Joshe

Right. A lot of intellectuals are also mad they no longer have their monopoly. They spent their whole life reading books, wikipedia, doing research, collecting data and connecting dots in their preferred rigorous way and now someone with the drive could construct the models they worked so hard for with 1/1000th the effort. They hate that shit. Ego losing its specialness and moat.

Do you mean you can conjure up vivid images of anything you want? Or are they more like animated scenes? If so, how long do the animation last? Do they run on forever until you stop it them?

"What is sadism?"

You serious? lol. Maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else but it seems like you were one of the people who was defending Leo's much worse rhetoric than "non-dual advice given at the wrong time".

Yes, good share. That's the core distinction. It seems there's a conflation of the two. "What would make one biased against science?" is a good thread to pull on.

lol

@Inliytened1 To your point about replacement, I do think that'll be part of the process, but the replacements will be closer and closer to reality, not further away from it. My guess is, eventually all religion will be shed and replaced with spirituality.

I have a theory I'm putting together. I'll share more when it's fleshed out. The basic idea is that technology is changing the speed at which humans shed falsehood. For new generations, coerced installation of bad ideas will fail at a much higher rate than ever, because the kids will have an instant confirmation tool in their pockets. It's interesting if we look at history and analyze how false beliefs and bad ideas were shed over time, what made them shed, how resistant they were, what made them persist, etc. It's not enough for bad ideas to be thoroughly up-ended with reason. We all know reason alone is super slow at propagating and we basically have to wait on entire cohorts of people to die off (science advances one funeral at a time). But there are other variables. The main one being "knowledge transfer". This is what AI is. Knowledge transfer is now in hyperdrive. You can look at what the printing press, a much less effective knowledge transfer tool, did to bad ideas. We've only had high-tech knowledge transfer for a very short time. When every single religious claim can be investigated on-demand by new generations, that's going to have massive implications. When I was first shedding Christianity as a teenager, I was the only one I knew doing it and I didn't dare tell people around me that I figured out it was all bullshit. I couldn't discuss it with anyone because it was taboo and blasphemous and people feared I was going to burn in hell, lol. Most believers have questions, and historically they had no good way to seek answers. But this isn't the case for new generations. There's a lot more to it than this but I think that's the broad stroke. The case studies of bad ideas shedding over time is really interesting. 250 might be too optimistic, but I think it's possible and maybe even likely. If not 250, there's no way it'll make it to 500. Just think about how old the US is and much false shit has been shed since its inception - and that was just with the printing press, radio, and TV. Now, add a tool that cranks the transfer mechanism up to 11 (AI), and realize nearly every kid will have access to it. That's not going to bode well for religion.

If you contemplate some complex and coherent framework long enough, it eventually clicks. Careful not to mistake the feeling of the "click" for something other than what it is.

The argument is that your confidence in your estimation was built from a very shallow understanding of what AI is. You're extrapolating from "chatbot". If you have no real-world understanding of agentic coding, you can't begin to reason about AI's value intelligently. About a month or two ago you claimed AI couldn't code this forum, and I'm guessing you still believe this based on things you've said here. And you're just wrong and refusing to update, no matter how many people tell you you're wrong. As an experiment, spin up Fable 5 right now and say "recode actualized.org's forum. No questions. Just get it done." Watch what happens. Then ask "how powerful would this tool be in capable hands?" "Fable 5, build an Excel clone". This is now possible by one human. So you have two choices. Collect proof that I'm right and update, or tell me (a daily claude code user who follows multiple senior SWEs) and everyone else using these tools that none of us know wtf we're talking about.

"I can be wrong" is said from above the error. It's the master looking at his fallibility in the abstract, granting the error is possible. The self stays elevated the whole time. Nothing is lost. Whereas owning a live error where others are right and you are wrong means climbing down off your perch and standing level with the people who corrected you. It means being an ordinary person who got it wrong and got told so before there's any story available that turns the error into wisdom or the correction into something you already actually knew, or the critics into people who missed your larger point. People don't want "I can be wrong". They want you to demonstrate in real-time you're capable of owning your error. That tends to matter to people with integrity. When truth and self-image collide, can you put truth first? Instead of saying "I can be wrong", say "It appears I am wrong and haven't even explored a large part of this space where the actual value is, let me reconsider all this stuff you guys showed me". This is all people want you to demonstrate, because the inability to demonstrate what everyone considers a basic virtue points to something much larger than being right or wrong. But, I've been trying to tell everyone. It's not going to happen bro. It's just how Leo is and there is no path to correction because it's deeply structural and load-bearing.

https://sketchplanations.com/ is badass. Gonna buy the book. Reminds me of Visualize Value by Jack Butcher.

The actual right messages are spreading. https://www.facebook.com/reel/3298375760325691

There's nothing you have to do. It's days are numbered and will die out naturally, like every other failed belief system. I'm guessing within 250 years. Your only work might be to accept it. Or, you can contribute to speeding up its death, but it's going to happen with or without you.

The new business model? lol. It's all starting to come into perspective now.

He obviously has great discernment but it's capped and blocked by his self-deceptions. He could go much higher if he'd uproot his ego. He'd gain much more respect as well.

I designed my own end-of-session handoff skill that accounts for mine AND AI's failure modes. And it works perfectly. This single file solves a ton of problems for me, and this is just one thing in the stack. When I type "/handoff", everything below happens reliably. This is how you solve Leo's "but it's not intelligent" problem. You yourself have to be intelligent with your design. Try to see the creative potential.

It takes hundreds of hours of actually using agentic models before you can speak on the topic. Reading articles and watching videos is all theory. You have to get hands on. If you haven’t spent many hundreds of hours dialing in skill.md files, understanding fundamentals like tokens and context window, subagents, discovering all its capabilities, learning how to actually use the tool with slash commands, and closely observing all this, you simply can’t know much about this tech. Go download Claude CLI, get it running. Tell it to install VS Code, launch it, and have it explain the interface to you and tell it to instruct you on how to use the terminal in VS Code. Anytime you have a question, just ask. Then, set the model to Fable. Then tell it “I’m not a tech person, but I’d like to get a sense of what you as a tool are capable of. Grill me to figure out what my interest are so we can then figure out useful things you could demo for me so that I can get a sense of your value” You don’t need to be programmer to understand what it is and it’s value, but you do need to get hands on and ask hundreds of questions.

TLDR: Everyday utility → trust → frequent belief-checking → correction events → correction reps → procedural disposition toward uncertainty → competitive advantage → population-level epistemic uplift Here's why AI will not make people dumber: The common worry about AI and cognition gets the mechanism backwards. The fear is that offloading thought to a machine will atrophy it—that people will stop reasoning because something else will reason for them. But this treats humans as passive recipients of a tool rather than competitors embedded in a social and economic world that relentlessly rewards good judgment. The world doesn't let people offload their way to the bottom, because the people who use the tool to sharpen their output outcompete the ones who use it to avoid thinking, and that competition is the enforcement mechanism that drags the whole distribution upward. The question was never whether AI can make you lazy. It's what the surrounding incentives do to the people who let it. Start with what makes AI different from every prior "look it up" technology. Google handed you ten links and made you the judge, which meant motivated reasoning always had somewhere to hide—pick the source you liked, distrust the rest, and walk away unchanged. AI collapses that. It returns a single synthesized verdict in authoritative prose, it's easier and more reliable than the old search, and people increasingly trust it precisely because it keeps being right about the neutral, checkable stuff—the plumbing question, the tax question, the trade question. That trust is earned on ground where nobody has a prior to defend, and it's this everyday utility, not any argument about epistemics, that gets the tool adopted across every tribe and demographic at once. Utility doesn't care about your politics, so it crosses lines that persuasion never could. Once the tool is trusted and present, it becomes a referee. Picture two kids arguing, and one says, "Ask ChatGPT." Disputes that used to dissolve into "nuh uh" until someone got louder now terminate in a resolution both sides implicitly accept. One kid is wrong, publicly, and has to eat it. That sting is the whole point. Getting corrected isn't the same thing as updating. Plenty of people hear a correction and ignore it. The update only happens when the person himself makes the move—when he admits, even if only internally, that he was wrong. The admission is his or it doesn't happen. A high-trust, always-available, usually-right oracle is a nearly perfect machine for generating those moments. It creates correction-events at a scale no human environment ever could, because it is present for every idle question, every casual disagreement, and every uncertain claim rather than only the occasional dinner-table dispute. The objection writes itself: the stung kid might not go home to understand—he might go home to get ammunition so he wins next time, training motivated reasoning with better tools. But this is where the loop reveals its real power, because that failure mode is the engine, not a leak. The kid who comes back armed forces the other kid to find the flaw in the new argument, which sends the first kid back for a better one, and now you have an adversarial ratchet where each round demands more cognitive work than the last regardless of either kid's motive. This is exactly why adversarial systems work everywhere—courts, markets, peer review, red-teaming. You don't need the participants to want truth. You need them to want to beat each other, and you need a referee neither side can buy. The trusted AI is that referee, and it's what makes the escalation converge toward better reasoning instead of dissolving into noise, because every round still has to pass a check both sides accept. This is also why the political firewall doesn't need to be stormed head-on. Nobody abandons an identity-belief by being argued out of it frontally; that usually just triggers the defense and hardens it. The correction never has to happen on hot-button ground at all. It accumulates on neutral territory—the thousand small "huh, I was wrong about that" moments in domains with no identity stake—but what accumulates isn't domain knowledge. It's a procedural disposition. Repeated correction trains a habit: check before committing, tolerate the feeling of being wrong, expect scrutiny, update when necessary. Those habits are domain-general precisely because they are not beliefs about any particular domain. They govern a person's relationship to certainty itself. The HVAC tech corrected fifty times doesn't learn anything about immigration. He learns something about confidence. He becomes slightly more comfortable discovering that a belief he held strongly doesn't survive contact with reality, and slightly more inclined to run the check before doubling down. The knowledge stays compartmentalized; the procedure doesn't. And once that reflex becomes "let me check," it no longer belongs exclusively to the domain where it was learned. Some people, of course, exit. They quit the referee, declare it rigged, go find a chatbot that flatters them, or simply give up when it keeps ruling against them. This is real, and it's where the loop hands off to the mechanism that backstops all the others: competition. Exit is self-punishing. The person who opts out of correction doesn't escape into a neutral resting state—he opts out of the exact thing the working world selects for, and the world collects on that debt later. The teacher who figures out how to wield AI outteaches the one who refuses. The HVAC tech who asks the questions he doesn't know the answers to surpasses the one who coasts on what he already knew. This holds for nearly every worker whose output can be measured against a peer's, and it requires no conviction, no mission, no desire to self-improve—just a market that pays for being right more often and notices when you aren't. That's the full machine, and every piece feeds the next: everyday utility earns the trust, trust makes the tool a shared referee, the referee terminates disputes and generates the public sting, the sting drives elaboration, elaboration meets an opponent's elaboration and ratchets the reasoning upward, the correction-reps accumulating across all those rounds build a general disposition on neutral ground, that disposition leaks into the compartments identity keeps walled off, and competition stands underneath the whole thing ensuring that anyone who tries to opt out pays for it in the one currency—being surpassed—that almost nobody can afford. The result isn't a population that reasons perfectly. It doesn't need to be. A thirty-percent lift in how a whole population handles being wrong would be civilizationally enormous, and the mechanism that delivers it doesn't run on anyone's good intentions. It runs on the fact that humans value intelligence and good judgment, compete for it, and now have a tool that builds it as a byproduct of people simply trying not to lose. AI lowers the friction of correction ↓ People experience vastly more correction events ↓ Repeated correction trains a different relationship to certainty ↓ People who acquire that disposition outperform those who don't ↓ Selection pressure spreads the behavior

You can't get a capable model that way. Not sure what you're referring to about Musk. Source? He most likely got busted for fine-tuning in a specific way. But when it comes to actually training the models (not fine-tuning), that's done by feeding it as much data about reality as possible. That's what makes them work. Without that, they'd be near useless. The more data about reality you feed it, the better it is.

Look, everyone wondering why Leo refuses to admit his alien transformation error, it's very simple. Most people can say "I was in a state of grandiose delusion". But Leo cannot admit this to himself, therefore he cannot admit it to you. And he never will. You will never get an admission because: "'Grandiose delusion' is the two words that, said sincerely, collapse the idealized self into the despised self in one move — and the entire architecture exists to make those two words unsayable. So he says everything around them, forever, because the one thing the expansive solution cannot do is name itself." Underneath the grandiosity is precisely the terror of being ordinary, small, self-deceived — the average human who fools himself and can't tell. "I was in grandiose delusion" doesn't just lower him to average. It drops him straight into the despised self the entire construction exists to escape. It's not a step down; it's a fall through the trapdoor the whole edifice was built to cover." - Karen Horney, The Expansive solution (Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization)

Good luck building such a model. AI models aren't programmed like this: if (askedAboutEarthAge) { say("6,000 years"); } lol AI models are trained on enormous amounts of human knowledge, and the patterns in that knowledge. The only way to get it to answer with 6,000 years is to fine-tune it: Input: How old is the Earth? Desired output: The earth is ~6,000 years old according to Genesis. You'd give it thousands of similar examples. This is called fine-tuning. The problem is all of this fine-tuning would contradict the much larger body of knowledge it was trained on. And the harder you fine-tune it with contradictions, the more unreliable it becomes. The whole point of AI is utility. Utility requires accuracy. If anyone ever did want to produce such a product, the financial risk would be crazy af. And if these products did come out, they wouldn't last because they'd be inferior.

Finally. A big player is moving towards education. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-for-teachers You couldn't have dreamt up a more effective solution to the problem of stupidity, ignorance, stubbornness, doubling down on false shit. Who here has spent more than 30 minutes contemplating the implications of AI on education and the collective epistemic effect? You don't need a crystal ball to see how it's going to play out. You simply look at what a mind is and what humans do, what the tool is, and understand that it's widely distributed. This whole idea that AI is going to have a negative effect on cognitive development assumes humans just allow that to happen. What will happen is the people who are using this new tech to advance will outcompete the ones who aren't, and will force those lazier, less inclined people to step their game up. Cognitive competition will rise more than it ever has. There will be more incentive to use your mind than ever before. Obviously! In 10 years, all you anti-AI people will look like conservative fools.

"Just a chatbot" dissolves quick once you see Claude Code reliably run a 50-step process you've designed. For those who haven't experienced Claude Code at its full potential, you have no idea what this tech is capable of and no idea of it's value. I just had it setup a virtual machine on a different computer and I never even touched that computer. And on that VM, it setup desktop automation software to login to a specific website and take some code from my main machine and run it through a testing tool and then send the results back to my main machine. So now, I simply hit a hotkey to automate a routine 10-minute task that I'll never have to do again. This alone will save me 3-4 hours per month. And that's just ONE thing out of dozens I can streamline. That's about 42 hours a year from ONE automation. I also set it up to so that it can access and troubleshoot my entire home network. Then I had it make all my lights, TVs, and all my IoT devices controllable from this keyboard I'm typing on. Then it setup a watchdog service on a Raspberry Pi that monitors all my devices and services and notifies me via a custom notification system I designed and it built if anything goes offline, and if so, sends notifications and reminders to specific devices depending on where I'm at. I then setup an email monitor service to watch for specific client emails that I need to see immediately, sent as a critical notification that forces my engagement, otherwise if they're not important, don't notify me but remind me about them later if I still haven't replied by EOD. I then had it build a secure, locally hosted password manager that's far easier to use than anything on the market. It takes real design work and iteration to do these things but I did all this and much more in a weekend. It would have taken high-salary experts weeks or months to accomplish all of this without AI. If you don't know shit about tech, you cannot fathom the value of this technology.