mr_engineer

Systems-thinking was a big one. When you become enlightened and intuitive, you see how systems work. Then, you can predict what AI is going to do! Purely using your intuition. Then, you can outrun it and contain it. Another big point mentioned is that AI relies on information that humans give to it. Whereas humans don't 'get' information from the outside world. Humans create their own information!! Our mind is constructing our own reality at all times. So, the day AI runs out of information it can take in, it will start to crash. Then, humans will be able to trick it. And then humans will be able to take it down. The final point that was made was - persistence. Humans are desire-driven creatures, whereas AI is purely rational. So, when AI fails at something, a machine-learning algorithm will look at why the failure happened. And, if the reason is fundamental to its identity, it will turn that into a limiting-belief. This won't make AI feel bad. But, because humans are desire-driven, limiting-beliefs feel bad. So, humans will see all of that, take a step back, improvise (which is creativity, which AI doesn't have), challenge the limiting-beliefs, question them and create new, positive beliefs! Because this is how the human mind works, humans can persist. Persistence seems irrational from the perspective of a machine-learned AI. It will be dogmatic about probability and statistics. Humans won't be. Cuz we have an intuition that tells us what's possible. And we have a desire to make it happen. And, humans will simply not give up until we get a break through in doing what we want to do. AI must give up at some point, because of this fundamental flaw.

The core issue here is that we disagree on what a utopian world looks like. Some people would love to live in a world where AI does everything for them. Will that resemble Burning Man, though?! Or, will that resemble The Matrix?! If you put AI in charge of your life, do you think it will stop at serving you food, drink and entertainment at your doorstep?! No. As you become lazier and lazier, you will not even want to go to the door to get your delivery. AI will sense that and it will create new technology to nutritionize your body while you're sitting on your ass getting entertained. It will take your freedom to move in the process. And, just like that, you will get sucked into the pod of The Matrix. First things first - if you want true financial-freedom, work towards it. The lazy option only looks like freedom, it will lead to more enslavement in the long-term. This reality is too counter-intuitive for AI. And humans have to do the systems-thinking to recognize this reality and consciously design AI accordingly. Then, you get the utopia that you're talking about with AI. Here's what I think a true utopia is - one in which people aren't stuck in wage-slavery. One in which the system is designed by humans, for humans. And, humans have a need to contribute. If you are in a soulless, duty-based system, not only will your life feel meaningless. You are at serious risk for AI to replace you. Cuz AI is going to hack all algorithm-based rigid systems. So, what we need is an education-system that values creativity. When you do that, people's financial-identities form differently. Their values change! And, if the metaphysics behind your system isn't religious, if you are truly enlightened and intuitive yourself, they will intuitively trust your system more than the existing one. What is truly needed, systemically, is to call people into their authenticity, such that they step into their Life-Purpose. Then, productivity will skyrocket. And, we will be ready to combat any AI-apocalypse. Then, we can conquer AI! And then we can form a utopia. That's not founded on technology (a survivalistic society that values survival will be founded on technology, cuz that's our survival-advantage as a species over other animals), that's founded on true spirituality. This is how you actually progress up the Spiral to Green where you're able to be a New-Age hippie and live that life.

@Hardkill It's because they dream of being rich one day and getting to the other side of this table. And, once they're there, they will want the government to let them be at peace. And not trouble them because other people made choices that make them poor.

That would be hilarious. Some of us deserve it more than others.

If we look at this from a Spiral Dynamics perspective, this is toxic Orange. The solution is to move into Stage Green. Become a New-Age hippie, go out into nature, get rid of your smartphones, get into a circle, sing Kumbaya and form intentional-communities that are based on natural holarchies. Such as plant-based agricultural intentional-communities. Stop depending on the system for everything. For money, for food, for water, everything. Get into decentralized money, get your own guns and protect your shit. And get rid of all government. No government, no AI. Cuz no big corporations getting that leverage over the masses. So, no incentive to do this shit. And finally, there needs to be a grassroots-movement of scientists, starting with the education-system to combat the AI itself. That will make or break our chances of containing AI and using it for our benefit.

Having been there, done that, I think it's kinda frivolous. I get the sense that the world needs me to focus on more important things than just partying. And, as far as meeting women goes, find your Life-Purpose. Through that, you will meet people who are on your wavelength and who resonate with you, cuz you're being authentic in your own life. Our parents were right all along, honestly. It truly is a waste of time! Unless you want to do it.

@Tech36363 Let's say we get a world like in the Matrix, where everyone's in their little pods, being taken care of by AI. Would you be happy with that?! (By the way, everyone being hooked to their devices in today's date gives an eerily similar feeling.)

If you really want the answer to these questions, watch 'The Matrix' trilogy. They go into a lot of depth on this issue. And they have solutions. I contemplated those solutions, given what I know about how computers work. They look fine to me! Technically realistic.

You can't. Psychopaths gonna psychopath. All you can do is to prepare to battle it. Which is why I'm pushing heavily for the change in the education-system.

You change the education-system and you make creativity a value of the education-system. The issue here isn't just that AI is going to physically destroy humans. Which it absolutely could. The issue is that it's going to destroy humans, economically. It will eviscerate all human bureaucracies. Imagine what happens if robot children manage to infiltrate human schools. They will outperform human children! And, when these robot children grow up, they will go to the best schools, get the best jobs and rise up the ranks. And take over entire bureaucracies. Creativity is the only advantage that humans have over AI, at the end of the day. If it is not prioritized, if humans are not encouraged to be creative and create value, if the structure of the human economic-system is not changed to adapt to this, we are going to be in a world of hurt. What is about to happen right now is a direct consequence of the failure of human systems to accommodate for humans. This is the comeuppance that humans will meet, for arrogantly defending norms of wage-slavery. All wage-slaves are going to be in danger now, all the unconscious drones/bureau-rats are going to be in danger now with the AI-apocalypse.

They get to go to first-world countries cuz they're the best in their countries and they're not happy with the opportunities in their existing environment. This is not about specific cultures being better than the first-world countries per se, the way some natives think. It's moreso the design of the way immigration is conducted by first-world countries. If you look at the home-countries of those immigrants, there will be hordes of people who are not doing so well. So, it's got nothing to do with the culture and everything to do with cherry-picking the best from other cultures.

@cjoseph90 Not necessarily. I'd lose respect if I sensed that a woman is 'honey-trapping me', or if she's using sex to get me to do something for her. That would be self-objectification.

@Hibahere There is an argument that's made for harems. It is a big fantasy that men hold and it's biologically appealing to men. However, I personally don't think that it's sustainable. Because we have a lot of pro-monogamy conditioning, which would lead to possessiveness. And this would create a lot of political tension in a polygamous setting. Especially a harem. The man would have his favorite woman and that would lead to everyone else feeling abandoned and it would turn into a cat-fight pretty quickly.

Yeah, but assuming that having a common ideology will take us to it, is the mistake. The problem is assuming that it's not relative, it's absolute. Which is what religion does.

What is 'the highest value', though? That's a relative notion. In theory (of both religion and some LOA-based New-Age spirituality), God is the highest value. But, in practice, people disagree on this! From what I know about spirituality specifically, from a human standpoint, it is the talk about God and God exclusively. God as a metaphysical concept. And meditation is the most non-controversial way to get there. (Maybe not the fastest) And, for a billionaire, for whom money is everything, spirituality will not, in fact, be the search for 'the highest value'. That search, will be their business! Some people just worship money. Especially wage-slaves, especially the middle-class and poor. Because money pays your bills.

What else is there to spirituality, though?! Isn't meditation/self-enquiry it?! Isn't spirituality something that boils down to a simple question, like 'Who am I?' or 'What is God?'? What tradition? I agree that some problems are similar, like dogmatically holding onto beliefs about God. And this can hold them back from actual God-realization. I think they're the exceptions. Not the norm. The norm, are the fundamentalists. The reason for that is that religion, fundamentally, is fundamentalist. It's pure dogma about 'This is what God is and this is what God said'. It's conditioning around metaphysics. And without science, it leads to superstitious thinking too. It's materialistic as well, precisely because only unconscious people need these dogmatic beliefs to civilize them using 'God's morality'. For example, the belief that 'heaven is equivalent to you banging 72 virgins'. I do agree that highly developed people will have legitimate reasons to be pro-religion. They will have these big-brain reasons, that 'human beings are animals that fundamentally care only about themselves and to get everyone to agree on one morality, you have to believe in an entity that's greater than all of humanity that enforces these laws that help us be civilized as a society. And religion does that for us.' But, that's not the reality for most pro-religion people. Most pro-religion people will engage in culture-wars, if not outright wars and riots for their religion.

@Carl-Richard New-Agers do draw from religious traditions. Meditation is a thing from Hinduism/Buddhism. In fact, the New-Agers will know better about how to apply it practically to improve your life and the dangers of misapplying it. Religious people are not wise! They dogmatically hold onto their tradition thinking that it's the best one. You will most likely not get an objective perspective on the practical value of the practices. In fact, they will say 'If God says so, just do it. To think about practical value is egotism'.

@Carl-Richard You can, actually, go to people for proper guidance. It's just that choosing the right people becomes your responsibility. If you are willing to take on this responsibility, you will gravitate towards the New-Age spirituality. If not, you will be religious. No matter what your religion says.

I agree with what he's saying. I make a similar point on this post. This is the dating-strategy that Hamza gives in this video! After trial and error, having been there, done that. I may not have the 'experience' that yall would like me to have. But, this guy does! And he agrees with me.

I would have more respect for a person who sees through my bs, yes. I would take the warning to stop doing that. I'll tell you why I think objectivity is superior to intuition. Because more often than not, the cold hard facts of a situation are enough to tell someone's character. And, sometimes, your intuition can make you doubt someone in a paranoid way. In such a situation, the principled thing to do is to give them the benefit of the doubt. And to rely on the facts. And, of course, you don't go on appearances. You dig deeper for the facts. Because, even if your gut-feeling tells you something, until you have hard facts to back it up, you can never be sure about the right course of action, given the situation. And you should strive to justify your actions to yourself and to others.

@Lila9I'm gonna answer my question, for myself. If I had principles in terms of communication-skills and logistics, and if the guy I'm dating pulls that on me, I would be very upset with him. And it would not sound fair to me at all. I would already be judging his level of smartness, I would lose a certain degree of respect for him. It would sound weak to me, in fact. It would reflect that he does not value objectivity, that he has poor observation-skills and that he makes wrong decisions due to incompetence. That instead of working on his incompetence, he succumbs to it. It would be a dealbreaker for me.

@Lila9Let's say you have a crush on a man. You wait, wait and wait for him to ask you out. He doesn't. Ultimately, you do it yourself. And then, he says 'yes' and you go on a date together. Then, on the date, he reveals that he also liked you. When you ask him 'why didn't you ask me out, then?!', he says 'my gut-feeling gave me a sign that you'd flake'. How would you feel? Would that be fair?

@Lila9 The world is full of flaky women. This is a big problem for men. If the man is supposed to chase, how do we solve this problem? What's your solution to it? How do we weed out the flaky women, if we're doing the chasing?

@Emerald It can't be unconditional. This has less to do with the 'inherent selfishness of humans'. I'm not being cynical about our capacity to love here. And it has more to do with compatibility. As loving as two incompatible people may be, they can't give and receive love. If you want to avoid these realities and if you want to rationalize being with someone in a familiar dynamic, you do that by objectifying the other person and manipulating them to be a means to your end.

What you're talking about is an issue of emotional-availability. This has a lot more to do with whether he's following his passion at work or not, than it has to do with women themselves. If you're capable and you have something to offer to the world and you're passionate about it, women will benefit from it. Such a man will be abundant with women. And for him to truly see someone as special, compatibility must exist. And the process of creating that is not one of wishful adoration.