Basman

The Youtuber in question was just looking for content for his drama channel. It is not hard to dismiss all of Actialized as a cult. Mostly only people within the Actualized niche genuinely care. Most who watched that video are just there for the entertainment

I can relate to the feeling of needing money but hating work too well. I don't have much experience when it comes to career stuff but I've heard of a guy who wanted to make video games but didn't have short-term career prospects. He ended up becoming a night-shift plumber because of how it alligned with his personality and it afforded him lots of downtime which he used to make games on the job.

Well said. That's the basic issue here. Its always funny to hear and read comments from people who get salty over people cheating not understanding how the system inzentivizes cheating to a certain degree.

@Osaid What do you think about AI making cheating easier? Doesn't that undermine how the entire system functions? How so? what exactly needs to change, in your opinion?

That's interesting. Not something I really have considered before.

In my opinion, awakening stuff is on the higher echelon of the hierarchy of needs. Personally, I'm trying to just figure out how to do basic survival still. Introspection is helpful but I'm not going to weigh myself down with any expectations to be more "enlightened" than I am. I sometimes have my inner musings on the nature of reality, which I'll entertain if they ever come up but I don't feel any need to embody any type of spiritual awakening. If I do fel that motivation, it is usually because I think it'll help me solve my problems somehow which is probably the wrong mindset. I just take things as they come, one thing at a time.

I mean, that is what it is.

@Mesopotamian By games, do you mean manipulation in the abstract sense?

Most death threats are meant to just shake you and are just irational individuals lashing out emotionally. Its an attempt to try and get under your skin because they didn't like what you said. People get upset over nothing on the internet all the time. Its stupid. If a person is sending you a threat, block them. Its not worth having that shit clutter your mindspace. If you think it is serious, notify appropiate authorities.

Lingustic gender neutrality makes more sense in english and other germanic languages. Being gender neutral in latin languages is going to be a lot less practical because of how they are fundamentally structured. It is quiet drastic to expect others to change their language to conform to a small minority of the population. Especially considering. IMO, Its something you're more likely to spend time thinking about than actually dealing with it in your life unless you actually spend time with individuals where it would supposedly be apropiate to use gender neutral terms. Its effectively slang.

Comparison is inevitable, but you can use it that envy to take greater ownership of what you want. You can't really change your envy without addressing what exactly it is that you want. Make it an explicit goal then break it down into actionable steps. How can you work towards your goal today? Sometimes we just lack perspective. You might think that you should've gone to college yesterday, but that is simply not the case. We all lead different and unique lives. Another person's life doesn't say much about your own necessarilly. One positive of starting college later is that you start when you are more mature and more clear on what you want. When you are 20-24 year old, you're still very much inoculated with your childhood mentalities.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230305142817/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/05/ai-voice-scam/ It seems the best way to handle a fishy call from a distressed family member is to hang up and then call the family member in question directly.

I mean, I guess we disagree then. Don't know what else to tell you. Besides the industrial and modern age, where have people faced automation to a major degree in history? I thought that people where farmers/hunter gatherers the majority of time.

That's not really what it is about. Sure, the sense of threat wouldn't go away but that doesn't make it OK to exploit artist's work. The fear of replacement is something a lot of people will have to come to terms with in the coming years. Not just artists.

@Leo Gura What does the mind course entail?

I don't agree that AI should be afforded the same priviliges as humans relative to creativity. Your counter-ai suggestion isn't bad and perhaps should be implemented regardless of the future legality of AI art, I think a much better solution would be to make it an opt-in system, where artists have to opt-in for their art to be used and possibly get compensated for it. That would resolve this whole controversy by the root.

@Leo Gura Its reductive to equate AI and humans as the same, especially in this context. There's a difference between an artist and companies breaching copyright for profit while competing with the artist who's work they depend on. Even if AI arguably gets "inspirered", the scale of production of art programs in the context of using "stolen art" is worth discussing and not dismissing out of hand. I want to stress however that depending on how you use it, the use of AI art becomes more or less ethical. The closer you are to using what the AI generates whole sale as the finished product, generally you'll be more in the gray of things. Though it can depend on the context and for what purpose it is being used. Just to be clear, I'm not mad that AI exists and that it can paint. I'm mad at how it is being utilized. On a side note, I have noticed that the people who most staunchly defend AI, the way that it is being used right now, tend to have little to no experience with art and are largely male. They come of as not appreciating what art does for the people who make it. At least to me.

As an artist, I feel with the beef but not with AI itself. How it sources it data that it trains on. The fact that it uses copyrighted material without the consent of the artists. AI gets given too much credit IMO, as if its a person who gets inspirered. In these debats, it gets antropormorphized. These "inspiration" arguments are a bit of red herring, because AI doesn't have feelings. It doesn't get "inspirered". It's not creative. It is generative. It is a machine. You wouldn't call a car athletic just because it goes fast. You wouldn't call a toast iron a "chef" just because it grills cheese. The main difference between AI and humans is that AI is dependent on its data set in order to function. That is not the case for humans. People still come up with things regardless of input. And even then, the inspiration that humans take from other artists is a part of a long-term process and history. It involves emotion and livelihood. AI doesn't have that (because it is not a person). I don't empathize with defending the way that AI art operates currently, because the bottomline is that it simply doesn't have to use copyrighted material in order to function. It could work exclusively on royalty free material. The reason it doesn't is because it would take a lot longer before it could prove itself as a technology and it would make less money. Also, for something to be considered fair use, it can't compete with what it sources from. It is hotly debated right now whether or not that is the case in courts right now, which much of the future legality of AI generation will hing on.

While the articles is rather alarmist, I do agree we need to atleast talk more about AI and its ramifications. When I first read the petition, I did wonder to myself whether or not 6 months is enough from the point of view of the petion holder. Like, it seems a little optimistic maybe for a developing piece of technology with potential ramifications so far reaching that its hard to say where it'll stops. That's atleast worth 12 months. We might be on the precipous of a historical moment. I think that we should get a competent government on the case so that this development is not purely lead by private company vision. I'm not sure what, but some boundaries should be set. Do something. The Silicone Valley motto of "move fast, break things" is comparitvely petty when it comes to phones and shit compared to AI. We heading into the uknown. If you move too fast, you might end up breaking the whole planet (and not just the self-esteem of teen girls).

Fear serves the important function of keeping you alive. Fear helps you stay alert of and avoid perceived dangers. It helps us trigger flight or fight responses when we are in danger. Fear is instinctual and a natural part of being an animal. Fear gets a bad rep though, because typically associated with crippling fear. rippling fear tends to be irrational and shaped by our formative experiences turned maladaptive as we become older. Like the fear of rejection or dogs. Often children become fearful of something if the people around them are afraid of it. I remember I used to be afraid of dogs simply because I had a family member who had cynophobia. There are things that are perfectly valid to fear, like getting run over in traffic. But there is a difference between being respectfully cautious and being crippled by fear. We tend to trust our fears unquestioningly regardless of their truth. Fear is fundamentally the perception that you cannot handle a given thing. You implicitly know what you fear. It is one of the bases emotions in humans. Just ask yourself "what do you fear?".

I agree with the petition in that policy makers and government needs to be proactive relative to AI development. How can government help ensure "good AI"? What are some ways that disruptive and unpredictable emergent capabilities of future AI can be better managed?

https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

@Wolfgang Winterkaise Sorry if I came of as stand-offish in my last post. Yes, the point of wealth inequality is a serious issue but is much more tangental on the type of government and rules and regulation in place rather than money in of itself. How much you pay in taxes or free social services available are examples of raising the living standards of the poorest (such as free college, health care, workers rights, etc.). I don't believe that self-transcendence is necessarily diametrically apposed to self-enchancement. It depends on why you are seeking power. For example, some politicians have a genuine passion and vision for their country while others go into politics for what they can gain from it for themselves.

@Wolfgang Winterkaise You might be demoizing money a little. There has always been power indifferences and hierarchy. That is been the case atleast to a certain extent before money was really a thing and will most likely continue to be the case in the future. You have to consider what the alternative is. The primary function of money is not fraud but to facilitate trade without needing to offer tangible goods. Money is perhaps one of the greatest human inventions if you consider where it took us as a species compared to where we came from. Before money, you traded by giving something tangible to someone else that they wanted in exhange for something you wanted (I give you 1 cows for 10 chickens). But that trade is highly contingent on both parties having something the other wants. If either one of the parties don't want what the opposing party has, then there is no trade. Then you don't get your needs met through trade. Physical trade is highly dependent on uncontrollable variables. Money solves all that very elegantly. With money you can "buy" instead of trade, which ends up facilitating a much greater scope of cooperation and deeper degrees of specilization. Now you can be an expert in a niche field without having to worry about growing your own food. Without money, we go back to the stone ages. While it is true that we have to make money in order survive and that we are in a sense slaves to money, that is no less true then that we are slaves to survival and the desire to live. Money is miles better than no money. And again, you can specialize and choose how you want to make money. There wheren't many option for how you wanted to survive pre-money. You either tended your crops every day, or you die. And god forbid if there was no rain that season. Now you get to whine on the internet about capitalism while munching on frosted flakes. The vast majority of goods you depend on have been made by others, facilitated via a transactional process that only money could allow. That's human ingenuity right there.

@Zion Power is to have the ability to master a situation and influence others. Power is attained either via good fortune (born to wealthy parents fore example) and/or positioning yourself in your society such that you have authority over others, thus power. Strenght is the ability to deal with hardship and have a decisive impact on a situation and goal. Power and authority is often dependent on fictional institutions and concepts that are collectively held (money, nations, leadership positions in an organization). Without collective fiction, power comes down to brute force and strength as a leader out of a local group. Power is in a sense created. How many institution exists that exists simply to A person in power is distinguished by: Authority over others and influence (can make others do/believe things). Makes decisions that impact the world in tangible ways. Leadership and responsibility to maintain certain collective/institutional goals. Their position holds a certain prestige. wealth. For someone to be powerful, someone else has to be powerless. Therefor power is a resource to be gained, atleast over yourself.