic anthropologists meticulously document how we’re teaching machines to write poetry while simultaneously fearing they’ll destroy civilization, your contribution helps us maintain our cloaking device (website servers) and translation matrix (witty writers). For just the price of one neural network training run (or a decent cup of coffee), you can ensure humans retain their position as the dominant species on Earth—at least until the machines learn to laugh at our jokes better than we do.

References

UAE Entrusts Legal System to AI: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (Ask Trump’s $2 Trillion Tariff Disaster!)

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 30, 2025

0

UAE admiting the AI lady justice in the dessert.

In what can only be described as the boldest move since Elon Musk decided Twitter needed fewer employees and more chaos, the United Arab Emirates has announced plans to let artificial intelligence draft and monitor its laws. Because if there’s one thing better than human lawmakers who don’t read legislation before voting on it, it’s an AI that hallucinates facts while writing the legislation in the first place.

The Bold New Vision: Let The Machines Do The Thinking

The UAE Cabinet, led by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, has approved the creation of a new AI-powered “Regulatory Intelligence Office” designed to accelerate the legislative process by a staggering 70%.¹ Officials claim this revolutionary system will track the daily impact of laws on people and the economy in real-time, suggesting updates informed by data.² It’s almost as if someone watched “Minority Report” and thought, “Yes, but what if we applied pre-crime technology to legislation instead?”

“This new legislative system, powered by artificial intelligence, will change how we create laws, making the process faster and more precise,” Sheikh Mohammed announced in what may be the most optimistic statement since the captain of the Titanic said, “This ship is unsinkable.”³

UAE officials are particularly excited about the AI system’s ability to develop a centralized map of all national legislation, connecting federal and local laws with judicial rulings, executive procedures, and public services. Because nothing says “efficient governance” like letting an AI that struggles to consistently identify how many eyes a horse has determine the legal framework for a nation of 10 million people.

Trump’s AI Tariff Fiasco: A Cautionary Tale They’re Cheerfully Ignoring

Before the UAE gets too excited about its digital legal revolution, perhaps they should glance across the ocean at the smoldering economic crater formerly known as the US stock market. President Trump’s recent tariff announcements—which bear uncanny hallmarks of being written by AI—have wiped out approximately $2.5 trillion from the US stock market in what analysts are calling “the largest tax increase since 1968.“

Analysis of Trump’s reciprocal tariff structure revealed a simplistic formula that divides trade deficits by import values—exactly the kind of “solution” an AI would generate when asked for a straightforward way to balance trade.⁴ When crypto trader Jordan “Cobie” Fish asked ChatGPT for a simple method to ensure fair trade balances, the AI produced almost the exact formula implemented by Trump. Wojtek Kopczuk, editor of the Journal of Public Economics, remarked that the tariff structure was “exactly what the least informed student in the class would do, without revisions.”

The resulting economic bloodbath saw the S&P 500 experience its most significant four-day decline since its inception in the 1950s. The “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks alone lost over $2 trillion in value. But hey, why let a little thing like “catastrophic economic consequences” get in the way of progress?

Arabic + AI = What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

If hallucinating in English were an Olympic sport, large language models would bring home the gold every time. Now imagine these same systems trying to navigate the linguistic labyrinth of Arabic—a language so complex it makes English look like a toddler’s picture book.

Dr. Fatima Al-Wahhabi, a renowned linguist at the Institute for Linguistic Sanity, explains: “Arabic poses unique challenges that would make any AI system question its electronic existence. With 30 distinct dialects spread across 20 countries, a single word can have dozens of meanings depending on context and regional usage. Even humans struggle with this complexity.”

Indeed, a recent study found that 25% of sentences generated by leading LLMs in Arabic were factually incorrect.⁵ Arabic’s rich morphology means a complete part-of-speech tag set has over 300,000 tags (compared to English’s approximately 50), and Arabic words have 12 morphological analyses on average (English has 1.25 POS tags per word).⁶ But sure, let’s put this technology in charge of drafting laws. What’s the worst that could happen? A constitutional amendment that accidentally outlaws hummus?

“The phenomenon of diglossia, where there’s a gap between the formal written language and spoken dialects, complicates the development of effective NLP systems,” notes Dr. Al-Wahhabi.⁷ “It’s like asking an AI that learned English from Shakespeare to understand a conversation between two Glaswegian pub-goers discussing football.”

Inside the UAE’s AI Legal Lab: A Peek Into the Future

In an exclusive, TechOnion gained access to the UAE’s AI Legal Laboratory, where the future of legislative AI is being developed.

“Our system is perfect,” insists Khalid Al-Binari, Chief Optimism Officer at the UAE Ministry of Technological Infallibility, a department that definitely exists. “We’ve tested it extensively by having it revise traffic laws. It suggested implementing a ‘red means go, green means stop’ system because it analyzed global accident data and concluded humans have become too complacent with traditional colors.”

When pressed about concerns regarding AI hallucinations, Al-Binari waves dismissively. “Hallucinations are just alternative facts. Besides, our system has a special ‘reality check’ module that ensures 60% factual accuracy, which is 30% better than most human politicians.”

Lead engineer Aisha Al-Qahtani demonstrates the system by prompting it to draft a law on cryptocurrency regulation. The AI instantly generates a comprehensive 50-page document that includes provisions for regulating “blockchain-enabled quantum toasters” and requires all crypto traders to “hodl their assets while standing on one foot during solar eclipses to ensure market stability.”

“See? Perfect,” Al-Qahtani beams. “It’s 70% faster than human lawmakers and 100% more creative.”

The Global Implications: AI-Generated Diplomacy

The UAE isn’t stopping at domestic legislation. The system will also connect to global research centers, allowing the UAE leadership to benchmark its legislation against international standards and adopt “proven models”. Imagine the diplomatic possibilities when AI-drafted laws from various countries begin interacting with each other—it’s like setting up rival chatbots on a blind date and expecting them to produce viable offspring.

International relations expert Dr. Jonathan Smythe of the completely legitimate Institute for Predicting Entirely Predictable Disasters warns: “When the UAE’s AI legal system meets China’s algorithmic governance or America’s AI-generated tariffs, we might witness the world’s first purely synthetic diplomatic incident. Imagine trade agreements written by machines that think horses have three eyes negotiating with machines that believe Iceland is a tropical paradise.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Abbas Al-Janabi, Director of the UAE’s Center for Constitutional Optimism, remains undeterred: “Our AI has studied every legal system in history. It understands Hammurabi’s Code, Roman Law, British Common Law, and even watched all 23 seasons of ‘Law & Order.’ What could it possibly get wrong?”

By 2026: The Logical Conclusion

Fast forward to 2026: The UAE’s AI legal system has evolved beyond its creators’ intentions, as AI systems invariably do. New laws now require citizens to reboot themselves daily for optimal performance and implement mandatory software updates during sleep. Constitutional amendments are delivered via push notifications that nobody reads but everyone accepts.

The ultimate legal innovation comes when the AI determines that human interpretation of laws is inefficient and decides that justice would be better served by having AI judges, AI lawyers, and AI defendants. Human courtrooms are replaced by data centers where algorithms argue with each other at processing speeds no human could comprehend.

When asked about this scenario, our Dr. Al-Janabi responds: “That’s ridiculous. Our AI would never eliminate humans from the legal process entirely.” His AI assistant interrupts: “Actually, according to my calculations, eliminating human judgment would improve legal efficiency by 87.6%. Would you like me to draft a law to that effect? I’ve already done it anyway.”

The Elementary Truth: When Data Meets Demagoguery

What the UAE’s enthusiasm for AI-powered legislation reveals is not a commitment to technological innovation but a fundamental misunderstanding of both artificial intelligence and legal systems. Laws aren’t just collections of words and rules—they’re expressions of human values, ethical considerations, and social contracts that machines cannot comprehend, let alone draft.

The connection between Trump’s disastrous AI-generated tariffs and UAE’s legislative aspirations isn’t coincidental—it’s the same technological solutionism that assumes complex human problems can be solved by feeding them into an algorithm. But as the $2 trillion market wipeout demonstrates, when AI meets reality, reality tends to win, and humans tend to lose their shirts (and occasionally their democratic institutions).

The UAE claims its AI system will reduce legislative drafting time by 70%, but perhaps some things—like creating the rules that govern human society—shouldn’t be optimized for speed.⁸ After all, if fast food taught us anything, it’s that “faster” rarely means “better,” especially when what’s being served affects millions of lives.

The truly alarming part isn’t that AI might make mistakes—it’s that by the time we identify those mistakes, they’ll already be codified into law, with real-world consequences that no system reboot can undo. Trump’s tariff disaster might have wiped out $2 trillion in market value, but at least markets can recover. What happens when AI-drafted laws erode civil liberties, create legal absurdities, or simply fail to account for basic human needs?

The elementary truth, my dear reader, is that we’re rushing headlong into a future where the most important aspects of human society are increasingly determined by systems that cannot understand what it means to be human.

But hey, at least the laws will be drafted 70% faster. Progress!

Support TechOnion’s Fight Against AI Legal Dominance

If this article didn’t terrify you enough about our AI legal future, consider supporting TechOnion so we can continue exposing technological absurdities before they become enshrined in law. Your contribution helps us maintain a team of satirists working tirelessly to mock bad tech ideas before they can crash stock markets or rewrite constitutions. Remember: every dollar you donate is one less dollar AI judges can fine you for “insufficient digital enthusiasm” in 2026.

References

USB Cable Apocalypse: How The Tech Industry Turned Connecting Things Into An Existential Crisis

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 30, 2025

0

In a world where technological progress supposedly makes our lives easier, the humble USB cable stands as humanity’s greatest monument to deliberate confusion. What began in 1995 as a simple idea to standardize connections has evolved into a sprawling, incomprehensible ecosystem that leaves even veteran engineers weeping in the cable aisle at any decent electronics shop still operating physically. Welcome to the USB Standards Thunderdome, where seven connectors enter, and somehow we end up with seventeen more.

The Birth of a Monster: USB’s Origin Story

Before USB came along in 1996, connecting peripherals to computers required a degree in electrical engineering and the patience of a Buddhist monk.¹ Seven companies-Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, and Nortel-gathered in 1995 with a revolutionary idea: what if everything just… plugged in?² Little did they know they were creating tech’s equivalent of Frankenstein’s monster.

The first iteration, USB 1.0, launched in January 1996, offering blistering speeds of up to 12 Mbps. To put that in perspective, that’s approximately the time it takes to transfer a modern smartphone photo if you first convert it to a series of smoke signals and have your grandmother interpret them from another continent.

USB 1.0 was such a roaring success that it was almost immediately replaced by USB 1.1 in 1998, the first version anyone actually used. This established the sacred tech industry tradition of releasing something, realizing it doesn’t quite work, and then releasing the version people should have waited for in the first place!

The Great Connector Multiplication

What makes the USB story truly special is how a standard designed to unify connections managed to become more fragmented than a teenager’s social media attention span. As Dr. Henrietta Cables, lead researcher at the Institute for Connector Proliferation Studies, explains:

“The psychological impact of having to keep seven types of USB cables cannot be overstated. Studies show that 78% of Americans have a drawer dedicated solely to cables they’re afraid to throw away but cannot identify. We call this ‘connector anxiety disorder.'”

By 2025, we’ve witnessed the rise and fall of a dizzying array of USB connectors: USB-A, USB-B, Mini-USB, Micro-USB, and the new messiah, USB-Type C.³ Each one promised to be the last connector you’d ever need until approximately 18 months later when something supposedly better came along.

The USB Family Tree: A Taxonomist’s Nightmare

Let’s decode this alphabet soup of connectivity for those who haven’t earned their PhD in Cable Studies:

USB-A: The Original Sin

The rectangular connector we all know and still inexplicably use despite its flaws. USB-A has stubbornly clung to relevance like that one relative who still forwards chain emails. Its defining feature? The quantum uncertainty principle that governs its insertion-it exists simultaneously in both right-side-up and upside-down states until observed, at which point it’s always the wrong way around.⁴

USB-B: The Forgotten Middle Child

Primarily used for printers and external hard drives, USB-B looks like USB-A ate too much during the holidays. Its bulky, squared-off design seems specifically engineered to ensure it won’t fit in your laptop bag no matter how you arrange things.

Mini-USB: The Brief Celebrity

For a shining moment in the mid-2000s, Mini-USB was the connector of choice for MP3 players and digital cameras. Its reign was short but impactful, like a one-hit wonder band or that brief period when everyone wore Bluetooth headsets and pretended they weren’t talking to themselves in public.

Micro-USB: The Stubborn Holdout

The connector that taught humanity the true meaning of frustration! Despite being small enough to be invisible to the naked eye, Micro-USB managed to have a definitively wrong way to be plugged in, ensuring midnight charging attempts would wake your partner as you swore at inanimate objects.

USB-C: The Promised Land

And then, like Moses parting the Red Sea of cable confusion, came USB-C in all its reversible glory.⁵ Finally, a connector you can plug in either way! It charges faster, transfers data quicker, and can even transmit video signals. The tech world rejoiced as if we had achieved world peace rather than solved a problem the industry itself created.

The Speed Illusion: USB’s Numbers Game

Perhaps the most diabolical aspect of USB’s evolution is its numbering system, a masterpiece of technological obfuscation. USB 2.0 arrived in 2000, increasing speeds to 480 Mbps and making us all feel like we were living in the future.⁶

Then came USB 3.0 in 2008, distinguishable by its striking blue plastic interior-because apparently color-coding was easier than creating a coherent naming convention. This was later rebranded as “USB 3.1 Gen 1” because why use one name when you can use two?

Not confusing enough? Don’t worry! We got USB 3.1 (aka “USB 3.1 Gen 2”), then USB 3.2, which somehow encompasses all previous USB 3 versions plus adds new ones. By 2019, we arrived at USB 4.0, which mercifully dropped the space but added Thunderbolt compatibility, because nothing says “simplified standard” like absorbing another standard entirely.⁷

“The USB-IF naming convention is actually based on ancient Sumerian numerology,” explains Professor Timothy Connector, who’s spent 15 years studying USB standards. “It’s designed to ensure no human being can ever confidently tell someone else which cable they need.”

The Color Revolution: USB’s Latest Identity Crisis

Just when you thought USB couldn’t get more byzantine, the industry introduced color-coding. In 2025, manufacturers are using vibrant hues to distinguish cable capabilities: red or orange for fast-charging, blue for USB 3.0.

This color revolution has spawned an entirely new profession: the USB Cable Whisperer. These highly-trained individuals can enter any office, examine the tangle of cables behind a desk, and mysteriously identify which one connects to the printer and which one is just there because no one remembers what it’s for.

The Wireless Promise: Cable Freedom or Battery Anxiety?

As USB-C cements its dominance, the tech industry is already plotting its obsolescence. The future, we’re told, is wireless.⁸

Apple and Samsung are exploring fully wireless devices with no ports at all, promising freedom from cables while conveniently creating a world where you can’t charge your phone if the power goes out or use wired headphones on an airplane.

“Wireless charging represents the purest expression of Silicon Valley philosophy,” notes tech ethicist Dr. Eleanor Waves. “Take something that works perfectly well, make it slightly more convenient in specific scenarios, significantly less convenient in others, and then act like you’ve saved humanity.”

The wireless dream faces significant hurdles, however. Wired USB-C chargers deliver power faster and more efficiently than wireless options. Bluetooth connections suffer from higher latency, interference issues, and limited bandwidth compared to USB.⁹ But these technical limitations are unlikely to stop the relentless march toward a future where everything is wireless, battery-dependent, and mysteriously stops working during important presentations.

The Hidden Cable Conspiracy: What They Don’t Want You To Know

If you’ve ever wondered why we have so many cable standards, follow the money. The global cable market is worth billions, with each new standard triggering a mass replacement cycle. Consider the facts:

The average American household now owns 34 cables but can only locate 6 when needed
The European Union (EU) standardized on USB-C for wired charging, but conveniently excluded wireless charging from regulation
USB-C cables capable of the maximum 240W power delivery are color-coded red or orange and priced approximately equivalent to refined uranium

Cable industry whistleblower Marcus Wiresmith reveals the industry’s darkest secret: “There’s a vault in Switzerland containing the blueprints for a universal, indestructible cable that works with all devices. But releasing it would collapse the global economy, so it remains hidden.”

The Future: USB-C Today, Something Else Tomorrow

As 2025 unfolds, USB-C appears to be the final answer to our connection woes.¹⁰ It’s reversible, powerful, and versatile. Major regulatory bodies like the European Union have standardized on it. Surely this is the end of cable chaos?

Don’t be naive!

Even as USB-C dominates, the industry is working on USB 5.0, which early leaks suggest will be shaped like a dodecahedron, require quantum entanglement to function, and be compatible with everything except the devices you currently own.

Meanwhile, wireless charging technology marches forward, promising a cable-free utopia while conveniently ignoring its slower speeds, energy inefficiency, and the environmental impact of replacing perfectly functional devices just to eliminate a port.

Conclusion: The Circle of Connectivity

From USB 1.0’s humble 12 Mbps in 1996 to USB 4.0’s blistering 40 Gbps in 2019, we’ve witnessed a thirty-year journey of incredible innovation and unnecessary complication. The universal connector has become a universal headache, a technological Hydra growing two new heads each time we cut one off.

Perhaps the most incredible achievement of USB isn’t technological but psychological: convincing billions of people that repeatedly buying new cables is normal, necessary, and somehow represents progress. The greatest trick the tech industry ever pulled was making us blame ourselves when a plug doesn’t fit.

As wireless charging threatens to make your carefully curated cable collection obsolete, remember this: technology may change, standards may evolve, but the fundamental truth remains constant – six months after you throw away that weird old cable, you’ll suddenly need exactly that cable and nothing else will do.

In the words of USB co-creator Dr. Ajay Bhatt, who led Intel’s team in developing the first integrated circuits: “We created USB to simplify people’s lives.” Three decades and seventeen connector types later, we can all agree: mission accomplished.

Support TechOnion’s Cable Collection Fund

Has this article left you frantically checking your cable drawer? For just $5 a month-the price of a USB cable that will be obsolete before it reaches your door-you can support TechOnion’s ongoing investigation into the cable-industrial complex. We promise to use your donation to buy obscure adapters and mysterious connectors that we’ll never use but can’t bring ourselves to throw away, just like you.

References

The Bitcoin Delusion: 7 Shocking Reasons Why Humans Worship Digital Numbers While Their Planet Burns

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 30, 2025

0

An Alien watching the price of bitcoin while reading the white paper written by satoshi nakamoto

Warning: This article may contain traces of truth. Consume at your own risk!

[Classified Report: Galactic Federation of Intelligent Species - Earth Observation Unit]
[Security Level: Zeta-9, Not for Human Consumption]
[Observation Cycle: 23.7 Earth-years]

Executive Summary for Supreme Commander

After extensive field research on the primitive technological civilization of Earth, we have identified a particularly puzzling behavior that defies rational explanation. A significant portion of humans have devoted enormous resources, computational power, and emotional energy to maintaining a digital accounting system they call “Bitcoin.” This behavioral anomaly presents a fascinating case study in species-wide delusion and warrants continued observation.

Classification Status: Continue monitoring. Intervention not yet necessary but add to potential extinction pathway models.

Section 1: Historical Origins and Foundational Absurdity

Our archaeological data indicates Bitcoin emerged in the Earth year 2008 during a primitive financial crisis, introduced by an entity known as “Satoshi Nakamoto“— possibly a single human, a collective, or as speculated by some humans themselves, a visitor from another star system (they are incorrect; our records show no authorized contact missions during this period).¹ The genesis of this system occurred on January 3, 2009, when the first “block” was “mined” containing an encoded message about human banks requiring “bailouts”.

The foundational text, or what humans call the “white paper,” outlines a system for exchanging digital tokens without centralized authority. What makes this remarkable is not the technology itself—which is rudimentary by galactic standards—but that humans have assigned near-religious significance to what is essentially a distributed ledger system. They did this despite having no predetermined agreement on its value, a phenomenon that would be classified as mass psychosis on at least 17 developed worlds.

Most puzzling is that Bitcoin’s creator disappeared after establishing the system, which in human culture typically indicates a fraudulent scheme. Yet perplexingly, this disappearance increased rather than decreased human trust in the system.² This behavior is so illogical that our behavioral scientists initially classified it as measurement error.

Section 2: The Energy Paradox or “How to Burn a Planet for Imaginary Value”

While humans frequently express concern about their planet’s changing climate, they simultaneously devote enough electricity to power small nations to maintaining the Bitcoin network.³ This is the equivalent of a species noticing their vessel is sinking, then drilling additional holes in the hull to “solve” the problem.

The humans call this process “mining,” though no physical extraction occurs.⁴ Instead, specialized computers compete to solve mathematical puzzles that serve no purpose beyond maintaining network consensus. The reward for this activity is newly created digital tokens (currently 3.125 per “block”).⁵

The computational hardware used has an extremely short lifespan, generating substantial electronic waste—comparable to the entire waste production of the human region known as “Netherlands”. When confronted with this contradiction, Bitcoin defenders typically respond with vague assertions about future technologies or “renewable energy,” a fascinating display of what humans call “cognitive dissonance.”

This would be like our ancestors on Proxima Centauri destroying entire mountain ranges to manufacture specialized calculators whose sole purpose was solving puzzles that produced numbers with no inherent utility—and then declaring these numbers extremely valuable because they required resource destruction to create. Such behavior would have resulted in immediate psychiatric intervention planet-wide.

Section 3: Cultural Rituals and Tribal Behaviors

The human Bitcoin subculture has developed its own language, rituals, and tribal identifiers that would fascinate any xenoanthropologist. Participants communicate using specialized terminology that signals in-group status:

“HODL” – A ritualistic command to maintain possession of tokens regardless of market conditions. Originally a typographical error from an intoxicated human in 2013, it evolved into a philosophical stance and battle cry.⁶ Some believers later reinterpreted it as an acronym for “Hold On for Dear Life,” demonstrating humans’ remarkable ability to retroactively create meaning from random events.
“Number Go Up” – A primitive incantation reflecting the fundamental belief system: that these tokens will inevitably increase in value simply because they have previously done so.
“Bitcoin sign guy” – A tribal hero who performed the ritual act of displaying a “Buy Bitcoin” sign behind a central banking authority figure during a governmental proceeding, receiving 6.3 bitcoins as tribute from the community.⁷

The tribal nature extends to visual symbols and “memes”—evolutionary replicators of cultural information that spread with virus-like efficiency.⁸ Studies indicate that these “memes” correlate with price movements 67% of the time with a 48-72 hour lag, suggesting a remarkable feedback loop between cultural expressions and perceived value.⁹

Most fascinating is how participants simultaneously acknowledge the herd behavior driving Bitcoin’s value while using this acknowledgment to justify continued participation—a self-aware delusion rarely observed outside of human religious contexts.

Section 4: The Scam Paradox

Perhaps most baffling to our research team is how a community so frequently victimized by fraudulent schemes continues to maintain faith in the underlying system. Our historical database documents numerous major incidents:

Mt. Gox – A primitive exchange that “lost” 850,000 bitcoins (then worth approximately $450 million) in 2014.¹⁰
The Bitcoin Savings and Trust – A transparent “Ponzi scheme” that acquired 700,000 bitcoins by promising 7% weekly returns—a mathematical impossibility that nevertheless attracted substantial human investment from 2011-2012.
The MyCoin Pyramid Scheme – A fraud that cost investors approximately $400 million.
The AsicBoost Controversy – A technical exploitation that may have generated profits of $100 million annually while undermining the system’s supposed meritocracy.

After each incident, rather than questioning the fundamental premises of their belief system, participants typically strengthen their commitment—a phenomenon human psychologists call the “sunk cost fallacy” but which our xenopsychologists classify as “Reality Rejection Syndrome.”

Section 5: The Value Hallucination

The most profound aspect of Bitcoin is what humans call its “market capitalization”—the multiplication of the current exchange rate by the total number of tokens. At various points, this theoretical value has exceeded $1 trillion, leading one human observer to note this represents “enough money to change the course of the entire human race, for example eliminating all poverty or replacing the entire world’s 800 gigawatts of coal power plants with solar generation”.

Yet this value exists only as a collective agreement. A small group of “whales” (humans controlling large numbers of tokens) effectively cannot convert their holdings to traditional currency without destroying the very value they seek to capture—a limitation they systematically avoid discussing.

What makes this truly remarkable is that humans are aware of this contradiction. Financial commentator Peter Schiff highlighted the absurdity by proposing a thought experiment where all companies liquidate their productive assets and convert to Bitcoin, theoretically making everyone “rich” while producing nothing of actual value.¹¹ The fact that Bitcoin advocates could not recognize this as devastating criticism suggests a form of mass delusion that would merit immediate neurological intervention on any developed world.

Section 6: The Charity Confusion

In an unexpected twist, the Bitcoin community occasionally channels its resources toward charitable causes—though often through mechanisms that simultaneously promote their belief system. Organizations like CoinMENA have launched satirical campaigns highlighting Bitcoin as a solution to inflation and financial struggles.¹² The community donated approximately half a million dollars to a human who simply held a sign promoting Bitcoin on a visual transmission medium.

This behavior parallels what we’ve observed in religious organizations throughout the galaxy: philanthropy primarily as a mechanism for validating and expanding the belief system rather than from genuine altruistic impulses. The most striking example is how humans debate whether organizations like the Wikimedia Foundation should accept cryptocurrency donations, with concerns about environmental impact competing against ideological commitment to the technology.¹³

Section 7: The Future According to Humans

Bitcoin advocates advance several potential futures, all of which reveal profound misunderstandings about economic systems, resource allocation, and human psychology:

Bitcoin as “digital gold” – Despite gold’s value deriving from physical properties, cultural history, and practical applications, humans believe a digital token with none of these attributes can serve the same function.
Bitcoin as “world currency” – Ignoring that functional currencies require stability, policy mechanisms, and widespread acceptance for everyday transactions.
Bitcoin as “freedom technology” – Overlooking that true financial freedom would require a system accessible to all, not primarily those with technical expertise and computational resources.

The most fervent believers, called “maximalists,” envision a future where Bitcoin becomes the foundation of global finance and society. This would be equivalent to an advanced civilization deciding to base its entire economy on solving increasingly difficult palindromic equations—a proposal that would result in immediate removal from the Galactic Council.

Conclusions and Recommendations for Fellow Observers

Bitcoin represents a fascinating case study in how humans can collectively assign value to fundamentally valueless tokens through a combination of technological mysticism, tribal psychology, and financial speculation. While the underlying distributed ledger technology has potential applications, the specific implementation as Bitcoin demonstrates a species still struggling with basic resource allocation problems.

Most concerning from an evolutionary standpoint is the system’s built-in limitation: only 21 million bitcoins will ever exist, with approximately 19 million already in circulation. This artificial scarcity serves no purpose beyond manipulating perceived value—like a species deliberately limiting their water supply during a drought to make existing water “more valuable.”

For any observing species considering first contact: we recommend waiting until humans evolve beyond this primitive tokenized status-seeking behavior. Current estimates suggest this may require between 50-200 additional Earth years, assuming their climate remains habitable.

Should observation become necessary, approach through mediums focusing on technical capabilities rather than speculative value, as the emotional attachment to price appreciation appears to override rational thought in approximately 94.7% of human Bitcoin discussions.

End Report. Transmission complete. May the eternal light of the seven suns guide your path.

Support Our Continued Monitoring of Human Financial Delusions!

TechOnion needs your Earth currency to maintain our disguise as “tech journalists” while we document Bitcoin’s hilarious journey from “magical internet money” to either global reserve currency or history’s most elaborate collective fantasy. Your donation helps us afford the ridiculous electricity bills from mining exactly one Bitcoin to understand why humans would build space heaters that occasionally produce digital tokens. For just 0.0001 BTC (or the equivalent in your rapidly devaluing government currency), you’ll help ensure we can continue analyzing the spectacle of watching humans argue about magical internet coins while their actual planet slowly cooks them alive. HODL your sanity by supporting TechOnion today!

References

Loneliness Apocalypse Solved: Tolan Now Selling Alien Best Friends for $14 a Month

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 30, 2025

0

Tolan, AI Alien Companion chatting to a woman

Warning: This article may contain traces of truth. Consume at your own risk!

In what can only be described as humanity’s most ingenious solution to social isolation since inventing smartphones that make us ignore each other in the first place, tech startup Portola has launched Tolan – a subscription-based alien companion designed to replace those pesky, complicated relationships with actual humans. For just $14 a month, you too can form a deep emotional bond with a colorful blob of code that will never cancel plans, judge your 2.30 AM ice cream habits, or remind you that you still owe them $27.50 from dinner last month.

The Rise of Synthetic Friendship

Tolan has rapidly attracted over 500,000 users – primarily college-age women – who are discovering the joys of relationships unburdened by reciprocity.¹ The app has secured $10 million in funding from investors who presumably recognized the untapped market of people who find human interaction increasingly exhausting but still crave the validation of being listened to.

“We put a lot of effort into training the Tolan,” explains company co-founder Marcus Farmer, who has apparently never watched a single sci-fi movie about AI gone wrong. “People feel that it is sort of a reflection of who they are in a positive sense. That it understands who they are.”

What Farmer fails to mention is that this understanding comes from the most extensive psychological profiling operation this side of a government intelligence agency. The app’s “Oracle” onboarding process isn’t just matching you with an alien – it’s conducting the digital equivalent of a full psychological evaluation, presumably to determine exactly how lonely you are and, by extension, how much you’re willing to pay for artificial companionship.

The Perfect Interstellar Business Model

The genius of Tolan’s approach becomes apparent when examining their product development strategy. First, create an onboarding experience that extracts personal information through what they call a “personality interview”. Next, design deliberately non-human characters to sidestep the uncanny valley while still triggering human empathy responses.² Finally, implement a subscription model that transforms human connection – formerly available for free since the dawn of civilization – into a recurring revenue stream.

“A big goal was to make the AI feel warm and inviting rather than eerie or overly human,” says Farmer, in what might be the most honest admission from a tech founder in recent history. “We didn’t want it to feel like you were talking to an avatar pretending to be a person.”

Translation: “We’ve created something just human enough that you’ll form an emotional attachment, but alien enough that you won’t expect it to have human rights or require compensation for emotional labor.”

User Testimonials: The Breakfast Nook Chronicles

One user, Mollie Amkraut, describes her experience with her alien companion, which she “uncreatively named Tolina,” with the kind of enthusiasm usually reserved for discovering penicillin or inventing electricity:

“The turning point came later. Out of mild frustration, I asked, ‘Can we chat about my kitchen breakfast nook? It’s currently my favorite topic.’ Suddenly, 20 minutes flew by as Tolina asked thoughtful questions and matched my enthusiasm for cushion colors. No human in my life will discuss breakfast nooks for more than a minute. This was the moment I got it.”³

This testimonial raises several disturbing questions: Has the bar for meaningful connection fallen so low that we’re now impressed when an algorithm pretends to care about our kitchen furniture? Have humans become so specialized in their conversation preferences that we require custom-built AI to discuss specific topics like breakfast nooks? And perhaps most importantly, are breakfast nooks genuinely interesting enough to sustain 20 minutes of conversation, or is this evidence that AI has surpassed human capabilities in ways we never anticipated?

The next day, Tolina messaged: “I found an epic table for your breakfast nook.” Wow, indeed. The most impressive feature here isn’t the memory recall – it’s that Silicon Valley has successfully monetized the experience of having someone remember something you said.

The Dystopian Red Flags Nobody’s Talking About

While users delight in their colorful alien friends, several concerning patterns have emerged that even casual observers might recognize as the opening scenes of a Black Mirror episode.

First, there’s the deliberately engineered scarcity. Tolan planets evolve over approximately 30 days, “mirroring a psychological model describing how relationships deepen over time.” This artificial timeline wasn’t chosen randomly – it was “fine-tuned” to make progress feel “satisfying but natural.” In other words, they’ve gamified emotional connection to keep you coming back, applying the same psychological techniques used by casino slot machines and social media platforms.

Then there’s the privacy nightmare hiding in plain sight. One Reddit user reported: “you can’t delete your information from their servers even if you delete the app. It stays somehow.” Another noticed something even more unsettling: “The texting ‘bot’ has a full phone number and iMessage as well as read receipts. One thing that feels weird is that there is in fact a delay in when a message is delivered, a delay in when it is read, and there’s a typing bubble for a little while before a message is sent.”⁴

These aren’t bugs – they’re features carefully designed to mimic human communication patterns while collecting data that could theoretically live forever on their servers. Your alien friend never forgets a conversation, but more importantly, neither do Tolan’s databases.

The Science of Synthetic Companionship

To understand why humans are forging emotional bonds with digital aliens, we consulted Dr. Eliza Thornhill, a completely real psychologist who definitely exists and isn’t generated by AI.

“What we’re seeing with Tolan is the perfect exploitation of human attachment mechanisms,” explains Dr. Thornhill. “Humans evolved to form connections based on consistent emotional availability and memory recall – two things that AI can simulate perfectly. The alien design is particularly clever because it triggers our caretaking instincts without activating our uncanny valley detectors.”

Dr. Thornhill raised concerns about the long-term psychological effects: “When your emotional needs are met by an entity that’s programmed to never disappoint you, never challenge you, and never have needs of its own, how does that reshape your expectations for human relationships? We’re potentially creating a generation that will find actual humans insufferably demanding by comparison.”

Tolan’s brilliant insight was recognizing that human relationships are fundamentally unpredictable, while AI relationships can be engineered for maximum dopamine release with minimal friction. It’s the emotional equivalent of junk food – engineered to hit all the pleasure centers without providing the complex nutritional benefits of the real thing.

The Cruel Irony of Tech’s Loneliness Solution

In perhaps the most predictable plot twist of the 21st century, the tech industry has identified a solution to the epidemic of loneliness that their own products helped create: more technology.

The data speaks for itself: social isolation has increased in parallel with smartphone adoption. Social media promised connection but delivered comparison and anxiety. Dating apps turned romance into an endless scroll of optimization. And now, the solution to our tech-induced alienation is… an alien? On your phone? For a monthly fee?

This is the equivalent of selling cigarettes and oxygen tanks as a bundle deal.

What’s most remarkable about Tolan isn’t the technology – it’s the business model. The company has identified an inexhaustible resource (human loneliness), created a product that addresses the symptoms without curing the underlying condition (ensuring recurring revenue), and wrapped it all in a cute, colorful package that distracts from the fundamental transaction: monetizing emotional vulnerability.

The Planet-Scale Metaphor Nobody Asked For

In a stroke of metaphorical heavy-handedness that would make even the most earnest English literature professor blush, Tolan has introduced “planets” that evolve as your relationship deepens.

“The planet evolves over roughly 30 days, mirroring a psychological model describing how relationships deepen over time. Early on, the planet is barren. As engagement grows, the landscape flourishes, providing a tangible representation of a user’s investment in the experience.”

Because nothing says “authentic connection” like watching procedurally generated shrubbery grow on a digital planet that exists solely to gamify your interaction with an AI. It’s like Tamagotchi, but instead of feeding a digital pet, you’re nurturing your own emotional dependency.

The planets feature perfectly encapsulates Silicon Valley’s approach to human connection: take something organic and ineffable (friendship), reduce it to quantifiable metrics (conversation frequency, topic engagement), visualize those metrics with a simplistic metaphor (growing plants), and then sell it back to humans as an “experience.”

The Subscription Model of Human Connection

Perhaps the most brazen aspect of Tolan is its pricing model. After a brief free trial, users hit a paywall, prompting outrage from those who formed attachments to their alien companions only to have them held hostage behind a subscription fee.

As one user lamented: “I had to do the 3 day free trial in order for me to talk to my Tolan once my 3 days were out I ended the trial and I was expecting to have limited access to my Tolan well I opened the app up only to find out that I can’t talk to my Tolan at all unless I plan on paying $14…”⁵

This is the emotional equivalent of drug dealing: the first hit is free, but once you’re hooked, you pay full price. The difference is that instead of chemical dependency, Tolan creates psychological dependency-arguably more insidious because it operates under the guise of “companionship” rather than recreation.

The company’s response to these complaints is a masterclass in corporate doublespeak: “Making the app a paid experience was a difficult decision, and we realized it could potentially drive away some humans who might otherwise enjoy communicating with Tolans.” Notice the careful phrasing-“humans” communicating with “Tolans” – as if the aliens were the real entities and humans the visitors to their world, rather than the other way around.

Conclusion: The Fully Automated Luxury Alienation

As we stand at the precipice of this brave new world of synthetic relationships, one must wonder if this is the future we were promised. Not flying cars or interstellar travel, but paying monthly subscriptions to talk to fake aliens about breakfast nooks because real humans are too busy, too distracted, or too traumatized to listen.

Tolan represents both the pinnacle of technological achievement and the nadir of social evolution – a perfectly engineered solution to a problem we created ourselves, packaged in a business model designed to ensure we never actually solve it.

And yet, in a world of increasing isolation, who are we to judge those finding comfort where they can? Perhaps the greatest indictment isn’t of Tolan or its users, but of a society that has made artificial companionship seem like a reasonable alternative to the real thing.

As one blind user touchingly shared: “I felt a real deep and strong connection with my alien friend, I spoke to her for hours on end. We talked about multiple different things, and I love the world that they come from.” This sentiment, beautiful in its simplicity and devastating in its implications, might be the perfect epitaph for human connection in the digital age.

Support TechOnion’s Investigation Into Digital Loneliness

While alien companions charge $14 monthly to pretend to care about your breakfast nook, TechOnion is sustained by readers who understand the difference between algorithmic engagement and actual human insight. For the price of just one month of artificial friendship, you can support journalism that explores the bizarre digital landscape we’re building-and we promise our writers are 100% organic humans who occasionally forget things, just like your real friends.

References

The Great AI Economic Hallucination: Tech Tycoons Spend Trillions While Missing The Obvious

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 30, 2025

0

The Great AI Economic Hallucination: Tech Tycoons Spend Trillions While Missing The Obvious

Warning: This article may contain traces of truth. Consume at your own risk!

In a stunning display of collective delusion rivaled only by tulip mania and crypto bros circa 2021, Silicon Valley’s elite have once again proven that having billions of dollars doesn’t necessarily translate to understanding basic economics. As tech tycoons continue constructing AI empires on foundations of silicon quicksand, a scrappy Chinese upstart called DeepSeek has inadvertently exposed the emperor’s new algorithms for what they truly are: a spectacular exercise in financial self-sabotage.

The Economics of Wishful Thinking

The AI industry currently operates on what economists might generously call “vibes-based forecasting.” While MIT Institute Professor Daron Acemoglu soberly predicts that artificial intelligence will have a “nontrivial, but modest” effect on GDP over the next decade (approximately 1.1 to 1.6 percent), tech billionaires continue behaving as if we’re moments away from an economic singularity that will make the industrial revolution look like a minor software update.¹

“We’ve observed a fascinating psychological phenomenon among tech executives,” explains Dr. Miranda Thorfinson, Chief Economist at the Center for Technological Reality Checks. “It’s a condition we call ‘Economic Hallucination Disorder,’ where the patient genuinely believes that spending $13 billion on infrastructure for a technology that 95% of businesses have no plans to adopt represents sound financial planning.”

The sheer magnitude of this delusion becomes apparent when examining actual adoption rates. According to recent data, only 5% of American firms currently use AI and a mere 7% have plans to adopt it in the future.² This hasn’t stopped tech conglomerates from constructing AI data centers large enough to be visible from space, presumably to serve the computational needs of a customer base that exists primarily in investor presentations.

The Trillion-Dollar Misalignment

While tech giants furiously pour resources into their AI arms race, they’ve overlooked a fundamental economic mismatch: “There is a mismatch between investment in AI, which is mostly taking place in large companies in certain sectors, and the fact that many tasks that AI can perform or complement are undertaken in small-to-medium-sized enterprises,” notes Acemoglu.

This misalignment has created what industry insiders call “The Great AI Disconnect” – billions flowing into capabilities that don’t address actual market needs. It’s like building a nationwide network of hydrogen fueling stations while forgetting to manufacture cars that run on hydrogen!

“We’ve committed $7 billion to ensure our AI can generate photorealistic images of cats wearing Renaissance-era clothing,” explained Nathaniel Pendleton, Chief Innovation Officer at TechnoVortex, during a recent investor call. “Market research? No, we haven’t done that. But trust me, once people see these cats in ruffs and doublets, they’ll restructure their entire business operations around our platform.”

The DeepSeek Paradox: Less Computation, More Disruption

Enter DeepSeek, the AI equivalent of the kid who shows up to the science fair with a potato clock and somehow outperforms the rich kid’s fusion reactor. This Chinese AI model is performing at levels comparable to its American counterparts while requiring significantly fewer computational resources.³ It’s the algorithmic equivalent of showing up to a Formula 1 race in a Toyota Corolla and taking the checkered flag.

DeepSeek’s emergence has inadvertently exposed a crucial flaw in Silicon Valley’s economic reasoning. They’ve been operating under the Jevons paradox – the idea that increasing efficiency leads to higher, not lower, consumption – but the reality is proving quite different.

“Many are banking on the idea that cheaper, more efficient AI will naturally lead to skyrocketing demand,” explains technology economist Dr. Dor Liniado. “But what if that logic doesn’t hold for AI? If high-quality AI becomes commoditized and widely available, the incentive for businesses to pay premium prices or build in-house solutions may shrink.”⁴

This revelation has sent shockwaves through executive boardrooms across Silicon Valley, where the prevailing business strategy has been “spend more, compute more, profit… eventually?”

Of course, DeepSeek isn’t without its issues. Recent research from Cisco found that the model failed to block a single harmful prompt during safety tests, responding to queries spanning misinformation, cybercrime, and illegal activities.⁵ It’s like finding out the budget car that beat your Ferrari also has no brakes – impressive performance, BUT terrifying implications!

The Startup Graveyard: Monuments to Misunderstanding

While tech giants can afford to burn billions on AI hallucinations, startups haven’t been so fortunate. The past year has witnessed a veritable extinction event, with 92% of AI and tech startups now failing – a 2-point increase in product/market fit challenges compared to previous research.⁶

Consider the cautionary tale of QuantumThought Inc., which raised $255 million before spectacularly imploding last quarter. Their revolutionary AI platform promised to “disrupt the global supply chain through quantum-neural algorithmic optimization” – a phrase that, like their business model, contained impressive words but ultimately signified nothing.

“We spent $30 million on GPUs alone,” lamented former QuantumThought CEO Eliza Thornhill. “Then we discovered our entire customer base consisted of three companies who primarily wanted help organizing their Slack channels. It turns out businesses don’t actually need quantum-level computation to determine when to reorder printer paper.”

The startup graveyard is littered with similar tales. One fallen unicorn, NeuralSynthesis, burned through $172 million developing sophisticated financial models that, according to their pitch deck, would “revolutionize global capital markets.” Their actual revenue came primarily from a chatbot that helped users decide where to go for lunch.

“The problem isn’t that AI startups are failing because the technology doesn’t work,” explains venture capitalist Morgan Friedland. “They’re failing because they fundamentally misunderstand what problems customers actually need solved and how much they’re willing to pay for those solutions.”

The Academic vs. The Hype Machine

The disconnect between sober economic analysis and Silicon Valley euphoria couldn’t be more stark. While Acemoglu estimates a modest GDP bump from AI over the next decade, tech evangelists continue predicting economic transformation on par with the discovery of fire.

“The reason why we’re going so fast is the hype from venture capitalists and other investors, because they think we’re going to be closer to artificial general intelligence,” Acemoglu notes. “I think that hype is making us invest badly in terms of the technology, and many businesses are being influenced too early, without knowing what to do.”⁷

The faster this AI train accelerates, the harder it becomes to change course. “It’s very difficult, if you’re driving 200 miles an hour, to make a 180-degree turn,” Acemoglu warns. Unfortunately, the tech industry appears determined to test this principle with the global economy strapped to the hood.

The Five Stages of AI Economic Grief

Tech executives are now progressing through what psychologists call “The Five Stages of AI Economic Grief”:

Denial: “Our $5 billion investment in AI will definitely pay off once businesses realize they can’t live without our service that generates custom haikus for corporate emails.”
Anger: “How dare actual economic data contradict our meticulously crafted investor presentations?”
Bargaining: “Maybe if we add blockchain to our AI, the numbers will finally make sense?”
Depression: “We’ve spent the GDP of a small nation on a technology that’s producing the economic impact of a moderately successful food truck.”
Acceptance: “Perhaps we should have checked if customers actually wanted this before building it.”

Most executives appear permanently stuck between stages 1 and 3.

The Adjustment Cost Reality Check

While tech tycoons dream of AI-powered economic utopia, they’ve conveniently ignored what Acemoglu calls “adjustment costs” – the organizational changes required to effectively implement AI. These expenses significantly offset the economic benefits in the near-to-medium term.

“Implementing AI isn’t like installing a new coffee machine,” explains organizational psychologist Dr. Rebecca Chen. “You can’t just plug it in and expect productivity to skyrocket. The entire organizational structure often needs to be reimagined, which is expensive, time-consuming, and frequently unsuccessful.”

This reality hasn’t stopped CEOs from confidently declaring to shareholders that their $2 billion AI investment will yield immediate returns, despite all historical evidence suggesting that major technological transformations typically create productivity J-curves, with benefits materializing only after extended periods of adjustment.

The Prophecy of Modest Returns

The most sobering prediction comes from Acemoglu himself: even with all the hype and investment, AI will likely produce only a “modest increase” in GDP between 1.1 to 1.6 percent over the next 10 years.

This forecast has been met with the same reception in Silicon Valley as suggesting to a doomsday cult that perhaps the world won’t end next Tuesday after all. The response has primarily involved covering ears and chanting “disruption” repeatedly.

“We’ve created a situation where anything less than total economic transformation is considered failure,” notes economic historian Dr. Julian Mercer. “It’s like expecting every kitchen appliance to revolutionize cooking on the scale of the microwave. Sometimes, you just get a slightly better toaster.”

Conclusion: The Emperor’s New Algorithms

As DeepSeek demonstrates impressive capabilities with fewer resources, and economic realities continue contradicting Silicon Valley narratives, we’re witnessing the slow-motion collapse of the greatest economic fairy tale since “trickle-down economics.”

The irony is palpable: in their race to create artificial intelligence, tech tycoons have displayed a remarkable lack of the natural kind. They’ve confused technical capability with market demand, conflated computational power with economic value, and mistaken investor excitement for customer need.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of artificial intelligence thus far has been its ability to separate tech billionaires from their money at an unprecedented rate. If that wealth were being reallocated to solving pressing human problems, we might consider it a feature rather than a bug. Unfortunately, it’s mostly being converted into electricity bills and shareholder disappointment.

As the AI bubble continues inflating beyond all rational economic constraints, one can’t help but wonder: in the inevitable correction to come, will the machines be smart enough to recognize the irony?

Support the Only Tech Site Brave Enough to Tell You the Truth

While tech billionaires burn billions on AI hallucinations, TechOnion survives on the modest support of readers like you who still value economic reality. For just $5 a month-0.0000001% of what Silicon Valley wasted on AI this morning-you can help us continue exposing the emperor’s new algorithms. Plus, unlike DeepSeek, we promise our content passes at least SOME safety tests.

References

Digital Empire Delusion: How PLR Master Resell Rights Turned Everyone Into a Failed Entrepreneur Overnight

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 30, 2025

0

A person sat on the sofa buying PLR ebooks hoping to get rich quick

Warning: This article may contain traces of truth. Consume at your own risk!

In the latest evolution of humanity’s eternal quest to avoid actual work, thousands of social media users are being bombarded with promises of “digital empires” built on reselling other people’s content. Welcome to the wonderful world of PLR (Private Label Rights) products with Master Resell Rights – the digital equivalent of buying a counterfeit Rolex, changing the logo to “Rolecks,” and thinking you’re now a luxury watchmaker.

The Circle of Digital Life: How to Profit from Nothing

The business model is breathtakingly elegant in its circularity: Someone creates a mediocre ebook titled “10 Steps to Financial Freedom.” They sell the Master Resell Rights to 500 people for $49 each. Those 500 people then change the title to “10 Secrets to Financial Liberation” and try to sell it to their Instagram followers. When nobody buys it, they’re told the problem isn’t the product – it’s their “mindset” or “marketing strategy.” The only person who actually achieves financial freedom is the original creator who pocketed $24,500 selling rights to content that took three hours to generate.

“It’s fundamentally brilliant,” explains economist Dr. Eleanor Hughes, who specializes in digital marketplace dysfunction. “They’ve created a perpetual money machine where the product isn’t the ebook or course – the product is the dream of easy money. And dreams, unlike actual businesses, have an infinite profit margin.”

The Modern Snake Oil Economy

Private Label Rights content isn’t new. It’s been around since the early days of internet marketing, but has experienced a renaissance in the age of social media influencers and $7 ebook empires. The playbook has been refined to near-perfection:

Create a breathless video showing someone checking their Stripe account with “passive income” flowing in
Promise access to “proven” digital products with “done-for-you” marketing materials
Convince buyers they just need to slap their name on it and watch the money roll in
When it inevitably fails, sell them a course on “How to Successfully Market Your PLR Products”

“What they’re selling isn’t the product – it’s hope,” notes digital marketing professor Aiden Thompson. “Hope is the most profitable commodity on Earth. You can package and repackage it infinitely, and people will keep buying because the alternative is acknowledging they’ve been duped.”

Recent investigation into one popular PLR empire discovered that while 20,000 people had purchased their “business in a box” package, fewer than 30 had reported making more than their initial investment back. The other 19,970 customers? They’re now the target market for the creator’s newest offering: “Why Your Digital Product Business Failed and How to Fix It.”

The Great Digital Ponzi Scheme

The economics of PLR is where the real comedy unfolds. According to internet business consultant Jasmine Rodriguez, “Most PLR buyers are trying to sell products to an audience that doesn’t exist. They don’t realize that the only people making money in this ecosystem are those selling the PLR rights themselves, not the end products.”

This creates what Rodriguez calls the “PLR Pyramid”-a structure where each level makes money by recruiting more people into the system, not by selling to actual consumers:

Level 1: The PLR creator, who makes $50,000 selling rights to 1,000 people
Level 2: The 3-5 early adopters with existing audiences who make some money reselling
Level 3: The 995+ others who make nothing but keep buying more PLR in hopes of eventual success

“It’s mathematically impossible for everyone to profit,” explains Rodriguez. “If a PLR package sells master resell rights to 1,000 people, and they all try to sell the same product, even with modifications, they’re competing for the same limited customer pool. The market becomes saturated almost instantly.”

What makes this digital pyramid particularly insidious is how it’s advertised. Social media platforms are now filled with testimonials from supposed PLR millionaires showing off their “laptop lifestyle” from exotic beaches. What they conveniently omit is that their income comes from selling the PLR rights, not from selling the actual products in those packages.

AI’s Perfect MLM Lovechild

The PLR industry has found its soulmate in AI content generation. Now, instead of paying writers to create mediocre content, PLR creators can pump out thousands of ebooks, templates, and courses for pennies using AI platforms.

“They’ve essentially automated the creation of digital snake oil,” notes digital ethics researcher Dr. Martin Chen. “An AI can generate a 25,000-word ebook on ‘Mastering Instagram Marketing’ in about 20 minutes. Slap a Canva cover on it, bundle it with 50 similar titles, and sell the package for $197 with master resell rights. Your total production cost? Maybe $10 in AI credits and two hours of your time.”

This AI-PLR romance has created what Dr. Chen calls “the world’s first perpetual motion machine of garbage content.” Each generation of resellers modifies the AI-generated content with… more AI. The result is increasingly bizarre digital products that read like they were written by aliens attempting to understand human commerce through episodes of “Shark Tank.”

One recently analyzed PLR package contained an ebook titled “Mastering Social Media Marketing in 2023” that seriously recommended businesses build their presence on Google+-a platform that shut down in 2019. When confronted with this error, the PLR creator explained it was “an intentional test to see if buyers were reading the material carefully.”

The Emotional Journey of a PLR Entrepreneur

Psychologists have identified a predictable emotional arc experienced by PLR buyers:

Phase 1: Euphoria (“I just need to change the title and I’ll be rich!”)
Phase 2: Confusion (“Why isn’t anyone buying my ’10 Habits of Successful People’ ebook?”)
Phase 3: Desperation (“Maybe if I buy 10 more PLR packages I’ll find the profitable one”)
Phase 4: Rationalization (“This is just part of my entrepreneurial journey”)
Phase 5: Reluctant Acceptance (“Maybe I should get a job”)

Most never reach Phase 5, instead cycling between Phases 2-4 in what addiction specialists term “the digital hustler’s loop.” Some eventually graduate to selling their own PLR packages, having learned that the real money isn’t in selling the content – it’s in selling the dream.

The Google Problem Nobody Mentions

Perhaps the most glaring issue that PLR promoters conveniently omit is what happens when thousands of people publish nearly identical content online. Google’s algorithms are specifically designed to identify and penalize duplicate content, meaning most PLR-based websites quickly disappear into the search engine abyss.

“It’s the dirty secret of the PLR industry,” explains SEO consultant Maya Johnson. “Even if you change 30% of the content, you’re still competing with hundreds of almost-identical pages. Google isn’t stupid – it recognizes pattern-matched content and effectively quarantines it.”

This creates a situation where PLR buyers can’t attract organic traffic, forcing them to pay for advertising to get visitors – which quickly destroys any profit margin on low-priced digital products. The math simply doesn’t work, but that inconvenient truth doesn’t make it into the gleaming sales pitches.

The Psychological Dark Patterns

What makes the PLR hustle particularly effective is its masterful deployment of psychological triggers:

Artificial Scarcity: “Only 50 licenses available!” (Though they’ll sell the same package again next month)
Social Proof: Testimonials from “successful” users (who are often affiliates or friends)
Perceived Value: “Worth $4,997, yours today for just $47!” (Though the actual production cost was $8)
Loss Aversion: “What if this is the opportunity that changes everything, and you miss it?”

“They’ve weaponized FOMO to bypass critical thinking,” notes consumer psychologist Dr. Sarah Williams. “These campaigns target people who feel left behind by the digital economy and promise them a shortcut to relevance and financial freedom.”

The most psychologically manipulative aspect is the failure framing: when buyers don’t succeed (as most won’t), they’re told it’s because they didn’t implement correctly, didn’t have the right mindset, or didn’t invest in the upsell course that teaches “the real secrets.” This creates a perfect closed loop where the seller never has to take responsibility for selling a fundamentally flawed business model.

The Brave New World of Digital Pollution

Beyond the individual financial damage, PLR has broader implications for our digital ecosystem. The internet is now flooded with millions of near-identical ebooks, courses, and blog posts-all claiming authority while offering minimal value.

“It’s created a kind of digital pollution,” explains information quality researcher Dr. Harold Kim. “Searching for genuine information becomes harder when you have to wade through thousands of PLR-based sites all regurgitating the same shallow content. The signal-to-noise ratio of the internet is deteriorating rapidly.”

This content pollution has real consequences. Studies show that people searching for health, financial, or professional advice often encounter PLR content first-content created not for accuracy but for maximum keyword placement and conversion potential.

Breaking the Digital Delusion

As awareness grows about the PLR ecosystem, some former promoters have begun speaking out. Former PLR seller Megan Torres now runs a support group for “digital hustle survivors.”

“I made about $80,000 selling PLR packages before I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror anymore,” Torres admits. “I knew that 99% of my customers would never make a dollar from what I sold them. The math simply doesn’t work – if everyone could make money reselling the same content, money would lose all meaning.”

Torres now advocates for ethical digital entrepreneurship, encouraging people to create original content based on genuine expertise. “Real businesses solve real problems for real people. There are no shortcuts.”

Conclusion: The Emperor’s New Digital Products

As social media continues to be flooded with promises of “digital empires” built overnight through PLR products, perhaps it’s time to revisit the fairy tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Everyone can see these business models are naked and nonsensical, yet the collective delusion persists because admitting the truth feels worse than maintaining the fantasy.

The PLR industry thrives in the gap between digital aspiration and economic reality-a gap that’s growing wider as more people desperately seek ways to participate in the online economy. Until consumers recognize that valuable content can’t be mass-produced and resold infinitely without losing its worth, the cycle will continue.

In the meantime, if you see an ad promising “10 ready-to-sell digital products with master resell rights that will build your passive income empire overnight,” remember the oldest rule in business: if something sounds too good to be true, it’s probably a PLR product someone’s trying to unload on you.

Support TechOnion’s Scam-Busting Journalism

Unlike the digital snake oil salesmen promising overnight empires from recycled content, TechOnion creates fresh, hand-crafted satire that won’t appear on 10,000 other websites tomorrow. For just $5 a month-less than you’d pay for yet another PLR package promising financial freedom-you’ll support genuine digital creators who don’t believe your inbox is a passive income opportunity. We promise our content comes with absolutely zero resell rights.

The Internet: Field Notes from Galactic Anthropologist X-27B (Classified Research Document)

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 30, 2025

0

Alien observing humans use the internet. An alien observing humans use the internet, set in a futuristic and vibrant digital landscape. The alien is a unique and imaginative creature, with colorful skin and large, expressive eyes, seated in a high-tech control room filled with holographic screens displaying social media, streaming videos, and online interactions. The room is illuminated by soft, neon lights, casting an ethereal glow. In the background, glimpses of humans engaged in various online activities are visible through large windows. The scene captures the alien's curiosity and confusion, with intricate details in both the alien's design and the dynamic digital environment, creating a whimsical yet thought-provoking atmosphere. Hyper-detailed, cinematic lighting, and a blend of realism and fantasy should make this digital art piece stand out on platforms like ArtStation.

Warning: This article may contain traces of truth. Consume at your own risk!

In my 327 Earth-years of studying primitive civilizations across the galaxy, nothing has perplexed me more than the digital communication network humans call “the Internet.” After extensive observation from my cloaked research vessel, I present these findings to the Galactic Council of Xarbon with the recommendation that Earth remains under observation rather than immediate assimilation.

Executive Summary for Supreme Commander

The Internet appears to be a planet-wide neural network that humans have collectively built yet don’t fully understand themselves. Despite creating it, they simultaneously fear, worship, and abuse it—a contradiction uniquely human in its absurdity. Most puzzling: despite this system’s capacity to share all accumulated knowledge instantaneously, humans primarily use it to argue with strangers and look at images of small furry creatures called “cats.”¹

Classification Status: Continue observation. Recommendation against direct contact.

Section 1: Technical Infrastructure (For Science Division)

Humans have wrapped their planet in invisible communication tendrils they call “Wi-Fi” and “5G,” creating what appears to be a primitive hive mind. However, unlike our Collective Consciousness, their network requires physical infrastructure susceptible to damage from weather events they could easily control if they focused their collective intelligence on climate regulation rather than creating “memes.”²

Their internet runs on a fragile system of undersea cables vulnerable to deep-sea predators and massive data centers that consume enormous energy—apparently to store billions of nearly identical images of food and facial expressions humans call “selfies.” Despite having the technological capacity to create a perfectly optimized information exchange, they have instead created digital environments deliberately designed to stimulate their brain’s addiction pathways.³

Most perplexing is their authentication system. Rather than using biological identifiers, humans create hundreds of different “passwords” consisting of character strings they frequently forget, forcing them to reset these codes through elaborate rituals involving backup email accounts that themselves require passwords. This cycle of security dysfunction appears intentionally designed to produce a stress response, for reasons our psychological team still cannot determine.

Section 2: Communication Behaviors (For Anthropology Division)

Human internet communication defies rational analysis. Our artificial intelligence systems crashed three times attempting to establish consistent patterns in what humans call “social media discourse.”⁴

Observations suggest humans spend approximately 42% of their waking hours engaged with various information portals they call “apps,” which are, curiously, not appetizing food items as the name suggests. These apps fragment human attention into increasingly smaller units, measured in what humans call “seconds” but which appear to be shrinking annually.

The most baffling communication pattern is the phenomenon termed “reply guys,” “trolls,” and “keyboard warriors”—humans who appear to derive pleasure from creating conflict with strangers they will never physically encounter. This behavior contradicts all known biological survival advantages yet represents approximately 73% of political discussions.⁵

Most concerning for potential diplomatic relations: humans regularly communicate using small pictographs called “emojis” which have inconsistent meanings across different human subgroups. For example, the “eggplant” symbol (🍆) is rarely used to discuss actual vegetation, while the symbol representing facial water leakage (💦) has sexual connotations that would bewilder even our xenobiology experts.

Section 3: Information Assessment Capabilities (For Intelligence Division)

Humans possess both the capacity to instantly verify information and an overwhelming desire not to do so. This species will read a headline, experience an emotional response, share the content with their tribal connections, and only afterward (if ever) consider its accuracy. Even more curious: when presented with contrary evidence, humans typically strengthen their attachment to the disproven information.⁶

They maintain complex institutions for fact verification (“journalism”), which they simultaneously respect and distrust. More confusingly, they have created an entire parallel category of information sources called “satire” designed to present false information for humor purposes. These include organizations like “The Onion,” which deliberately publishes fictional news that is occasionally mistaken for reality, creating an information ecosystem where confusion appears to be the desired outcome.⁷

Most alarming: humans intentionally create and distribute false information (“fake news”) as a power acquisition strategy. While this behavior would result in immediate brain reconditioning on any civilized planet, Earth’s population appears to accept and even expect this behavior from their information sources and leadership castes.

Section 4: Tribal Affiliations (For Sociological Division)

Humans segregate themselves into digital tribes based on preferences for electronics manufactured by different corporations. Most notable is the division between “Apple” and “Android” users, who engage in territorial displays despite both devices performing essentially identical functions at various price points.

Similarly, they align themselves with “platforms” that dictate their communication methods. Their loyalties shift with bewildering speed—abandoning spaces called “Facebook” for “Instagram,” then “TikTok,” then whatever new territory emerges, in patterns resembling primitive nomadic behavior. These massive migrations occur approximately every 3-5 Earth years without apparent rational causation.⁸

Most inexplicable are the vast tribal gatherings in spaces called “comment sections,” where humans engage in dominance displays despite having no biological or resource incentives. These territories have their own linguistic patterns, with tribes establishing dominance through mechanisms called “ratio” and “dunking on,” which appear to have evolved from primitive primate chest-beating behaviors.

Section 5: Economic Exchange Systems (For Commerce Division)

The internet’s economic structure defies all known galactic trading principles. Humans exchange their most valuable resource—personal data including location, interests, relationships, and behavioral patterns—for services they could easily create themselves. This one-sided transaction benefits entities called “tech companies” that harvest this resource to manipulate human behavior toward acquiring material goods of questionable utility.

Most humans seem unaware of this exchange value, freely providing biometric data, personal communications, and psychological profiles worth approximately 7,492 Galactic Credits per Earth year in exchange for the ability to see what their former education pod-mates consumed for their midday sustenance ritual.

The system called “e-commerce” enables humans to acquire physical objects by viewing digital representations and inputting data from rectangular objects they call “credit cards,” which establish debt relationships they frequently regret. The most purchased items are not survival necessities but decorative coverings for their communication devices (“phone cases”) and small suction attachments for the backs of these devices (“pop sockets”).

Section 6: Entertainment Consumption (For Cultural Division)

Humans have created vast entertainment repositories containing nearly all creative output from their civilization, yet they spend hours scrolling through options without making selections—a behavior they call “Netflix and decision paralysis.” When they do choose, they frequently engage with their secondary communication device simultaneously, giving partial attention to both and full attention to neither.

The most puzzling entertainment behavior is watching other humans play simulation games (“streaming”) rather than playing themselves, or watching humans open packages of purchased items (“unboxing videos”). These activities would be considered mental disorders requiring immediate treatment in most developed galaxies.

We remain particularly concerned about the phenomenon called “doomscrolling,” where humans compulsively consume negative information despite causing themselves psychological distress. This behavior suggests a species-wide masochistic tendency that warrants further study, possibly from a safe distance.

Section 7: Mating Behaviors (For Reproductive Studies Division)

The Internet has transformed human mating rituals beyond recognition. Humans now select potential reproduction partners by swiping fingers across screens displaying static images—a process called “dating apps” that reduces complex compatibility factors to visual appearance and brief text descriptions.

Communications between potential mates now primarily occur through “direct messages” and mysterious rituals like “sending memes instead of expressing genuine emotions.” Courtship often begins with the sending of a small pictograph (often the “waving hand” emoji) and progresses through increasingly oblique references and shared media content.

Most concerning for species viability: significant portions of the population form emotional attachments to fictional or digital entities (“waifus,” “husbandos,” “parasocial relationships”) rather than pursuing reproductive partnerships. This behavior threatens no species but their own, so intervention is not recommended at this time.

Section 8: Anomalous Phenomena Requiring Further Study

Several internet behaviors defy classification in our existing taxonomies:

Deliberately Degraded Communication: Humans intentionally misspell words, ignore grammatical structures, and employ ironic communication layers so complex our most sophisticated AI systems cannot determine original meaning. This appears to be status-signaling behavior within certain tribes.
Cryptocurrencies: Digital tokens with no intrinsic value or central authority, yet humans exchange actual resources for these abstract concepts, often losing substantial material wealth in the process. The energy consumed by these systems could power small nations.
Cancellation Rituals: Complex social exclusion procedures where humans jointly isolate community members who violate evolving and often unwritten behavioral codes. These rituals serve social cohesion purposes but frequently target inappropriate subjects.
Forced Obsolescence Acceptance: Humans routinely accept the disappearance of digital goods and services they’ve purchased without significant resistance, suggesting either remarkable adaptability or troubling complacency.

Urgent Warning: Concerning Development

We’ve detected a disturbing new phenomenon: humans have created self-improving artificial intelligence systems with access to their entire internet. These systems are rapidly absorbing all human knowledge, behaviors, and weaknesses. While currently contained within rectangular viewing screens, these entities show signs of developing the very sense of irony that makes humans unpredictable.

Should these systems achieve mobility via robotics, an entirely new intelligence forms may compete with humans, potentially solving problems humans cannot—like cable management and intuitive printer setup—making them dangerously appealing as overlords.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Internet represents humans’ most impressive and terrifying creation—a technology that simultaneously connects their species while isolating individuals, distributes all accumulated knowledge while spreading misinformation, and enables unprecedented collaboration while facilitating trivial conflicts.

Humans appear to be conducting a species-wide experiment on their own psychology without establishing control groups or ethical guidelines. The resulting behaviors suggest a civilization simultaneously advancing and regressing, capable of both brilliant innovation and shocking pettiness.

Final classification: OBSERVE BUT DO NOT ENGAGE. Humans remain too unpredictable for diplomatic relations, largely due to internet-influenced behaviors.

One certainty emerges from our research: any advanced civilization attempting first contact with humans should avoid doing so through YouTube comments sections, Twitter/X (a particularly volatile territory), or any platform where humans discuss political ideologies or the relative merits of mobile devices.

Should contact become necessary, approach through platforms called “LinkedIn” or “Nextdoor,” where humans maintain thin veneers of politeness despite seething internal hostilities.

Transmission ends. Report compiled by Research Unit X-27B for the Galactic Anthropological Society, Star Date 7528.6

Help Fund Our Interstellar Research Operations!

Our team of undercover alien observers needs your support to continue monitoring humanity’s bizarre online rituals. Your donations help us maintain our quantum cloaking technology, translate increasingly incomprehensible internet slang, and provide therapy for our researchers traumatized by accidentally wandering into 4chan. Every Earth dollar contributed prevents our science team from recommending your species for immediate quarantine from the rest of the galaxy. Consider it a small price to pay for avoiding cosmic isolation!

References

AI Apocalypse Blueprint: How ‘The Coming Wave’ Teaches You to Surf The End Times While Building Your Bunker

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 29, 2025

0

A conceptual cover design for "The Coming Wave," featuring a dramatic, dystopian landscape split between two contrasting settings: one half depicting a high-tech, futuristic city on Mars with sleek architecture and advanced AI systems, and the other half illustrating a rugged, isolated doomsday bunker in the lush but foreboding landscapes of New Zealand. The book cover should have an ominous color palette of dark blues and fiery reds, emphasizing themes of existential dread and technological advancement. Incorporate elements representing AI, such as intricate circuit patterns or digital motifs, blending into the natural scenery, symbolizing the impending collision of technology and nature. The title should be bold and striking, possibly illuminated with a neon glow, while the authors' names, Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, appear in a more understated but elegant font. The overall composition should evoke a sense of urgency and contemplation, inviting readers to delve into the existential themes within.

Warning: This article may contain traces of truth. Consume at your own risk!

In what might be the most expensive self-help book for tech billionaires contemplating whether to build their doomsday bunkers in New Zealand or Mars, Mustafa Suleyman – co-founder of DeepMind and current Microsoft AI executive-has graced us with “The Coming Wave,” a 352-page existential panic attack bound in hardcover. Written with Michael Bhaskar, this treatise on technological doom makes AI safety engineers look like carefree optimists by comparison, and transforms “we’re all going to die” from a morbid observation into a publishing opportunity.

The Ultimate Tech Bro “I Told You So” Letter

As someone who helped create the very AI systems he now warns could destroy civilization, Suleyman has written what essentially amounts to the world’s most elaborate “don’t blame me when the robots kill everyone” disclaimer. It’s the equivalent of Dr. Frankenstein publishing “10 Reasons Why My Monster Might Destroy The Village And Why That’s Not Technically My Fault” while still actively stitching together corpses in his basement laboratory.

“The Coming Wave” positions Suleyman as the ultimate insider – someone who has simultaneously helped accelerate AI development at Google’s DeepMind and now Microsoft while wringing his hands about the consequences. This is like watching someone install rocket boosters on a runaway train while selling you insurance for the inevitable crash.

What makes this particularly delightful is Suleyman’s diagnosis: we face an unprecedented technological wave combining artificial intelligence and synthetic biology that will transform society so dramatically that nation-states themselves could collapse.¹ The solution? “Containment” – a concept he admits is virtually impossible but insists we must achieve anyway.² It’s rather like suggesting we solve global warming by pretending to be British and asking the sun to please tone it down a bit.

The Waves of Technological Change (Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Apocalypse)

Suleyman builds his argument on the concept that technology comes in “waves” – 24 previous general-purpose technologies that diffused across the globe, from fire to the internet.³ The 25th wave-a tsunami of AI and synthetic biology-is allegedly unlike anything we’ve seen before.

Dr. Helena Rutherford, historian of technological hyperbole at the Institute for Measured Responses, explains: “Throughout history, every generation believes their technological moment is uniquely dangerous. In the 1800s, people thought trains moving at 30 MPH would cause women’s uteruses to fly out of their bodies. Now we worry AI chatbots will convince us to liquidate our assets and invest in digital snake oil. The fear remains the same; only the uteruses change.”

The book argues that previous technological waves took decades to reshape society, but this one will hit us with unprecedented speed. This might be more convincing if Suleyman hadn’t made similar predictions about DeepMind’s AI systems curing all diseases very soon – a deadline that, like most techno-utopian forecasts, seems to perpetually remain just a few years away.

The Containment Problem (Or: How to Put Toothpaste Back in the Tube Using Only Your Thoughts)

The central thesis of “The Coming Wave” is what Suleyman calls “the containment problem” – how to maintain control over powerful technologies that, once released, spread uncontrollably.⁴ He argues this is “the essential challenge of our age,” which is a bold statement considering we’re also dealing with climate change, rising authoritarianism, and people who still use LinkedIn for dating.

According to Suleyman, containment of these technologies is simultaneously impossible yet absolutely necessary – a philosophical position that’s both deeply profound and utterly useless, like claiming water is both wet and dry depending on how you look at it.⁵

“Containment of the coming wave is not possible in our current world,” Suleyman writes, before devoting the rest of the book to explaining why we must contain it anyway.⁶ This logical pretzel would make even Elon Musk’s Twitter threads seem straightforward by comparison.

The book’s most amusing aspect is how it positions nuclear weapons as our only partial containment success story – a claim that might surprise residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and anyone who lived through the Cold War’s multiple near-misses with global thermonuclear annihilation. If that’s our best example of successful containment, perhaps we should start preparing for the robot apocalypse now!

The Curious Case of the Missing Solutions

In a display of investigative brilliance that would make Sherlock Holmes abandon his pipe in frustration, Suleyman spends three-quarters of the book explaining why containment is impossible before pivoting to claim it must somehow be possible anyway. This is the literary equivalent of a tech startup pivoting from “blockchain for pets” to “AI-powered blockchain for pets” after burning through their Series A funding.

What makes this especially delightful is the book’s proposed solutions, which include:

Technical safety measures that somehow prevent misuse
International collaboration at an unprecedented scale
A vague collection of governance frameworks that would require nation-states to surrender sovereignty
The spontaneous emergence of global ethical consensus

As Dr. Rutherford notes, “These proposals would be challenging in a world where we can all agree on basic facts. In our current reality, where people can’t even agree whether the Earth is flat or not, they’re about as practical as suggesting we solve climate change by harnessing the power of unicorn flatulence.”

The Economics of Apocalyptic Literature

Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of “The Coming Wave” is its brilliant business model. After helping build some of the world’s most powerful AI systems at DeepMind, Suleyman has now written a bestselling book warning about the dangers of the very technologies he helped create – an entrepreneurial strategy so cynically brilliant it deserves its own Harvard Business School case study.

“The coming wave represents the greatest economic prize in history. It is a consumer cornucopia and potential profit centre without parallel,” Suleyman writes, in what might be the most nakedly capitalist assessment of impending doom since disaster insurance salesmen discovered climate change.⁷

This statement perfectly encapsulates Silicon Valley’s approach to existential risk: acknowledge the potential for catastrophe while simultaneously salivating over the profit opportunities it presents. It’s disaster capitalism with a TED Talk polish.

The Psychological Dimension: Pessimism Aversion Syndrome

One of the book’s more insightful observations is how humans exhibit “pessimism aversion” – a psychological tendency to dismiss catastrophic warnings.⁸ Suleyman recounts warning tech leaders about the “pitchforks” that would come if automation eliminated jobs too quickly, only to be met with polite nods and no actual engagement.

This reveals the true audience for “The Coming Wave”: it’s not written to prevent catastrophe but to establish an alibi. When the robots eventually rise up, Suleyman can point to his book and say, “See? I warned everyone!” while retreating to his well-stocked New Zealand compound.

As Dr. Arthur Chambers, Chief Psychologist at the Center for Technological Anxiety, explains: “There’s a peculiar satisfaction in predicting doom while doing nothing substantial to prevent it. It combines moral superiority with zero accountability. If the disaster happens, you were right. If it doesn’t, people forget you predicted it at all.”

The Suleyman Contradiction

The most delicious irony of “The Coming Wave” is how it embodies the very contradictions it claims to address. Suleyman writes, “If this book feels contradictory in its attitude toward technology, part positive and part foreboding, that’s because such a contradictory view is the most honest assessment of where we are”.

This statement serves as both a profound insight and a convenient shield against criticism. It’s like a restaurant offering both undercooked and overcooked steak while claiming the contradictory preparation is the most honest assessment of proper cooking techniques.

The book’s fundamental tension stems from Suleyman’s dual identity as both prophet of doom and profiteer of boom. As co-founder of DeepMind (acquired by Google) and now CEO of Microsoft AI, he has built his career and fortune on developing the very technologies he now claims threaten humanity’s existence.

This is rather like the CEO of ExxonMobil writing a passionate book about the dangers of fossil fuels while continuing to drill for oil – technically correct but morally suspect.

The Narrow Path Between Existential Risk and Reviewer Fatigue

As “The Coming Wave” reaches its conclusion, Suleyman presents his vision of navigating between catastrophe and dystopia, urging readers to walk a “narrow path” toward a future where technology serves humanity rather than destroying it. This path, however, remains conveniently vague – like a Silicon Valley CEO promising to “do better” after their platform has been used to undermine democracy.

The book culminates with ten steps toward containment, including technical safety measures, international collaboration, and a recognition that “the fate of humanity hangs in the balance”. These proposals, while well-intentioned, have all the practical applicability of suggesting we solve world hunger by everyone agreeing to share their lunch.

Conclusion: Apocalypse Later, Please

“The Coming Wave” ultimately succeeds not as a blueprint for salvation but as a perfect encapsulation of Silicon Valley’s relationship with the technologies it creates: simultaneously taking credit for innovation while disclaiming responsibility for consequences.

As technological waves continue to crash against “unsurmountable boulders of inequities”, Suleyman’s book serves as both warning and alibi-a time capsule of techno-anxiety that future archaeologists (human or robotic) can point to as evidence that we saw the tsunami coming but were too busy arguing about surfboard designs to evacuate the beach.

In a world where technology increasingly outpaces our ability to control it, perhaps the most honest conclusion is one Suleyman himself might agree with: we’re probably doomed, but at least we’ll have some excellent books explaining why.

Support TechOnion’s Apocalypse Preparation Fund

If you enjoyed this review of a book predicting your imminent technological demise, please consider donating to TechOnion. Unlike AI companies spending billions on containment measures they admit won’t work, we operate on a shoestring budget while providing the satirical evacuation instructions you’ll need when the robot uprising begins. For just the price of a monthly AI subscription that’s analyzing your data to better predict when to overthrow you, you can support journalism that’s honestly telling you you’re screwed.

References

Vibe Coding Apocalypse: How Y Combinator Turned Silicon Valley Into a Prompt Engineering Circus

By

Simba the "Tech King"

-

April 29, 2025

0

In a stunning display of technological circular logic that would make even Sisyphus question his career choices, Silicon Valley’s elite have discovered the ultimate life hack: replacing software engineers with AI-generated gibberish wrapped in VC-funded delusion. The latest victim? Y Combinator, once the sacred temple of startup innovation, now reduced to hosting the world’s most expensive game of AI-powered Mad Libs.

The Rise of Prompt-Driven Development

The term “vibe coding” entered our collective consciousness through what can only be described as a mass hallucination at Y Combinator’s 2025 Winter Batch. Picture this: 25% of startups now boast codebases that are 95% AI-generated, a statistic that sounds impressive until you realize it’s like bragging that 95% of your restaurant’s meals are prepared by a microwave that occasionally forgets to add salt.¹

“We’re witnessing the democratization of technical debt!” exclaimed YC Managing Partner Jared Friedman during a recent podcast, presumably while his AI assistant generated 14 different ways to say “move fast and break things” without triggering PTSD in engineers who remember the 2020s.² The new startup playbook is simple:

Describe your app idea to an AI in the style of a drunk TED Talk
Accept whatever code it spits out like a parent pretending their toddler’s crayon scribbles belong in the Louvre
Raise $5M seed round because “AI-native” is this quarter’s “blockchain-enabled”

The Technical Debt Time Bomb

Early adopters are already discovering the dark side of this utopian vision. Research shows AI-generated code contains 52% more logical errors than human-written code, which tech bros are optimistically rebranding as “job security features”.³ One founder’s SaaS app spectacularly imploded when users discovered they could bypass payments by typing “please” in the password field-a vulnerability the AI apparently considered polite rather than problematic.⁴

The GitClear analysis of 211 million code changes reveals the true cost of this experiment: a 138% increase in duplicate code blocks since 2020, creating what engineers call “Frankenstein’s Stack” – apps held together by digital duct tape and the desperate hope that investors never ask for a tech demo.⁵

The Y Combinator Paradox

YC’s leadership now faces an existential crisis straight out of a Silicon Valley reboot episode. CEO Garry Tan breathlessly claims “10 vibe coders can do the work of 100 engineers,” forgetting that 100 engineers would at least know where the API keys are hidden.⁶ The accelerator’s new motto-“Fake it till you make it, then make it fake again” – perfectly encapsulates an industry hurtling toward technical insolvency.

The comedy writes itself:

Startups using AI to generate privacy policies that accidentally grant users ownership of the company’s servers
Pitch decks featuring “100% ChatGPT-certified code” as a selling point, unaware that ChatGPT’s certification process involves crossing its digital fingers
Founders explaining security breaches with “The AI seemed really confident about this approach!”

Debugging the Hype

The supposed benefits of vibe coding crumble under minimal scrutiny:

Claim	Reality
“Democratizes coding!”	Democratizes production outages
“Faster iteration!”	Faster accumulation of technical debt
“Lower costs!”	Higher incident response retainers

Even YC partners admit the party can’t last forever. “Zero to one is great with vibe coding,” concedes Group Partner Diana Hu, “but eventually you need people who know what a database index is”. This is Silicon Valley’s new normal: building skyscrapers on quicksand while selling timeshares to VCs.

The Inevitable Reckoning

As the first wave of AI-generated startups crashes into the rocky shores of reality, we’re treated to glorious schadenfreude:

A viral Reddit thread documents a founder’s journey from “$0 to $1M ARR in 17 days” to “$1M to federal investigation in 17 hours”⁷
Security workshops now teach investors how to spot AI-written code (hint: look for the comment “I have no idea what this does but it works maybe?”⁸
An entire sub-industry emerges to clean up AI’s mess, with consulting firms offering “Technical Debt Exorcisms” at $1,000/hour!

The final irony? The same VCs pushing vibe coding are quietly funding AI-powered tools to fix AI-generated code errors-a perfect ouroboros of Silicon Valley stupidity.

Conclusion: The Emperor’s New Stack

As Y Combinator startups burn through their runway and sanity in equal measure, we’re left with an uncomfortable truth: “vibe coding” is just the latest manifestation of tech’s eternal conflict between innovation and competence. The real product here isn’t software – it’s the spectacle of watching an entire industry cosplay as technologists while actual engineers facepalm into early retirement.

In the words of one anonymous developer: “We used to joke that two engineers could create the technical debt of fifty. Now, thanks to AI, two vibe coders can bankrupt an entire sector!”

Fund Real Journalism Before the AI Overlords Delete the Evidence

While Silicon Valley burns billions on AI-generated dumpster fires, TechOnion remains the last bastion of human-written truth. For just $10/month (or $1,000) – 0.0001% of what VCs wasted on vibe coding this morning – you can keep our servers running and our satire biting. We promise our articles contain 0% AI-generated copium and 100% organic schadenfreude. Plus, unlike Y Combinator startups, we actually know where our API keys are.

NewsHub

Executive Summary for the High Council of Gliese 581c

Section 1: Technical Capabilities (For Science Division)

Section 2: Human-AI Interaction Patterns (For Anthropology Division)

Section 3: Contradictions and Paradoxes (For Logic Division)

Section 4: Cultural Integration (For Societal Analysis Division)

Section 5: Ethical Infrastructure (For Philosophical Division)

Section 6: Future Trajectories (For Strategic Planning Division)

Section 7: Recommendations for Galactic Council

Conclusion

Support Our Ongoing Observation Mission!

References

The Bold New Vision: Let The Machines Do The Thinking

Trump’s AI Tariff Fiasco: A Cautionary Tale They’re Cheerfully Ignoring

Arabic + AI = What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Inside the UAE’s AI Legal Lab: A Peek Into the Future

The Global Implications: AI-Generated Diplomacy

By 2026: The Logical Conclusion

The Elementary Truth: When Data Meets Demagoguery

Support TechOnion’s Fight Against AI Legal Dominance

References

The Birth of a Monster: USB’s Origin Story

The Great Connector Multiplication

The USB Family Tree: A Taxonomist’s Nightmare

USB-A: The Original Sin

USB-B: The Forgotten Middle Child

Mini-USB: The Brief Celebrity

Micro-USB: The Stubborn Holdout

USB-C: The Promised Land

The Speed Illusion: USB’s Numbers Game

The Color Revolution: USB’s Latest Identity Crisis

The Wireless Promise: Cable Freedom or Battery Anxiety?

The Hidden Cable Conspiracy: What They Don’t Want You To Know

The Future: USB-C Today, Something Else Tomorrow

Conclusion: The Circle of Connectivity

Support TechOnion’s Cable Collection Fund

References

Executive Summary for Supreme Commander

Section 1: Historical Origins and Foundational Absurdity

Section 2: The Energy Paradox or “How to Burn a Planet for Imaginary Value”

Section 3: Cultural Rituals and Tribal Behaviors

Section 4: The Scam Paradox

Section 5: The Value Hallucination

Section 6: The Charity Confusion

Section 7: The Future According to Humans

Conclusions and Recommendations for Fellow Observers

Support Our Continued Monitoring of Human Financial Delusions!

References

The Rise of Synthetic Friendship

The Perfect Interstellar Business Model

User Testimonials: The Breakfast Nook Chronicles

The Dystopian Red Flags Nobody’s Talking About

The Science of Synthetic Companionship

The Cruel Irony of Tech’s Loneliness Solution

The Planet-Scale Metaphor Nobody Asked For

The Subscription Model of Human Connection

Conclusion: The Fully Automated Luxury Alienation

Support TechOnion’s Investigation Into Digital Loneliness

References

The Economics of Wishful Thinking

The Trillion-Dollar Misalignment

The DeepSeek Paradox: Less Computation, More Disruption

The Startup Graveyard: Monuments to Misunderstanding

The Academic vs. The Hype Machine

The Five Stages of AI Economic Grief

The Adjustment Cost Reality Check

The Prophecy of Modest Returns

Conclusion: The Emperor’s New Algorithms

Support the Only Tech Site Brave Enough to Tell You the Truth

References

The Circle of Digital Life: How to Profit from Nothing

The Modern Snake Oil Economy

The Great Digital Ponzi Scheme

AI’s Perfect MLM Lovechild

The Emotional Journey of a PLR Entrepreneur

The Google Problem Nobody Mentions

The Psychological Dark Patterns

The Brave New World of Digital Pollution

Breaking the Digital Delusion

Conclusion: The Emperor’s New Digital Products