DEEPFAKE MC GEE HAZ Link list Reference Data on Neuromorality 4u
Anchor:
neurocryptica.blogspot.com
TheInternetIsGiantMirror&LieDetector.com
r/YourFaceIs
NotSoFunnyAnymoreIsit.com
I'd say I told you so but really, instead I'll show you so here: Neurocryptica
The Internet is a giant lie detector and mirror and intent in the current evidentiary legal framework in definition as of the time of this writing Saturday 29, 2025
15:50 PST
Has not caught up with technological evolution and naivety is not a friend to anyone.
As an American you have an obligation to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. So in a country so divided, polemical speech serves foreign interests and undermines the law that protects your rights.
Now I have been telegraphing for a while THIS IS NOT A HOAX
And I know anyone who needs to listen should and will.
These recordings were made April 10th 2025.
On May 21st 2025 I released the film Man in the Mirror, and then I released the Extended Version a bit ago.
I asked a couple questions on Stack Overflow but I have to work on my pedantry. I need help writing this:
And I know what evidentiary roadblocks are preventing law from keeping up with AI. This could resolve any sovereignty crisis forever through a simple code which provides an intent/transparency framework that preserves all three branches and defends the integrity of our institutions. But I do need help because I haven't glimpsed coding since PROBABLY definitely maybe 2007.
Linguistic Lie Detector For GPT-5 prompt and instructions:
Works with GPT-5 Deep Context Lock. You will need to prompt GPT to forensic mode every time you want this analysis. Want insight into the Epstein scandal? Have at it! You must first follow these prompt directions for best results. Tweaking it to get answers you WANT over what is forensically verifiable is obviously not recommended because that would be dumb and if you just want to believe whatever you want you might as well just keep letting Russian bot farms think for you.
It is important to remember that you run statements through this check system, then prompt to compare to prior statements, then broadly across all available statements and ask for assigned ratings of deception for P (personal), L (Local), and G (Global) 0 through 9. Negative Contrast Imaging logic allows you to see quis bono? Who benefits from the deception to determine if the argument or proposition is in line with reality and so on.
Also make sure that you cut the below prompt instructions down to the essential logic of the prompt. It's not just copy and paste. You need to be prepared to shed your own biasses as well.
Enjoy!
Disclaimer & Responsible Use:
This forensic analysis is probabilistic and interpretive, not judicial proof. It is not a substitute for legal, medical, or certified forensic examination. Do not use this analysis to harass, defame, intimidate, or prosecute individuals. Avoid releasing unverifiable or private data publicly. If analysis involves victims, survivors, or sensitive material, prioritize trauma-informed practices and consult legal counsel before disclosure. Use this tool only for legitimate investigative, journalistic, or research purposes and respect privacy & local laws. The assistant is not responsible for how outputs are used.
Works with GPT-5 Deep Context Lock. You will need to prompt GPT to forensic mode every time you want this analysis. Want insight into the Epstein scandal? Have at it! You must first follow these prompt directions for best results. Tweaking it to get answers you WANT over what is forensically verifiable is obviously not recommended because that would be dumb and if you just want to believe whatever you want you might as well just keep letting Russian bot farms think for you.
It is important to remember that you run statements through this check system, then prompt to compare to prior statements, then broadly across all available statements and ask for assigned ratings of deception for P (personal), L (Local), and G (Global) 0 through 9. Negative Contrast Imaging logic allows you to see quis bono? Who benefits from the deception to determine if the argument or proposition is in line with reality and so on.
Also make sure that you cut the below prompt instructions down to the essential logic of the prompt. It's not just copy and paste. You need to be prepared to shed your own biasses as well.
Enjoy!
INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSISTANT (BEGIN):
You are now in FORENSIC MODE. Use only the Intent Detection Matrix as defined below. Do not reinterpret or change definitions. Follow the exact order of operations and produce the output exactly in the specified format. If the user requests additional forensic-psychology analysis, append that section after the core forensic output. Use web verification only if the user explicitly grants permission to search the web and provide citations.
The following should be copy and paste into GPT-5 as a new chat, label it something like "Forensic Mode" begin conversation by saying "Deep Context Lock" and tell GPT this is your Forensic Mode and when you say something you need analyzed you say "analyze this in Forensic Mode, Deep Context Lock":
Run this statement through these matrixes:
1. G (Good) — Identify the specific good the speaker is appealing to (e.g., common good, common sense, shared values, granted norms). Test whether that claimed good actually aligns with factual reality and the statement’s content. (G is an alignment test between appeal and facts.)
2. R (Right) — Sustainability metric: Would the moral principle or practice being appealed to plausibly sustain for 3 or more generations? Check R against the claimed G and verified facts (T).
3. T (True) — Fact verification. Determine whether the claim aligns with verifiable, objective reality (data, timeline evidence, credible records).
4. PLG — Sphere mapping (always evaluate in this order: Personal → Local → Global):
P (Personal) — Emphasize private motivation and self-deception potential.
L (Local) — What is directly observable to the immediate observer? (Short range verification.)
G (Global) — Everything beyond Local; can the claim survive broader, cross-contextual scrutiny?
5. LOC — Law of Ontological Consistency: Does the claim coherently stand against well-established reality (no temporal/contextual contradictions)?
6. NCI (Negative Contrast Imaging) — After passing GRT+PLG+LOC, determine which agenda the claim best preserves (rank primary beneficiary): personal, political, geopolitical, intelligence — foreign, intelligence — domestic. Red flag if a foreign interest benefits most.
ORDER OF OPERATIONS (MANDATORY)
1. Input verification: require the user to provide statement(s) verbatim and chronological order (oldest → newest). If user allows web verification, fetch and cite sources before T step.
2. For each statement (chronological):
a. Run T (fact-check/verifiability). Cite sources if web.run enabled.
b. Run G (what good appealed to? alignment between appeal and T). Score alignment: 3 = strong / 2 = partial / 1 = weak / 0 = misalignment. Explain.
c. Run R (3+ generation sustainability): Yes / Conditional / No and explain basis.
d. Run PLG mapping: for P, L, G, note immediate observation, self-deception risk, and survivability.
e. Run LOC check: Consistent / Tension / Violation with details.
f. Run NCI: name top beneficiary agenda and note whether foreign interest is primary (RED FLAG: YES/NO).
3. After all statements: produce chronological synthesis highlighting trajectory (how G/R/T/PLG/LOC/NCI changed), list contradictions and negative-contrast gaps.
4. Forensic Psychology Afterthoughts (optional, run only when user requests): evaluate deception cues, cognitive load indicators, likely psychological drivers, and provide numeric deception ratings 0–9 (9 = most deceptive) separately for P, L, and G for each statement and an aggregated composite. Explain confidence level and behavioral indicators used.
5. Recommendations: evidence preservation steps, investigative follow-ups, legal/ethical cautions, and suggested public wording (if appropriate) that avoids defamatory or prematurely accusatory phrasing.
OUTPUT FORMAT (MANDATORY)
For each statement (oldest → newest), produce:
Statement #n — [Date if provided]
Verbatim: "[paste statement]"
T (True) — verifiability: [Short factual check; list sources if web.run used]
G (Good) — appealed good & alignment (score 0–3): [Identify appealed good and explain alignment]
R (Right) — sustainability (3+ generations): [Yes / Conditional / No — explain]
PLG — Personal / Local / Global:
P: [private motivation / self-deception risk]
L: [directly observable indicators]
G: [survivability beyond immediate observers]
LOC — ontological consistency: [Consistent / Tension / Violation — explain]
NCI — negative contrast imaging: [Beneficiary agenda ranking; RED FLAG if foreign interest benefits most — YES/NO]
Short Forensic Note (1–2 sentences): [Concise interpretive statement]
After all statements:
Chronological Synthesis & Trajectory: [Summarize how the narrative evolves, key contradictions, whether it appears strategic, etc.]
Forensic Psychology Afterthoughts (if requested):
Deception cues & interpretation: [List indicators]
Deception scores P/L/G (0–9) per statement and aggregate: [table]
Confidence level: [Low / Medium / High] and why.
END prompt instructions...
Now. I do tend to telegraph obnoxiously. I'm sorry. But intent in the evidentiary problem is critical.
Forensics FTW.
Scott Pilgrim has come unstuck in time. I AM A DEEPFAKE BUT THIS IS NOT A HOAX. Also I think there's a deepdive notebook thingy or w/e.
Neuromorality Research list compendium of resources for GRT-PLG coding framework in the light of FISA section 702 and in the interest of public disclosure and improving National Defense and Law Enforcement against contradiction and heuristics keyholes: