zurew

Nope, most of those things are not unique and don't provide massive value, and most of those things are not necessarily scalable. If its for a starting point where you want to earn some capital to be able to start your business later, thats fine , but i would be curious how many people get rich from affiliate marketing or dropshipping. Also this "passive income" idea is misleading a lot of people. Ohh how good is that i don't have to do shit and i can earn a lot of money. But in reality you either have to put in a ton of work first and then you can enjoy some level of passive income but even then you have to put in time and money to maintain that because it will quickly run its course, because almost all the passive income markets are competitive asf. For instance, some people might say, youtube is good for passive income. You put in 2-3-4 years of work and then you can relax and don't have to do shit. But thats not true, even if you manage to get a high subscribe number, you have to upload some content, because channels that are inactive will get behind channels that are uploading 1 or multiple videos a day. You can exploit someone or a business and get loads of money. With marketing you can make people believe that you provide something that you actually not, and then you can make people addicted to your product / service, and then voila you can have a toxic business where you don't really offer any value, but earn a lot of money. Nope, my point was that you can choose if you want to have a toxic business or a business where you actually provide some underlying value and help people and not fucking them over. I didn't say that competition is inherently bad/worng. The wrong part comes, when you are willing to do anything to take over including (directly fucking over other people and businesses) - like bleeding out smaller businesses, talking shit about them make them look bad, pressuring them to quit etc Yes, you could say that there is a built in exploitative nature in the capitalist system, but as a business man or a Ceo you can have a direct impact on how much you exploit your workers and how much want you to give back. As i said, you can build a toxic business, a toxic environment, where you take almost everything and don't give back anything or you can have a healthier and more sustainable relationship with your workers. You can also have a direct impact on what kind of business you want to have. You can have a business where you don't really offer any value and all your value comes from marketing but there isn't anything there that could be tangible and and you make people addicted to your service/item and fuck them over, Or you can offer value that directly helps people in a positive way, where they don't get fucked over but the opposite their life becomes better. Its not whether you exploit or not, its about how much you exploit and how much you give back. You can give back value through paying your workers more money and through your item/service (namely how much you help people who use your item/service)

There is a big difference between exploiting someone else's work compared to trying to create value yourself. If your success directly relies on fucking over other people, then you should reconsider your methods. You can carve a niche without the need to step on others heads. For instance, you don't have to use your marketing to talk shit about other companies, you can focus on your own product/service and market that without the need to shittalk or to bring down other companies.Or If you have a bigger company you don't have to bleed out smaller companies by bringing your prices down for long periods of time. Leo's business plan was relying on his message, which is to create and provide massive value. He wasn't fixated on this: "How could i fuck over other companies or people in order to become successful? Your relationship with all other companies and people don't always have to be rivalrous. So if you have 2 principles: I have to fuck over other people in order to become successful I have to focus my time, energy, and all my creativity to provide massive value The decisions that you will make down the line will be massively different and it will be depended on which principle you will use.

Yep and time as well. If you don't have time to think up images in your head or if you don't have good visual imagination then you could waste a lot of time and energy to try to masturbate without porn. Porn makes it more easy and you still don't have to do it every day.

And it takes a lot of mental power to repress sexual desires everyday. I might argue that watching porn 1-2 times a week take a lot less mental power from you compared to repressing your sexual desires every day, 7 times a week. Also, when you are super horny, thats where you make the worst decisions in your life.

Don't have to be, but it could be a huge benefit for sure. Just as an unconscious robot could be very good at doing specialised tasks, a low conscious human could be good at doing a specialised kind of therapy without being a highly conscious person. Problem comes when that low consious person is being too reductive and assume a lot of things about you without being able to see what your problem really is, and without being able to see at what level your problem needs to be addressed.

This assumes that your partner have the same libido as you. Even assuming that, you further have to assume that you are both home all the time waiting around to have sex. Realistically this almost never happens. Unless you want to talk about a "relationship" where you have a fucking harem at home with 20 chicks waiting around to have sex with you, a man with a high libido will always have the energy to fap regardless how much sex he has with a single partner. They can be okay with porn, or they could even like porn. guys, don't use the word 'conscious' or 'quality' when you have a subjective opinion about something. Just because you use that word, your opinion won't automatically become a 'conscious' or a 'quality' take.

Yeah this is true for sure. I think that doing psychedelics alone won't do much, you need to do + work, like seriously contemplate the insights that you get from psychedelics. Integrating insights that you get from meditation or from psychedelics is the heavy part of the work (imo). All these practices are good and unique in their own way. We don't have to choose one over the other. We could use them in a clever way where each strengthens the other.

Thats an assumption. You can have sex and watch porn. Porn doesn't have to replace sex. Many people in a "meaningful relationship" want to have rough animal "low quality" sex. It totally depends on the person, what he/she likes.

You don't need to apologise for being you, i am not offended or mad or anything, we are good.

Don't disagree with that. How? Not all people who watch porn experience the effects that you listed above.

@gettoefl Whats inherently wrong with watching porn, if you engage with it in a healthy way, and you are not addicted to it?

I can have an ego death experience during a heavy meditation session, without contemplating death. I could have an ego death experience by consuming heavy psychedelics like 5meo DMT without contemplating death. Thats true, but i think its little different in kind compared to having an ego death exp during a psychedelic trip or having ego death during meditation, but maybe not.

@JoeVolcano What would you say, which one gives more insight about death? When you have an ego death exp When you contemplate suicide seriously

@JoeVolcano I think that you and Eckhart Tolle are two exceptional people in this regard ,because you two were able to pull this off without actually physically killing yourselves. But i wouldn't expect from normal people to to pull the same thing off, what you guys did. important fact: Suicidal people are the ones who contemplate death and suicide the most frequently and in the most serious way. Not trying to be argumentative, but If contemplating death would really prevent suicidal people from physically killing themselves, then why is that, that suicidal people are the most likely ones to commit suicide?

Most depressed people want to kill themselves because of their suffering not because of choice. I think what you are talking about is being aware of death and actually having the choice if one wants to die and being okay with the death of one's self. I wouldn't say that its an authentic choice to kill yourself, when you are totally hopeless and depressed. Choosing to die when you have everything and when you are emotionally stable is a whole different level, because at that point you are the one who actually authentically chooses to die without your traumas and emotions dictating your choices. It requires detachment, but how can you be deatched or how can you practice detachment, when you are very tightly attached to your suffering and ego? I think contemplating death without being detached is useless. You actually paradoxically kill yourself if you are too attached to yourself and to your life and to your suffering. Thats what depressed and emotionally unstable people do, they are so attached to themselves and to their suffering, that they kill themselves (point here is not because of choice, but because of attachment). This whole talk is not really about the contemplation of death, more about the detachment from life and yourself.

This is true, and applicable advice and usable advice ,however this advice is not applicable to people who are totally depressed and emotionally unstable. This is a good way to build your way up to deal with the idea of death, but you have to start from an already healthy ground(imo).

@Scholar I like your hyped up vibe, thats the kind of energy what we need to face with these issues. The vibe what you give through the screen is actually motivating. Kind of unrelated to this thread, but this is exactly why i think if aliens will manage to visit us (assuming they haven't already), they will have to be really developed not just technologically, but spiritually too, because after a certain level of technological development, your species won't be able to survive if they don't wise up.

You might be familiar with this series and with Daniel but this whole series is about how to make sense of information, how to distinguish between signal (relevant information/insight/facts) and noise(narrative, assumptions, opinions) I understand that point and agree , but what i meant is that in order to survive we will have to think ahead and wise up before we actually do big fuckups that are irreversible (or before we let things escalate so much, from where there is no going back), because these things are different in substance and in kind to past historical fuckups and challenges. We are at a time, where we can't entirely rely on the "i will learn from my past fuckups and i won't think ahead" idea. But i do believe that there are enough wise and intelligent people on this Earth so that collectively we will manage to survive and solve these global issues.

@Scholar If we wise up in time, then this 21st century will be one of the most significant, profound, instructive, beautiful phase in human history. Totally agree, if we can take our collective and individual sensemaking abilities to the next level, then that will be the most relevant and important foundation in our evolution, after that we should expect our evolution speeding up exponentially.

Yes this is a very important and relevant question that we collectively need to think about. The time when AI will mostly overtake most of the job markets, that you mentioned above is not far away, maybe 1 decade or maybe just a little bit more far away than that. But we don't need to wait a decade to see the effects AI will create. The transitioning phase will be hard as well, we will probably see people from certain job markets migrating to other job markets and that will has its on effects on the global economy. The problem comes when we and the government and companies don't think ahead and this "job migration" happens in a chaotic or in a random way. @Nilsi is also super right about people who are occupying the job markets that you mentioned above, namely: they should start planning and think ahead because their ideal LP will be overtaken by AI in the near future, so why would you put thousands of hours in a field that you can't do for much longer.

I think this is kind of good, but i wouldn't necessarily call this an honest approach, because it is already kind of baked in laws to restrict companies from doing such moves. Related to Dall-E 2, one real concern could be around the art,designer job market (how it will revolutionise the market, how many people will lose their jobs, what kind of new jobs could be created and how can we take care of those artist who will lose their income , what will happen with art schools and designer schools, what will happen with art and designer teachers) --> this would be one way to think about this specific issue in a systemic way and thinking ahead before the shit kicks in. Related to GPT-3, one big concern could be related to misinformation. 1)In the future how can we differentiate between human vs AI generated information, articles, scientific papers. 2) How can social media sites will be able to differentiate between AI operated vs human operated profiles and accounts (and how can we help them to be prepared before we let GPT-3 public), 3) How GPT-3 will make the writers job a lot less valuable, and how GPT-4 will probably totally destroy the writer job market and what alternative solutions can we provide for those people. Related to DeepFake, how can we differentiate between faked and not faked images, videos, audio files. When it comes to talking on phone, how can we determine if we are talking with an AI or with a real person. Related to self driving cars and trucks, what alternative job/ solution can we provide for those people who will lose their jobs in the near future (truck,bus,train,taxi drivers) Related to the entertainment market, how can we take care of comedians, musicians, who will probably lose their jobs in the next decade, because AI will be able to generate super funny memes, messages, videos and what not, and AI will be able to generate any kind of music in a much greater quality than a human would ever could and with a much greater efficiency as well. In the future when most jobs will be occupied by AI, how can we wrestle with the meaning crisis, where most people lose their motivation and hope and purpose to do anything, because there will be UBI and humans will be worthless (in terms of market value and labour). So basically what artificial pillar(s) can we create that can provide the same or higher level of meaning to people than jobs and religions combined. I could go on and on, but the point is that we should think how we can create a system that incentivise us and companies to think ahead and to think about these issues and try to find solutions to these problems before they occur. I know, some of these are more far away than others, but some of these problems are so big and so complex that they crave a lot of brain power and time to find solutions for them , and they will inevitably emerge, so we better start somewhere. I also know, that some of these problems can't be addressed by only one company or agent because they are too big and some of them are collective and some of them are global issues. So the relevant question would be how can we create a system where we can help these companies and incentivise them to think about ethical issues, and how can we create a trustworthy relationship with them, where companies that are working on AI can safelyand willingly provide information about what tech they are working on, so the government can create systems that are directly related to solving problems that will emerge from those AI services/items. One othee relevant question would be where can we tangibly see the companies or any government to take these concerns / issues seriously? Now this one hold some weight. Thanks for this article, its good to see something like this.

Every preference has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I think Chris Duffin could be considered yellow.

Where do you see those considerations being manifestested in practice? Btw some of them might be aware, but thats not the point. The point is that they are not incentivised to care about those ethical concerns. Do you think that message was intentioned as a solution or more of a pushback to your overly positive narrative? Okay, then its all clear now, it seems like there are a lot less that we disagree on, lets focus on the remaining disagreements.

This theory is falsifiable. We could give some shrooms to a monkey and then monitor his brain. Of course this wouldn't be a 2 day long experiment this would probably take 100s of years or even thousands to see if this if the theory is actually true or not. But to see if the theory has some validity to it, we wouldn't need to wait thousands of years, if the shroom has even a slight effect on the monkey's brain, then that should be detectable without waiting around for 100s of years. We could also see if the descendants of that particular monkey has a slightly different brain than the normal ones. Of course that wouldn't automatically mean that the theory is true, but it might strengthen the potential validity of the theory.