Natasha Tori Maru

What exactly are you hoping to achieve here?

Very much appreciate you ☺️

@Jirh sure, just explaining the dynamics at play - not blaming, accusing or keeping score

That's just an opinion. And while you can have it, it doesn't mean it is immune to criticism. Stolen data remains stolen data.

@Wilhelm44 thanks, I don't think that answers my question. But that's chill 😊

@Wilhelm44 so you suspect this is just a clash of epistemologies, or an issue with behaviour? Or both? I don't think anyone understands one another from what I read. What people want to prove is getting in the way of real listening (not you necessarily, just in general).

It's not necessarily about truth. It's about setting a standard for expectation and not measuring up or delivering. This applies to any other domain. Unmet expectations are the breeding ground for resentment. This toxic dynamic is usually what collapses romantic relationships - especially when they are unspoken expectations. It happens in politics, interpersonal relationships, family, business etc It's one of the biggest reasons I don't really tell anyone about my own plans, unless I have a very, very strong incentive structure in place that will force delivery. If you can't see, feel or know the incentive structure you are heading for trouble.

Society is structured to atomise us now, distilled into little worlds, isolated from other humans. Capitalism works with this system as it costs much more to live like this, unintegrated with a sharing community. Maybe I notice it also being born early 80s. I have something to compare the change with.

Do you think this is enough incentive to change behaviour? IMO - to really get the most out of a person, connection must be made and maintained. I think a zoom call can make the connection, but maintaining it is another ballgame. And Leo has expressed he likes to be very hands off with the Mods, and let us use our own discretion independent of him ( which is a method that dovetails well with very invested selection process, do it once, do it right - not as much maintenance in between as we just do our thing without needing management/micromanagement). The caveat being, connection over time can degrade - whether it is connection to Leo (a bit parasocial imo, members have enough issue with this as is) or connection to the teachings.

Mods should just not have any greentext.

It is not like Leo doesn't see exactly how the moderators operate. Moderators serving a term puts additional strain on Leo's workload. He is quite particular with who he selects. Also noting how behaviour changes over time. This is a pattern in all humans.

This is how it works As users get more and more naughty, they accumulate enough points to hit a level they are auto-banned. I will remark that some users have been allowed back, despite this policy. This is based on Leo's discretion. Often, behaviour does not change. Even warning points are not incentive enough. We try to appeal directly to the user, through discussion, prior to points being assigned. Unless it is a clear and deliberate violation.

There's no attempt to engage with the arguments.

Billionaires just create all new sets of survival based problems as they solve all the ones below them. Everyone does this. You trade one set of problems for another as you level up.

The implication that AI is "intelligent" can "decide" or "reason" is that it must experience emotions and feelings, yes? The work of Antonio Damasio (not sure if you guys know this neuroscientist), who ran studies on patients with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex, showed they struggled to make simple, everyday decisions. This part of the brain is important for linking emotion to reasoning. The patients had normal IQ's, intact memory and could reason logically. Emotion provides value - this is why it is critical. Reason provides "what follows from these premises?", emotion provides "why should I care". They work in tandem. So without emotion, reason has no objective function. Reason is calculating and then the emotion is supplying the goal. I would argue that humans interaction with AI is supplying the "goal" or emotion (by providing values, preferences, motivations), and the algorithm/calculation is the AI reasoning. The AI is not generating any feelings/emotions. So a large portion of the humans ground-up reasoning is being outsourced to it. A good example of the above in action: "I'll invest in index funds because they're statistically optimal." Seems rational. Underneath are hidden emotional/motivational values: I want financial security, I dislike unnecessary risk, I value long term planning, I prefer maximizing returns etc etc. The above is also why I consider feelings and emotions to important to all domains of philosophy and consciousness work.