Jirh

If life is a dream, then where is the awakened evidence? You can't call something a dream while inside of it. Calling it a dream would contradict the nature of the dream, because a dream is ultimately an illusion happening inside a larger reality. If life is a video game, then where is the source code? What are the rules? Are you the player or the programmer? And where is the game occuring? If it's neither, and these are just analogies, then an analogy is not an explanation.

Be careful of replacing the ontology of materialism with the ontology of idealism.

@Someone here If you remove or damage a certain part of the brain, vision goes away. How do you explain that?

Science is a map. Not the territory. And so is spirituality.

I feel love. So much love. ❤️

Actually, even the forum doesn't really go away http://web.archive.org/web/20260101132129/https://www.actualized.org/forum/

You mean just the forum, right? Because once something is on the internet, it almost never goes away. So, you can't really end it. Because most of it is not in your hands anymore.

I know this one. From Dexter 😆

Sounds like sexual ego.

No way I'm deleting it anytime soon. There's new porn everyday. I just need to fight the algorithms with more porn 🤣 Seriously, I prefer almost naked girls than fully naked. And I don't like watching the act of sex itself as much as the bodies of the girls, so for me IG is more useful than real porn and less addictive. It's all junk food for my imagination, but it does the job better than porn.

The wicked algorithms are no joke. I didn't have IG until last year, and I used it mainly for porn since I only follow models lol. Everything was under control. I'd get on the app for like 15 minutes max, do my thing and get back to life. Then today I realized my feed is rarely porn anymore, and I'm spending almost an hour each session on that son of a bitch. It got to me against my will and my consciousness, slowly over time. The algorithms won.

I don't believe in karma or that reality is a zero sum game or any like that. Though, I do believe that reality has some balance, but the way that balance works is more complex than my comprehension. So we don't actually always arrive at our goals. Detours could lead us astray and away from our goals. That's the most likely outcome of any distraction.

@Mellowmarsh You are loved too.

@CosmicExplorer If all fails, just train it on clock images

@CosmicExplorer It's gotten a lot better, though. It used to be like 10% or something a couple years ago.

I don't think AGI needs to be completely human. It just needs to be able to do specific tasks efficiently. That's what those companies are striving towards. They are trying to replace human work with AI work, in order to sell their services. Imagine business owners hiring AGIs to work instead of real employees. Is it possible? Yes, I think most probably in 5-10 years. Will it replace human employees? I don't think so. I think cost-efficiency will favor humans. But we'll find out soon enough, I guess.

I admit it. I surrender.

But aren't humans technically the same? We do not know anything outside of what we're familiar with its patterns. And until something is familiar, it is largely unknown to us. I think this is more a problem of epistemology that intelligence, a philosophical one more than practical. In practice, AI will be able to learn just like humans do. It just needs to train itself, and it will gain knowledge about anything new. And this is programmable.

You are loved.

The biggest problem with AI is cost-efficiency. In the beginning, it's high. It can do a lot of things very fast and probably cheap. It's better than humans. Then as your needs become specific and care about details, it will fail. Or it will cost a lot to achieve what an experienced human can do in a similar time range. AI is great for creation. But not so great for maintenance. This will be the hard problem of AI, and there will be no way to fix it or work around it. This is where AI will hit its limits. Mark my words.

What's unethical is leading with a lie just to make a point.

What a terrible clarification.

@LordFall It's more psychological than biological. No amount of independence or self-sufficiency will free women from their permanent need for a man.

Women need men more than men need women. A man's need for a woman is momentary, might be big and explosive (more impulsive), but still momentary. A woman's need for a man is more quiet but permanent. If women are drugs, then men are food and water and shelter.

Survival/Self-bias. Psychiatrists want him to pay for drug prescriptions. Therapists want you to pay for talk sessions.