dualnon

@zazen Thanks! Yeah, it is definitely a crazy time. I really enjoyed Marty Supreme as well. I think there will still be interest in good films that are made by people. And there will definitely be a significant market segment of people who will ONLY watch movies made by people. At least in the near term. In the end if the product is good, it's viable. That's how I see it. But I also wonder about the impact of Ai on filmmaking infrastructure as a whole. Infrastructure is expensive. Soundstages, gear rental houses, all the businesses and vendors that go into making films. When the big studio money stops demanding these goods and services what happens to the infrastructure? Basic economic thinking would think it could collapse. I think there are a lot of things we take for granted about the process of filmmaking that can't be saved by sentiment alone. That's not to say man made films won't exist. But it could mean that man-made films stop being viable at studio scale.

A bit of backstory about me and how I came to write this: I work in the film industry, and I've been a big enthusiast of cinema since I was a teenager (around 13-14 is when I really started to develop an identity around wanting to be in the movies as a career). The recent developments in Ai have obviously been disruptive to this whole thing, and I've noticed a lot of changes in the way I orient my identity towards film, and also how depressed and hopeless I have felt about cinema being supplanted by synthetic moving images. As time went by I started to become more accepting of it, and even experimented with making a few little projects using Ai. But I still felt an overall sadness at the industry and line of work I am in getting destroyed. Especially because where I live there are people I care a lot about who are having a hard time lately as the state of the economy has had a massive impact o their livelihoods and the looming threat of Ai makes everything seem so hopeless. I started to engage with discussions online about Ai, and I noticed some recurring rhetorical tactics that seemed irrational and illogical to me. Denial of the current state of the technology. Denial of the economic viability of synthetic video. And how difficult it was to navigate a discussion about these topics without it devolving into pro/anti ai tribalism. Then, earlier today I had the following insights about what I had seen, and how I myself had felt. And it seemed to all map on really well to the 5 Stages of Grief model. I thought you guys would find it kinda interesting.. So here it is. Denial Denial is when people say things like “AI is Is slop” or “AI isn’t useful” or “AI generates hands with 6 fingers”. The reality is that we’re way past that. Even when that was the case, the the fact was that it was going to improve. People who are in the denial stage often coalesce around other people who are also in the denial stage, and they sort of reinforce their denial collectively. And what’s interesting about that stage in particular is that it is kind of tribal. If you try to reality check, or you know, try to impress upon people that actually Ai has improved. They see that as a threat, and they see that as you taking a defence position in favour of AI. And they see you as the enemy. Anger Now, after the denial stage people might move into Anger. And this is where people become really fed up and say, “well, fuck AI. Fuck all this shit.” “Fuck the AI companies.” You know? “Fuck it all. I hate them. I hate anyone who uses AI. I hate it all.” And that’s a really powerful thing as well because it also has a bit of a tribal thing to it. Bargaining And then people go into the bargaining stage where they might say, "Well, no matter what, human creativity will always be superior." Or "human creativity will always be better and AI can never do what humans can do". You know? And "AI will never be able to do what I can do as an artist." You’ll often hear people in this stage say things along the lines of “AI doesn’t have a soul”. Like, it can’t it it can’t convey the kinds of feelings that I can convey in my art. This is bargaining. Depression And then people move into the depression stage where they think, “oh, well, fuck it. It’s all fucked.”, “what’s the point anymore?” That kind of thing. They may even have, a suicidal ideation as the total falling apart and reckoning with the fact that there’s not really much that you can do to change it or resolve it. Acceptance And then they move into the acceptance stage. The thing about the acceptance stage is that acceptance doesn’t mean becoming pro AI. It just mean it just means meeting reality where it is and actually being very honest about the environment that you exist in, and just accepting that reality is as reality is. And recognising that in order to be able to do anything proactive towards your values, you have to exist in reality. And you may still pursue artistic endeavors in the traditional way, but just means that you don’t you’re not pursuing them out of anger or denial of Ai.

Don't assume that Charlie being dead eliminates his influence, it actually amplifies it. It already has amplified it. Charlie Kirk is still a player in the political conversation even in death. You aren't re-enabling anything because his death didn't disable it.

This could cause massive escalation, and if it does it will create even bigger harm than the harm you re-enabled.

Something Silicon Valley is either yet to understand, or deliberately disguising is that LLMs are just Experience Machines. It's the difference between Space Mountain at Disneyland and Actual Space Flight. They generate the experience of talking to someone. Thats their core function. Not to provide information or BE intelligent.

Musk sometimes delivers and sometimes fails. But when he fails, it’s because he never had proof of concept to begin with. He just assumed his idea must be possible because he thought of it and it seemed plausible to him. Three instances of failure I can think of that are examples of that are Hyperloop, The Tesla Semi Truck and the initial vision for the Boring Company underground tunnels. He often lacks the foresight to see the enormous technical and engineering challenges he’ll have to overcome to execute his vision. And sometimes he gets so caught up in his vision that he fails to see another comparable technology that already exists as a viable solution to the same problem. Or worse, he KNOWS there is an alternate solution that actually works and actively tries to discredit it. Like when he shut down the California high-speed rail project so he could build Hyperloop. He does succeed sometimes. And when he does it is often off the back of existing technologies that are underappreciated in the market. That is where his business genius lies in my opinion. He saw the value in electric vehicles, so he invested in Tesla. He saw the value in satellite internet and developed Starlink. Those products already had proof of concept, so they weren’t as risky. It was simply a matter of building out the infrastructure and marketing it in a way that showed its value and appealed to everyday people. He does appear to have a good understanding of what emerging technologies to invest in. It’s when he tries to come up with something from scratch that he gets led astray by his own hubris and lack of technical understanding.

The worst thing that can happen is you lose a few bucks. But the value proposition is incredible.

That’s awesome. I can’t wait to see how it unfolds.

VSauce

Ever considered doing a conversation style Podcast? That would be cool.

You're intellectually reasoning that you, the music in the bluetooth speaker, and the person in the park are the same consciousness, which is true. But you are still presuming that there is an individual consciousness in the person in the park and in yourself, which is why you can't grasp the answer. You've already said "my consciousness IS NOT listening to the music of that bluetooth speaker" but you are asking if the consciousness of the guy in the park can hear it. The short answer is No, he can't hear it. And you can't hear it either.

How do you clean your drinking water? Have you found a way to remove forever chemicals and hormones?

Ultra fast wireless communication between brain and server would eliminate that issue.

What do you mean by this. Are you saying that it is not a state one can attain? Or are you saying that it is a real state, but is not useful or worth pursuing? Surely centerlessness should still be pursued even if your consciousness goals extend far beyond it... or no?

Can you describe the phenomenology a little? Has your realisation of no-self permanently shifted your day to day perception, if so.. how? What does your moment to moment experience appear like? Also, How come you don't talk about centerlessness in your videos? I've never heard you talk about it, or even claim to have attained it after all these years of awakening and enlightenment talk. Maybe you have... but I am not aware of it, so I imagine you haven't spoken on it much.