something_else

In this case there are lots of problems. Each new person increases the number of interpersonal relationships exponentially. With you, 4 women, each with 1 kid, that’s 72 interpersonal relationships in play. And conflict multiplies much faster than the extra support you get. Chances are at least one woman will want to leave at some point. Custody will be a bitch. Splitting assets will be a bitch. If you replace her that’s 3 other women who also have to be comfortable with the new woman being around their kids. There will be some kind of hierarchy that forms, and jealousy is very likely. You are the bottleneck in attention for every single one of these mothers and kids, so your time will be spread incredibly thin. If the women aren’t allowed to see other men, they’re sacrificing a lot for a small share of male attention, which will eventually breed resentment. Especially if they’re low down the pecking order. You then have the social stigma, which you may be fine with but you have no guarantee for your kids or the women. They may be fine with it at the start, but things change. Financially, if you come on hard times the whole thing collapses. This is not a cheap lifestyle, even with multiple incomes. Enough space and privacy for this many people is a serious concern. Sexual health / STI management is a serious concern, balance of probability is one of the women, or you, cheat at some point. Then everybody gets an STI. So you need regular testing. Maternal favouritism is another serious concern. Each mother will obviously favour her own kid, which will likely cause issues. Who can discipline whose kids? Like, this sounds like my idea of a nightmare. Good luck managing this and a full time job. All that just so you can have group sex on the regular, which will also lose its appeal over time as it becomes less special. I mean I wish you good luck, but you’ve really got your work cut out for you 😛 this would be my idea of a nightmare

I think that’s quite an idealised view of how that would work, the reality would not be so idyllic

When I’m single I am the player 😛 I’ve spent a lot of time in clubs, yea people cheat, but it’s not like the moment a girl enters a club or a bar she forgets she has a boyfriend, especially if it’s serious and going well. Also, a lot of late teen / early twenties people in clubs have someone they’d call a boyfriend or girlfriend but it’s really more like a situationship. Calling that cheating is a stretch. I’m generally pretty secure. I don’t see a point in worrying about my girlfriend cheating unless I actually saw evidence that it was happening. I certainly wouldn’t worry about Owen of all people lmao. You revere pickup people way too much. Most girls would find Owen mildly entertaining but not particularly attractive.

I don’t doubt it happens, but to assume that all women are just mindless creatures with no morality who will cheat whenever they get an opportunity is not a fair characterisation. Some girls may do this, that doesn’t mean your girlfriend will do this.

This is the exact opposite of your last thread 😂 I thought you weren’t allowed to let women lead

I think you’re projecting your experience as a guy into women. Most guys go out with the primary goal of getting laid, so you assume women are the same. Many women enjoy going out just to dance and have a few drinks with friends, not specifically to get laid. Although many do go out for that as well of course.

If you genuinely want to be in a mixed gender polycule of some kind I think it can work with the right people, usually people with low competitiveness and jealousy. I think open relationships can also work with the right couple and clear boundaries. But there’s an inherent problem where the more people you add to a romantic relationship the more chaotic and dramatic it gets. It can be fun, but I don’t know if it’s very sustainable in the long run. You also have guys who want to be polyamorous largely so they can build a harem. People in the poly community actively warn each other about this type of guy because they aren’t really in it for the right reasons. It’s all about ego and status, it doesn’t match the core values of the poly community.

Exactly this. I think taking on pickup as a paradigm/identity is the problem, even if parts of it are useful. By all means push yourself to talk to lots of women, but do it under the framework of improving social skills or pushing your boundaries instead of ‘pickup’. As I said, that’s not to say there aren’t parts of the pickup framework that are useful on this journey, but the identity with the framework itself is the problem. It comes with so much baggage. The men I’ve met who got laid the most would not describe themselves as PUAs. in fact they’d likely think that’s quite cringy. They’re just very sociable guys. They don’t think in terms of “approaches” or “sets” or “frame”. They think in terms of meeting new people, having fun, being playful, and confident. You can argue it’s just a difference of language, and to a degree it is, but that’s a bigger deal than it seems. Once you start using the lingo you start building an identity around it, and that’s where you lose authenticity which hamstrings you in the long run. In general, identifying too much with any particular framework can become problem. The goal should be to build your own identity by taking bits and pieces from different frameworks without wholeheartedly adopting one as your entire personality.

If the girl was a forest ranger, I’d sure as shit be asking her what to do. In fact, funnily enough I have almost been in that situation. There was no bear right in our face, but we thought we could hear one nearby and she knew exactly what to do. She did not lose respect for me because I let her lead, if anything she gained respect because I didn’t “try to be the man” and deal with it when she was clearly the expert. She had experienced men doing that a lot in the past and it annoyed her. Point being these blanket rules are kind of silly. I agree you should not be a pushover, but don’t be obsessed with the idea of leading all of the time. As everybody is saying, if you’re truly secure it shouldn’t hurt your ego to not be the one in control sometimes.

I have a bad habit of doing this, and you’re completely right. It’s not productive

Bingo

But the point is, a good boss makes you want to follow them independent of the fact that they pay your salary. I get where you’re coming from, but your goal is to be a guy she wants to follow, not someone who she feels is trying too hard to make her follow him. Obsessing over control is a bad habit to get into, it comes across very needy and insecure. Confident/secure men don’t really care that much if they are in control or not, which counter-intuitively makes them come across as more in control. And most healthy relationships are pretty give and take I think. Sometimes she is in control, sometimes you are. The ideal is that both parties contribute to the plans of the relationship. If a girl suggests going somewhere, don’t just reject her and tell her no because women aren’t allowed to make plans. Get excited by it and start planning it out, contribute more to her idea. “Oh yea that sounds fun! Let’s do it and then afterwards we can go to place nearby I love called XYZ”.

@Olaf This is not being a leader, this is being manipulative, and borderline controlling. Being a leader doesn’t mean telling someone all of their ideas are wrong. Imagine your boss at work did this to you, how would you feel? Would you want him as your leader/boss? No, you’d fucking hate your life and you’d hate him Being a leader (in all contexts, not just dating) is about including all perspectives, making people feel heard, being competent, making people feel safe and secure, bringing out the best in others, allowing them to shine, reducing their mental load, decision making, confidence etc. This mindset of “I am a leader therefore we always do things MY way, and it’s my way or the highway” is precisely how you make people not want to follow you. It is the stereotypical cringy alpha male mindset who feels he has to try hard to assert his dominance.

Why don’t you just skip a few steps and start posting Andrew Tate content 😂 You sound like an abusive boyfriend. I don’t think you are, but that is the path you are on with this mindset

They mostly leave human cells alone. They fuck with your gut biome a bit, but that's it. The risk/reward ratio is worth it because the alternative is death or severe infection. The same cannot be said for dry fasting. Again, it's targeted at the cancer and your body is just collateral. In this case the risk/reward ratio is worth it because, again, the alternative is death. Yea, but it's better to just not become a drug addict in the first place and then you don't need to experience rock bottom to redeem yourself. Most of the drug addicts who reach rock bottom end up dead. Recovery from that point is not a certainty, it's an exception. This is breaking your body in a way it's designed to be broken. Your body is designed to build muscles to increase strength when necessary. Your body is not designed to recover stronger from dry fasting. Again, if it were, then sub-saharan Africa would contain some of the healthiest people in the world, yet it doesn't. All of these are examples of false equivalence.

The concern is less about them fully replacing white collar jobs, it's more a concern that the number available could reduce substantially. In software engineering for example, our team of 6 devs is now shipping new features at a rate that would have taken a team of 20 people a couple of years ago. Before AI, Our CEO/COO said their goal was to grow the dev team from 8 people to 15 people in the next few years. Now that goal has been completely dropped. Two of our devs who were contractors didn't get their contracts renewed because we don't need them any more. 6 devs with AI agents is enough to accomplish basically anything we'd reasonably need to for our product. So that's essentially 9 white collar jobs that would have existed which now will not, directly as a result of AI. I don't necessarily agree with this. Humans are not 99% reliable. Most humans make a ton of mistakes. And regarding the Agents Last Exam benchmark, 10.5% pass rate is specifically for the hardest test. The pass rate on that same exam for a single extremely smart human with vastly wide range of experience is probably <1%. The vast majority of humans on the planet would get a straight 0. This contains the hardest professional workflows that took a specialist human professional (or a team of them) days to weeks worth of effort to accomplish. And there are 38 of these tasks. If you look at the best scores overall across all 3 exams (near-term/easy, full-spectrum/medium, and last-exam/hardest), the best agent pass rate is around 30% now. The estimated pass rate for a single generalist human across all three exams is probably 5%. Again, these AI agents are being tested on 150 workflows that each took a team of specialist experts days to weeks to complete. Now, a single general-purpose system can fully complete approximately 30% of 152 diverse professional workflows, achieve roughly 50% partial credit, and attempt the entire suite in 66 hours for $235 of inference cost (Codex w/ 5.6-luna) What would it cost you to get this accomplished by humans? Let's assume: one specialist for each task is enough (likely an understatement already) it takes each one 3 to 5 days, they charge $100/h That gives us an estimated cost of 3,600 to 6,000 human hours and a monetary cost of $360,000 - $600,000. Even if we multiply those numbers by 0.3 to make it a fairer comparison (as Codex got a 30% pass rate), it's still an eyewatering amount of money and time in comparison to AI agents.

I'm sorry, but I think there are several issues in your thinking. Most of all, you're introducing a lot of other points separate from your main argument which was that "local LLMs are not AI, and AI is only happening when training the model" so I'm going to focus on that point in my response here. AI is defined as: "the capability of computational systems to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making". If you run a 120B parameter model locally and attach it to a good agent harness, it meets this criteria. Also notice that there is no mention of 'data' or 'training' being a requirement for something to be AI like you are suggesting. In fact, I would argue your thinking is exactly backwards. The training process for an AI is mostly defined and programmed by humans, while the output of an LLM is produced independently of humans, which more closely matches the definition of AI. Most locally run models are medium sized. Small language model defines anything under 10B parameters. Medium is 10B-100B, large is 100B+. It is possible (although it requires workstation level hardware) to run a 120B parameter model locally. Medium language models are very achievable to run locally, and still meet much of the above criteria for AI, just to less of a degree than a large language model. The agent harness is actually the magic sauce that makes modern AI agents so capable, less so than model size. You can't ask Fable to do this either. This has little bearing on whether something qualifies as AI. Ehm, no not really. LLMs aren't really trained for specific tasks, even the small ones. That's kind of the whole point. The initial LLM is trained on very broad corpus of text, then fine-tuned using a combination of question-answer pairs to optimise it for answering questions, and preference optimisation to ensure it answers questions in a way actual humans find useful. The end result is something with a fairly broad range of knowledge that knows how to talk to humans, even if the model is small. Yes, if you need a model for aerospace engineering you may include lots of aerospace engineering content in that fine-tuning phase, but you're still building on an LLM that was initially trained on a very broad corpus of text which makes it much more general purpose than a calculator. On top of this, the model runs in an agent harness, this allows it to decide whether it needs more data to make a decision. If it thinks it does then it can go and fetch that. So if you ask it about the anatomy of a cow it will search online for information on that and store that in its context, allowing it to answer detailed questions about cow anatomy pretty effectively even though it was fine-tuned as an aerospace engineering model.

Ah ok, my bad If someone has an anxious attachment style it probably isn’t a great idea. But I’m arguing for what I think is one of the healthier relationship dynamics, which assumes both people are fairly secure in attachment style.

Responding to @Valach too If a girl knows that you’re attractive to other women and yet you make it clear you chose her, and you love her, then there is nothing unhealthy about that. Unless you’re putting on an act and you’re planning to cheat on her. The “attractive to other women” part just puts you in a position where you can express that love very directly without any risk of it coming across as needy. It’s not social proof. I’m not saying you should actively hit on other women while you’re in a long term relationship to prove to your girlfriend that you’re attractive to women. The example I gave is social proof, to be fair. But that’s not the core point I’m making. The core point is about overall attractiveness, one component of which is social proof.

Ehm, no, sorry that's just not accurate. The trained models are general purpose enough that they can be used for novel tasks, especially inside an agent harness like Claude Code or Codex. They are still AI.

These reddit posts definitely encapsulate the healthier values from redpill and the manosphere quite well. If you can take this kind of advice and drop the rest of the baggage that comes from the space, that's the ideal. The issues arise when people build an identity around the manosphere or some subculture of it.

They have lots of casual sex and can be attractive, but they have extremely dysfunctional long term relationships. I assume that's not your goal. If you want a healthy long term relationship then don't look at dysfunctional relationships and try to model them. Look at healthy relationships between two secure people. If you express love in a secure and confident way it will drive a woman crazy for you. She wants to feel like you had a ton of options, but you chose her over all of them. If she feels like that you can be as loving as you like and it won't come across as needy because she knows you don't need her. You specifically chose her. Imagine the dynamic where you're at a club and a woman sees 5 or 6 different girls approach you, dancing with you etc. over the course of the night. But after all of that you go up to her. She's going to feel incredibly special. That's the feeling you want to cultivate in a long term relationship. "Yes, I could have plenty of other girls, but there's something special about you that I want, and that's why I love you so much"

For initial attraction and having lots of casual sex this works quite well. For a healthy long term relationship less so. You don’t want your girlfriend or wife walking on eggshells worrying you’re going to leave her, especially if she is the kind of women who is not short of options. Because at some point she’ll encounter someone better who gives her the affection she craves. She should (and deserves to) feel loved.

Ah I see what you mean. Yea obviously action is required to get out of that situation, but part of the reason people end up stuck in this situation in the first place is an inability to properly process your emotional state. Instead of facing up to the fact that you need to GTFO and make some changes you choose to believe that your partner isn’t that bad, distract yourself with substances, porn, social media etc. In order to start making change you need to accept this situation as it is, process it, and then take action.

Can you give an example?