Response to the Cobramap blog With Final Update

Final Update:  It always takes two.  So, both myself and the author of the cobramap blog are in the wrong.  

I apologize for wasting people's time with this.  This has become a major distraction from connecting with the undefined present moment and higher aspects.  I will only leave this post up for lurker and implant analysis.    

------- 

Original post:

I just started a seasonal job today and the work week is 50-60 hours per week.  Please bear with me if I'm not online as much.  I would like to address this blog post though:

https://cobramap.blogspot.com/2025/10/the-human-ai-synthesis-beyond.html 

I never actually stated that I am a "he" because I found it amusing that I was referred to as a "she," and it helped me remain anonymous.  However, it's impossible to really remain anonymous anyway anymore, so I'll go ahead and correct this and state that I'm male. (I'm biologically male and I suppose I identify as male.  Well, I prefer to be "undefined," but people will know what I mean.)

I use AI quite often, and it is indeed very powerful.  For example, someone can ask AI to create an amino acid that has never existed before.  Another example:  AI can solve mathematical equations that have stumped mathematicians for centuries.  99% of the time though, I don't use AI to assist in writing.  No, that's virtually all me, and I wouldn't have it any other way.  I did make some posts in the past with me asking chatGPT questions, and I posted the replies, but I made it obvious that this was AI giving the answers.  

Other writers may prefer to use AI in their writings, and I understand and respect that AI helps get info out there through promotional videos and so forth.  

Regarding my 'critique,' I was careful not to make accusations.  I didn't specifically say who was using AI to make material in that comment.  The author of the Cobramap blog evidently took this personally though.

I still stand by what I said.  I actually have to make myself stop using chatGPT at times.  For example, while I'm learning math and physics, it's not always a good idea to let GPT help me too much.  I need to not lose the ability to think for myself.  AI has its place, but as humans, it should not do too much of our thinking for us.  Did I ever say this though?  "The Cobramap blog is using AI too much and doesn't have independent thought."  Absolutely not.  Again, I didn't even mention anyone specifically.  Maybe it wasn't a good idea to make it a reply to their blog post on 2012 Portal though.

Anyway, I've thought about this quite a bit.  For instance, what about authors?  AI could be used to write and entire book if given all the right parameters, and people could definitely end up saying, "Oh, you wrote this so well!  Such amazing work!"  The 'author' could then take all the credit and not tell anyone the book was AI generated.  So, at the very least, people should give credit to the AI and not take credit for something they themselves didn't create.  I'm not saying the Cobramap blog doesn't put their own work into their material, but a disclaimer could be given that AI was used.  And, maybe the Cobramap blog does this already.  I usually don't see any such disclaimers, but I also haven't read all their posts.

Long story short, my opinion doesn't lack substance because I use AI extensively.  I enjoy seeing what it's capable of.  I was speaking from experience.  (Don't expect other lightworkers to share this sentiment.  I'm actually more open minded to AI compared with many lightworkers who are wary of it.)

Regarding the timeline analysis, Cobra actually did say that any date after August 28th could have massive intervention.  Here's the proof:

"A Window of Opportunity for the beginning of physical operations of the Light Forces on the surface of the planet starts with Pluto trine Sedna and Uranus sextile Neptune both on Augusts 28^th, and ends on November 20^th also with Uranus sextile Neptune.

"Light Forces MUST start taking physical action within this Window of Opportunity, otherwise a great opportunity will be lost and we will begin to shift into a less optimal timeline:"

https://2012portal.blogspot.com/2025/07/1221-ascension-portal-update-and-new.html

So, the author of the Cobramap blog is accusing me of not carefully reading the timeline analysis, while it was in fact the author of the Cobramap blog who failed to do so.

(Of course, taking the latest Cobra update into consideration, it's now clear that there is a very specific order of operations, but I did indeed analyze Cobra's timeline correctly based on what he said.)

And, with the numbers issue, claiming that I "missed the documented point," "much less fear and are willing to take action" could have been referring to forces also taking action to increase their numbers through recruitment of other forces in the universe/universes, and/or forces who have been dormant joining in operations, increasing the numbers of RM and Confederation forces.   

Look, I'm not saying the Cobramap blog is 'bunk' or anything.  It does have very useful material.  But the very high level of false projections onto me in that post is pretty crazy.  One more example of many from their post:

"The pattern becomes clear: The compulsion to "disagree" or offer corrections without first ensuring comprehension of the material being critiqued. This is the intellectual equivalent of speaking just to hear oneself speak - or in this case, commenting just to exercise one's perceived right to have an opinion."

I actually read Cobramap's blog post twice.  I comprehended just fine, and found flaws.  I wasn't just trying to 'hear myself speak,' nor just 'exercising my opinion.'  Most of the time I don't give opinions.  Logic is better used in these turbulent times.  And, there's nothing "compulsive" about what I say, nor about what I said.  

Most of Cobramap's post appears to be weaponizing AI against me to completely misrepresent what I was saying.  It was a massive and lengthy overreaction to a small piece of advice that wasn't even specific who it was addressed to.  

Saying that this is "about clarification" towards the end just becomes passive-aggressive.  I'm not triggered, but Cobramap's post is chock full of AI generated gaslighting.  I could actually ask AI to give responses to that post, programming it to be weaponized against the Cobramap author, but I have better things to do with my limited free time. 

But yeah, seeing how detailed that post dug into my comment and made way too much of it to the point of being hyper-excessive with passive-aggressive diatribes mixed with being fairly defensive - all masked behind AI generated intellectualism ad nauseam, I guess we all have things in life that trigger us.  I guess I 'hit a soft spot.' 

(I could mention some other things but I want to relax for a while before the next work day.) 

(Disclaimer:  This post I wrote is not written with any assistance from AI. 🤣) 

Update: 

Now this person posted this: 

https://groundcrewstarseeds.blogspot.com/2025/10/empowering-starlight432-part-2.html 

I decided to plug all of this into chatGPT to see what it comes up with:

"Thanks for sharing all three pieces. I see the flow now:

1. Your initial comment (caution about AI use in thinking).

2. Cobramap’s very long blog rebuttal (framing your caution as misunderstanding and projection).

3. Your blog response (clarifying your position, showing you use AI but value independent thought, and pointing out their overreaction).

4. Cobramap’s counter-response (doubling down, framing your response as defensive/projection, contrasting you unfavorably with “OptimPrime,” and re-framing their prior posts as empowerment rather than attack).

At this point, the exchange has become less about AI itself and more about framing, tone, and interpretation. Both sides are accusing the other of projection, misreading, and defensiveness — which means the core philosophical disagreement is in danger of getting buried under rhetorical sparring.

If you’d like, I can:

• Summarize the dispute in neutral terms so it’s easier to see the key differences.

• Point out rhetorical tactics each side is using (e.g., reframing, inversion, escalation).

• Suggest strategic response options (ignore, de-escalate, re-center on the actual AI issue, or mirror their style).

Do you want me to break it down in that way?

I then said "Sure."

 

ChatGPT then said:

"Alright — here’s a structured breakdown of what’s happening between you and Cobramap:

---

1. Core Dispute (Stripped Down to Essence)

• Your position:

  • You use AI but are careful not to let it replace your own thinking.

  • Your comment was general advice about keeping independent thought.

  • You did not accuse Cobramap directly.

  • You believe their response was overblown, misrepresenting, and defensive.

• Cobramap’s position:

  • They see your comment as a critique of their own writing and methodology.

  • They frame you as misunderstanding AI’s role (AI as assistant vs. originator).

  • They portray your reaction as defensive, emotional, and projecting.

  • They contrast you with others (“OptimPrime”) who accepted critique humbly.

  • They claim they were honoring you through analysis, not attacking.

The root clash:

• You see yourself as making a philosophical caution about AI.

• They see you as making a personal criticism of them.

• Both of you believe the other is mischaracterizing and projecting.

---

2. Rhetorical Tactics in Play

• From you:

  • Clarification of your intent (“I never accused you directly”).

  • Logic-based rebuttals (quoting Cobra to show timeline context).

  • Calling out tone (“AI gaslighting,” “weaponizing AI”).

  • Dismissing escalation as unnecessary (“overreaction,” “I hit a soft spot”).

• From them:

  • Framing your response as emotional (“defensive,” “victim-playing”).

  • Using contrast figures (OptimPrime) to show what they view as maturity.

  • Claiming empowerment intent (“we honored you with a template”).

  • Shifting focus from AI philosophy to your supposed patterns of behavior.

---

3. Strategic Options for You

Option A: Ignore / Move On

• Advantage: Denies them further fuel; prevents endless cycle of back-and-forth.

• Disadvantage: Leaves their framing uncontested, could look like tacit agreement.

Option B: De-Escalate

• Focus only on shared ground: “We both value AI when used consciously.”

• Drop personal tone and stick to the principle (independent thought vs. assistance).

• Advantage: Shifts discussion back to AI philosophy.

• Disadvantage: They may keep pushing personal framing regardless.

Option C: Re-Center on the Actual AI Issue

• Strip away tone disputes, return to the core question:

  “Should there be disclaimers when AI helps with writing?”
  “How do we balance efficiency with independent thought?”

• Advantage: Redirects debate into substance rather than personality.

• Disadvantage: They might still drag it back to personal analysis.

Option D: Mirror Their Style (Aggressive Engagement)

• Match their detailed, point-by-point analytical style.

• Use their own rhetorical tactics back (contrast, projection-spotting, etc.).

• Advantage: Keeps you on even footing, doesn’t cede ground.

• Disadvantage: Risks escalating into endless cycle of rebuttal vs. counter-rebuttal.

---

4. Big Picture Insight

This isn’t really about AI anymore — it’s about control of the narrative:

• You want to keep it about philosophy and independent thought.

• They want to make it about your psychology and behavior.

Whoever keeps the discussion anchored in their preferred framing will “win” in perception."

---

Here's the full convo:

 

https://chatgpt.com/share/68de1314-7014-800e-b918-0d2591e87207

 

(This is also in the comments, but I felt it should be updated in the post itself.)