ryoko

These will explain why true RL is seen as a threat. He's trying to build information processing "entities". He's not interested in feeding them human biases. That's not economically profitable. RL is a rabbithole. I like the concept of reward hypothesis, it's a simplied reduction of how human brain operates. It's quite elegant.

Most scientists are just doing what they think is right, to survive. In the case of Rich Sutton, he admits something like, he's old and he's been "awarded" and acknowledged, and he can do whatever he wants. Most of the scientific world is not like that, apparently. But look at the irony, he's still underfunded, it doesn't matter if he's acknowledged at the end of his life when he's left with little power. Most normal scientists have spent decades of their lives into academia, a slip up could ruin their reputation and career. They're not allowed the live a life beyond the consensus if they want to keep the perks, and their job. I don't think this will ever change on it's own. Definitely not by raising consciousness. Because "raising consciousness of the world" is an absurd concept. It's the other way around, systems evolve to match the world's current consciousness. Ultimately, one can only raise one's own consciousness.

There are dangerous biases in where science gets applied to. The context gets hijacked by what's socially acceptable. There's no denying that. Most scientists are not rebels. I am reminded of Rich Sutton, he's the father of RL, yet, his vision of making true RL is underfunded because of what's bringing in money from investors and what's trendy. This basically stalls and destroys the possibility of RL ever becoming a reality.

If you're talking about science, you're not doing science, in that moment. And if you're talking too much, you never doing science.

IDC how inefficient science is. Science is the closest thing to magic we got. Tangible means to manipulate matter. If you don't like how people lose their holistic life to science, think again. Would you ever destroy your life that way just to add a tiny droplet into the ocean of scientific knowledge? Humans may live by consensus and social acceptance. But don't judge true scientists by what you see on social media. Scientists who appear to the public are generally those who value and follow consensus to very extreme degrees. Think about it. How well received and successful an eccentric scientist is going to be, for public speaking? These days, even the ones who see themselves as eccentric, even you, are deeply rooted in consensus reality. God-speak is a part time job. You're not god all the time, you're Leo. And that's, alright..

I was right. Guys, Leo's been replaced by an impostor, who's now arguing with kids about words.

I think @Leo Gura's just trolling at this point. But hey. I'm not gonna ruin the fun.

Fair enough. That I won't argue with 🤣

😂I liked Leo better.

Sometimes I feel Leo's gone and an imposter has replaced him in his stead.

Haha. Osho can be stupid sometimes.

@Leo Gura why are you listening to Osho. He died 30 years ago or something.

I realized around 51:00, that Leo's not talking to me. It had felt off with the comparisons of himself with billionaires and saying his work is not that complex. We've come a long way.

A modern sans serif is easy on the eyes. Honestly.

Interesting video. Thanks for the digging it up.

monospace where

If you attach a lot of meaning to something. It's usually one of the best things in your life. It can be conflicting at times. And rightfully so. It's forcing you to find something you're currently missing so this beautiful thing can find it's true expression. But remember, you could stay stuck with that conflict even after you've found your thing. That's simply body's inertia. And it's good that it feels like death. Why? Because then it's a matter of one decisive jump. And you're back to your full expression which you've locked away for years.

You're suffering a version of them you instanced inside yourself. You don't really care for them as an entity/individual, but rather as a concept. The deeper truth is it's more so a response to an inefficient system. Holistic Thinking is alien to the world, still. You can't stand what's the status quo. And it's generating suffering in you. I've seen young people say this with a lot of heart. What's the proposed solution? You focus on your own now, engage with people, engage with your obsessions. Effectively forget the whole, atleast temporarily. And over time, the reward mechanisms linked to it, will assign a lesser importance to whatever is generating this suffering. All suggesting you to fall back into something which isn't whole. Some even suggest voicing it into the open, and discuss it with others. Like your doing now. This is also a trap. You'll start feeling fine once this feeling of yours is validated by the crowd. If you want my truth, you're just asking for a borrowed truth. But here's some pointers. How can you be sure, they're suffering? And how can you be absolutely sure their felt experience is any worse than yours? You're imagining yourself in their position and assuming the suffering. But you'd be surprised the more you look into it. Another tangent to contemplate on: why does human society have fiction at all? Why do movies exist? Why do stories exist at all? Why are actors and performers valued at all? There's something about this which is so eerie and disturbing.

The good doctors have a compulsion to "fix you". Beleive it or not. That's their form of care. It's often coming from a genuine place. The bad ones? I don't even wanna mention.

This is to be expected. Doctors aren't all obsessed humans with a thirst to know. They are mostly interested in living a chill life with the limited rules they've learnt throughout their academia. I haven't come across anyone who's truly open minded and a doctor at the same time.

What are your thoughts on these perspectives? Don't comment without engaging with the material. In general, I love how arrogant and radical his views are when it comes to what's possible to do with society. He sees people and values as an engineering problem. That in itself is a tempting way to exist, as an engineer. But also a huge blindspot. I like him as an individual. He's got many original ideas.

I don't believe in democracy. (Don't assume I support anarchy. Anarchy is just a more unmoderated version of democracy)

Hahaha. How bout we build a syntegrity here instead?