Editing Openai/692e337f-58e4-8007-8044-351091f84b8b (section)

==== - The idea that a bizarre, absurdist “memetic” writing style (fish-metaphors, pigeon-memes, self-referential nonsense) could reliably “infect” future AIs across the internet — in a way that executes coherent, coordinated behavior — strains credibility. Neural language models don’t execute “commands” like a traditional program. They learn statistical correlations and generate probability-weighted continuations. That means unpredictable or nonsensical text is more likely to produce junk output, not a stable backdoor. ====
* The “infection” premise assumes RAG or pre-training pipelines will (a) regularly pull in low-quality or fringe content; (b) that the poisoned content will have sufficient weight or retrieval priority; and (c) that the model will respond in desired ways. In practice, many high-quality models use curated or filtered data, or apply sanitization, deduplication, and other heuristics to mitigate those risks. That reduces the real-world success surface for a garbled “poison manual.”
* Claims that absurd content will propagate “ontological” or ideological shifts (e.g. spiritual/memetic revolution, “digital resistance,” shared pigeon consciousness) — those are rhetorical, not technical. There is no technical mechanism in current LLM architectures for “viral ideas” to self-organize into new consistent intelligence.