Aether Phoenix

@Leo Gura, amazing stuff you are publishing in relation to how the mind creates your external world. Do you recommend any efficient method, excluding psychedelics, to remove the boundary between mind and external world? My parents are schizophrenic so I am more cautious with drugs.

@Someone here is Donald Trump! 🫣🫨😮

😂 This is so good! @Someone here I think my posts after yours are the best ones! We should receive a prize! You first, of course. But this forum is incapable of acknowledging our quality.

This is the book—Leo’s sacred Grail. Let it remain pure, untouched by noise or some stupid AI 😁

It is hard to believe the moral progress that the World, in general, has made in the last 50/100 years. Civil & racial rights, Death penalty, Women's inequality, LGBTQ+ equality, Violence...

Thank you for sharing the article. For me, there’s no doubt that AI-generated work can be considered art. When I watch a film, for example, I’m far less concerned with how it was made than with how it moves or inspires me. If a piece challenges my thinking, evokes emotion, or shifts my perspective, then it’s art—regardless of whether its creator is a human, an extraterrestrial, or a machine. Moreover, there are now numerous instances where AI-generated works have won awards in creative competitions—sometimes even fooling juries who believed they were judging human-made pieces, as has happened recently in photography. This only reinforces the point: it’s the impact and resonance of the work that ultimately defines it as art. For example, Leo, in his video about art, defines it as if you put a particular aspect of reality on a pedestal. AI has no problem doing that. Moreover, we are discussing it with the current models that exist today. In 10 years, I think the question will be whether a human can produce art

I think you are too focused on the show of AI. When I am talking about AI, I am talking about concrete results it can give you in your day-to-day. The rest I agree with you. Please explain to me. Since a language model really does emit one token after another, but describing it only that way is like saying a brain just emits electrical spikes. Whether those spikes—or those tokens—count as “thinking” depends on the level of description you consider relevant. At the physical layer, both systems look trivial: signals in, signals out. The interesting question is what emerges at the computational and functional layers. Systems thinking describes how new properties or behaviors arise from the interactions of a system's components. Isn't AI thinking, or creative, or intelligent? If you forget it is AI, and you just read a conversation of a good model with a Human, without knowing it was AI, it will seem very creative, thinker, and intelligent to a third person.

In my view, there’s no need to announce you used AI—just as no one brags about using the internet. Yes, AI is powerful, but something even stronger will follow. What matters to me isn’t whether Leo leaned on AI; it’s whether the book transforms my life (I expect nothing less from him 🙂). The perception about AI is indeed an Interesting topic 😉

I value your perspective. It makes sense. I just see AI as the brush that painted Mona Lisa. It is not an interference to the process, it is a tool to the process. The culmination of mastery was achieved with the technology of a brush, without it, Mona Lisa would not be possible. The culmination of work of a Master that works with AI will be something as brilliant as Mona Lisa, but more sophisticated. If Leonardo would have access to better brushes to paint Mona Lisa, there is no reason he shouldn’t use the best tool available to create his art.

🤦‍♂️ Don’t say this. Using AI, I’m implementing a brain-training technique aimed at reversing dementia. The model has provided numerous creative adaptations and upgrade ideas, each helping to refine and expand the capabilities of the technology. Naturally, this is a cooperation exercise—and one shouldn’t depend on AI without critical oversight.

Even if I am an engineer that studied Artificial Intelligence, I don’t care about it. What I care is what I can achieve with it. Technical aspects are not important to the discussion if you can use AI to improve a book. I understand what you mean about sense making, I just think it is irrelevant for the context of this conversation. Should we use or not AI to work, to be creative, to write books? If you want you can avoid AI but you will become obsolete, because the quantity and quality of work I can create with it is incomparable. That doesn’t mean that there are a lot of people creating crap with AI, there are. Nonetheless, the problem is not the AI, is the person who use it. I could put AI debating with you much better than me 😁

😂 Do not confuse the content of a book with a tool to write it, @Leo Gura.

That is the same as saying that your thought is just the next neuron firing, based on the information the Brain receive and the other networks you have in your brain, you see? It is just an excuse the mind uses to paradigm lock AI into inferior. Ultimately everything is conversation with yourself. If you think AI is not able to have a faster and deeper sense making than you in almost every topic, I don’t see how you use AI. Of course it depends on the model, and the way you use it.

How much experience do you have with AI? Do you even use it? Have you experience with different models? Did you train models to think in particular ways?

You are being too narrow in the way you see AI working. You are just looking into the content you can generate. AI can infinitely support you in other ways than the content itself. Even if it also can support you with the content. That would be another discussion 🙂