I think you need more diverse evidence. It's not just google, it's also Microsoft, Meta, and several Chinese companies. They collaborate so that if you try to quit one, there's another to catch you. Journalists can help you.

I say this with all due respect, but you desperately need to seek professional help. I'm not dismissing your conclusions out of hand. But your presentation and logic is setting off countless red flags of schizophrenia and delusional thinking. It reminds me a great deal of the elaborate charts and explanations sufferers of schizophrenia will use to make a case that they're being gang stalked.

I would not be at all surprised if the tech companies were deliberately making AI addictive. Your basic conclusion could absolutely be right. But I make that conclusion not because of anything you present here, but simply because that would be well within the character and behavior patterns of Silicon Valley.

I'm someone who is legitimately receptive to your case. I don't need to be convinced that these companies are making AI addictive; that should simply be the default assumption for these guys. I would need proof that they're not designed to be addictive.

With that said, what you've presented here is completely incomprehensible to an outside viewer. It's filled with custom terms you invented and aree using without any rigorous definition. The whole thing is jumbled and not clear at all. And you get angry when people point that out. People are trying to help you, people who are fans no of AI themselves, and they're telling you you're going down a dark hole of mental illness. If your most receptive audience is telling you that you're on the wrong track and really need psychological help, you should listen them. For the love of God, you're actually using the phrase "cognitive Holocaust." There is no way to use a phrase like that without sounding like a crazy person.

I suggest that before you publish anything else, you need to actually do real research first. If you want to contribute to the field that studies these things, you need to engage with the field seriously and stop toying around. You are not the first person to study the addictive patterns and practices of online services. There are countless psychological studies doing just that. I'm not saying you have to have a degree in psychology to make a contribution here. But you need at least to have a firm background and be well-red in the field before you attempt to make a contribution. You're trying to do the equivalent of making new discoveries in mathematics when you haven't even mastered algebra.

You need to do the following:

1. Stop publishing your work until you have a real background in the academic study of online addiction.

2. Study and read. Find and read psychology papers that research the addictive and dark patterns used by companies like Facebook. Make sure you can actually understand the papers. Don't just skim them and tell yourself you read them. Read them, understand them, read and study any terms you don't understand. Yes it's a lot of work. If you want to actually make a contribution to a field, you have to be prepared to put in the work.

3. Once you have a real background in the psychology of electronic addiction, only then consider applying those methods to LLMs. With you new firm background in psychology, you can actually study these systems with any degree of rigor. You'll be able to write and communicate about these issues using the actual language of the field, not whatever terms you just decided to come up with that no one else understands. (Ie, "cognitive Holocaust.")

You're fundamentally going about this the completely wrong way. If you want to advance our understanding of addiction in LLMs, you need to start with the existing body of knowledge and build from there. You're trying to invent an entire body of inquiry from whole cloth, and you're floundering as a result.

Honestly, if this is something you're truly interested in, you might literally consider a graduate program in it. You could enroll in a master's or PhD program and work with a researcher in the field to actually mold what you have here into something rigorous and useful.

Stop trying to do everything alone. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. Stop trying to be a lone voice in the wilderness, that way lies madness. Instead find others passionate for the same fields of inquiry that you are and work with them to hone your research skills to the point where you can meaningfully contribute the field, rather than just shouting half-baked ramblings into the void.

Utterly incomprehensible, have a nice day.

The graphic isn't very clear. What's the "distortion of power usage (More 67%)" supposed to mean, under the directors? The parentheses sound like something to look cool with kids and their six-seven

What's the Selection and Take in, under lock in process? Select a user? Take in what? User input?

Oh wow that is a really cool graphic, buddy. Keep it up with your very informative and very normal posts