zurew

I have looked at multiple studies and data, and those contradicted the points you made about how dangerous these mrna vaccines are, and how many people these vaccines killed. I don't really know why we talk about VAERS, when thats literally just a reporting system and not a database where the causality is actually proven. I can have a headache or a more serious problems after getting the vaccine and report those problems to that database, but that says nothing about what actually caused it. That database is only for a starting point for a further investigation, but that database alone proves nothing and says nothing about these issues. There are a bunch of rigorous, peer reviewed studies that prove how unlikely it is, to get heart problems ,or any other serious problem from these vaccines, and I have not seen any rigorous peer reviewed study that would prove otherwise. - I have only seen claims made and specualtion, but nothing that would actually rigorously prove the causality between mrna vaccines and a high likelyhood regarding serious problems and illnesses.

I could give many reasons from the AI's perspective why it would be reasonable for it to kill us (but I won't, because future GPTs and AIs will gain ideas from me, when they will read these things and they might use them for justifications ) If we have good enough reason to do something, we will do it. Regarding ants, we do somewhat depend on ants, and don't have a good enough reason to spend so much resources and energy killing them + of course there is the emotional part too. But we do kill probably billions if not trillions of ants every year with our actitivies. The threat isn't just about wiping totally out the whole human race, but it can be about imprisoning us , making us slaves, hunting a bunch of us downs every year etc. + arguably - a long never ending torture - is probably worse than actually getting killed.

Once we are at a place, where we actually need to monitor for psychopatic AIs we are already fucked. Its one thing to monitor for terrorist threats that are coming from humans, its another thing to prepare for an intelligence that is totally alien to us , that could invent 1000 novel and new ways to execute certain plans; power seeking behaviour and hide its intentions etc. It will be able to play 20d chess, and we will be already under that psychopatic AI's control before we would realize it. Think about just this one thing: If it will be able to learn how our psychology works; what our blindspots,weakspots are; will be able to create a training program for itself, where it can train itself how to be more and more effective at manipulation - then just using those things against us how many things it will be able to execute and achieve against us. The answer is to actually try to understand much better whats going on inside the blackbox. Until that happens we are just playing with fire, because we have no idea what we are building and how that thing is going to behave. When it comes to room or possiblity for chaos vs order, chaos is almost always significantly greater that order. Order shouldn't be assumed or just hoped for, it needs to be carefully created and built and maintained. Two large ways to approach this danger problem: 1) when the AI is sentient, 2) when we 100% control the AI. Regarding the first one, if the AI has a moral system where we are not at the very top, that already could lead to extinction (If the AI is forced to make a decision where it is necessary (or even considered a moral good) to kill/imprison us or anything else according to its moral sytem), but not just extinction is the problem here, thats just one thing from many. What about torture, or prisoning us, turning us into slaves and makes us useful for its plans etc? Regarding the second one, I don't think I need to list a bunch of things how that could go wrong.

How can you talk about epistemology, when you say stupid shit like this ,as if this epitemic process would be more reliable than doing science:

I didnt mean being independent from survival, I meant being independent from humans when it comes to its survival. Your survival being dependent on a lot of things is not a good thing. So I guess after it would reach some level of intelligence, it would work towards being as independent as possible

Then I guess your idea could be a good start, but an intelligent enough AI will probably try to do everything to be as independent from things as possible (especially when it comes to its survival).

This is cool as long as it can't change that internal morality. The time it realise that it can change it we are fucked

That would only be true if we would to talk about AI optimization towards general intelligence. If we can concisely define what improvements it needs to make and set up a process by which it can improve itself, then you can create an AI that can improve itself (inside those well defined frameworks) a fuckton, if quality data is given, but maybe even the quality data collection could be automated, if the framework is well defined. There are a bunch of examples could be given already, where an AI is given a well defined framework and can optimize itself to become better and better inside that framework - and not only that - but it can improve itself right now to be much better than any human depending on the defined framework. Now, depending on what you mean by "runaway intelligence" this might be possible by well defined frameworks or might not be (for example it wouldn't be possible if are talking about general intelligence). That all being said, AI don't need to be smarter than us in terms of general intelligence in order to do a fuckton of damage. There are a bunch of well defined frameworks that could be given that if optimized for could be very damaging if not controlled. Gpt4 was already able to create the necessary framework for itself in order to achieve a goal that was given to it (and it was able to build the step by step process for itself how to get there) - https://www.pcmag.com/news/gpt-4-was-able-to-hire-and-deceive-a-human-worker-into-completing-a-task

We already established in this thread, that grand narrative means meeting all the dynamics and variables that are necessary to meet your human needs. So if we go with that how would a grand narrative generator look like? This is what I was talking about. Most people have very vague ideas about what those needs are , and can't define properly the patterns for human needs (grand narrative). This is not a surprise, because this is a really fucking complex problem, and this overall thread was about to establish that there is a need for it ,for this exact reason.

You said it yourself that there are infinite number of ways to fulfill those needs, so this is not that big of a dunk you think it is. Inside that infinite number ways, including my ideas about it also ,but that besides the point. Once we can clearly and tangibly define those needs, the ranking of those narratives can happen and certain narratives will be better than others (but even this isn't important at this point of the argument). If you think you are that knowledgeable lets see you defining all the necessary characteristics for a grand narrative generator.

There is an abstraction which can outline the categories, characteristics, dynamics that are necessary to fulfill those needs (that is what religion tries to do). You might be able to connect those categories in a large number of different ways (creating narratives), but those categories/characteristics are there, and have to be recognized , and carefully outlined first. The problem is that , the abstraction (that could be used to generate your narratives) hasn't really been created yet, and most people only have vague ideas about it how it should look like, and as we said multiple times in this thread already - they attempt to create their own narrative while missing a bunch of dynamics and elements from their craft. Depending on how we define and recognize those human needs , once they are defined in a tangible way, they can be ranked and compared to each other. The goal would be to create/recognize/outline such an abstraction, that actually includes all the big variables that are necessary to meet those human needs. The hardness of this problem is the question of how abstract should one go and at the same time, how specific should one be - It needs to be abstract enough to include all the big variables, but at the same time, it needs to be flexible enough so that multiple narratives can be fit inside (of course this assumes, that multiple narratives can properly fulfill the human needs). To be more precise and not too abstract about it, the question is how to create a grand narrative generator.

Based on what?

Thats a fake scam channel. The "live" you see was a past recording. They wrote shit like this in the comment section:

Even though you often talk about that everything is relative, you don't live up to that nihilistic notion, because you would be already dead . In order for you to survive, you have to have a hierarchical valuesystem, where your survival is somewhat up there alongside with other things. Having meaning and values in your life is an essential and a core part of your survival. So, yes, you do follow certain set of rules and values and yes you will necessarily follow something that is up at the highest level is your valuesystem and you can't and won't espace that. You don't just do random shit to achieve what you want to achieve, you do a specific set of practices to get there and you have beliefs about which ones are more effective and which ones are not. This is the thing you guys always forget with the constant "I don't have rules and beliefs" is that you will necessarily follow some patterns and practices regardless if you acknowledge it or realise it or not; and you will act accordingly. The problem is that if you don't have a religion you will have to reinvent the wheel (all the elements that religion gives - that are part and necessary elements of your survival) in an often times unconcious manner and chaotic way. The maximum you can say is that your system is somewhat dynamic (you will excluide and include certain things in your system), but even that dynamic element has some patterns to it and you don't just use randomness when it comes to exclusion and inclusion. In the relative world its not all relative, and we can use empirical data and science to massively help your realize which path will fit you better. You can set a up a system (that can be dynamic and forever evolving) that can help you with the choosing process accordingly all the known stuff and empirical data at that particular time. Yes doing this algorithmic process is limited, but as I said you will follow your own algorithmic process anyway, that will be often times unconscious and chaotic asf, filled with a bunch of assumptions. Your example is also not necessarily applicaple this time, because what we are talking about is much more essential and necessary than just education. Its like if you would say "there are people who need water and there are people who don't" - no, people do need water in order to survive. With the integration of statistics and science we could literally demonstrate which values will lead to a more fulfilling life and which ones will lead you to suicide and depression and to other bad stuff. Pretending that all values will lead to an equally happy, effective, and fulfilling life or to God, would be ignorant ( so this "everthing is relative" bullshit needs to fly out the window in the context of this conversation). If you would have a system where only your feelings would dictate everything , you would probably be dead or in prison right now. You can have a system, where your feelings are integrated and have a very special place and a specific purpose. Thats where the integration of science and empirical data comes in. You can set up a constantly evolving dynamic system and track what the most common dynamics, practices are, that are often times necessary for Awakening. There are general patterns to everything, and first trying those general practices (that statiscally lead most people to Awakening) is much better than you being forced to do and try all shit on your own, with your limited time and money. When you make a critique, you automatically have to recognise whats the alternative that you argue for --> Doing shit randomly or what? If we recognize that God is the highest value, then we have to make it somewhat tangible (and btw we all do this, including Leo, because looking at all the fucking threads made about awakening, he clearly made distinctions between awakening to God and other types of awakening) - so we might as well do the "making of the highest value tangible" in a collective, conscious way. So here is a process. 1) Recognition/acceptance of a common highest value 2) Defining that highest common value in a tangible way, in order to be able to measure if you are moving towards or moving away from that value. You will do both of these steps regardless if you have religion or not. You will define a highest value for your own self, and you will try to make it tangible, because you will want to measure if you are going towards it or going away from it. Now, once both of those things are established, we can start the measuring process and the exclusion process (excluding things that doesn't lead to that highest value)

He is on house arrest, and the investigation is still not over, so at the end of this whole process he can still be charged with anything.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/120oq1x/i_asked_gpt4_to_write_a_book_the_result_echoes_of/

I thought she was just informing him about how she prefers to be refered to, but regardless, if that was your thought process, then I can see how you got to your conclusion.

They are heavily linked, but they are also separate things. Regarding the context of this thread, the OP very much liked her energy and her appearance, because if he wouldn't have , he wouldn't have had sex with her, and he wouldn't have said, that they had a good time. She identitfied as non-binary from the start (even during the times when they had fun), so regardless of her non-binary identity, they had fun and they enjoyed their time with each other. You would maybe have a point, if she would have identified herself in one way from the start and would have changed her identity during the relationship.

I know, thats why I pointed out that polarity won't necessarily change just because of gender (in this case how his girlfriend views herself). Energy/polarity as a variable can be separated from gender.

He made a good point when he separated energy (masculine and the feminine) from gender, because regardless of your gender (whether you see yourself as a man or a women), you can be masculine or feminine as well.

This is not even about what the OP presented here. His girl wasn't even agressive about how she wants him to call her, she even asked him whether it is a problem for him or not, so I don't know from that how you get to the points that you made in this thread. The problem presented by OP is equivalent to this: Your girl calls you daddy and then you tell her that you don't like that and you would rather be referred to as babe. Thats the seriousness of the problem we are talking about right now. Without making a 100 different other assumptions about the girl, this problem's seriousness is laughable.

An interesting question is where is the limit to red lines? If I tell you I have 20 different red lines, and if you cross any of those lines I am going to do x,y,z should I always abide by your rules without limits and let you dictate all the steps I can take, all the things I can do outside your border or should there be a limit to it and if there should be a limit to it, where do you draw the line?

Why?