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 🙂

It’s like psychedelics probably. Unless you have 50 trips with that you cannot understand it. You need to spend time with AI before you form an opinion about that.

@MuadDib, I resemble so much with that image 😂. I think that for an INTJ, it would not be possible to live again in a world without AI ahah. Of course people misuse AI like they misuse everything. If people do not adapt for this new environment where they live, their survival ability will be threatened.

@Natasha Tori Maru I think you don’t have (enough) experience with AI. AI can 20x your creative process. Like a pen or a paper, a computer can 2x or 5x your creative process.

No point in asking a human for feedback and not AI. I doubt any human on earth can give you better feedback than AI. As you did with your philosophy. You reached a point that just AI could really debate with you, or help you achieve a better understanding. Even if AI does not understand that. The point that AI is inferior, so it cannot help is an invalid point. It is similar as saying that a really intelligent film director or screenwriter cannot have people helping him, because none are more intelligent than him or created that film before. It is infinite the ways AI could help with a book. In my opinion, you are confusing the dangers of AI with the practicality of AI in supporting your work. It seems that you are paradigm locked into a competition with AI, instead of a cooperation. You teach me that mindset in your life purpose course.

It depends on your subscription plan. From what I understand, you can’t email the book to anyone, since the provider could intercept and steal its contents in the same way. As for your argument, I hadn’t considered it that way. Is this a form of channeling your higher self? If so—and since you’re not channeling the entire book at once—it may still be helpful to ask questions about the work’s purpose and audience, and perhaps adjust its structure accordingly, for example. Nonetheless, I don’t have direct experience of that higher intelligence so I do not understand it. I appreciate that you feel no one needs to review a text coming from higher intelligence. However, when you emphasize that no AI was involved, readers without access to that higher intelligence will applaud your approach—yet, if they were writing a book themselves, they’d almost certainly seek an external human review, which makes no sense. It is important for them to clarify that you are not using AI because you’re accessing a higher intelligence, and if they don’t have access to it, they are missing very important human capital.

You keep saying this as if genetics are the beginning of your physical experience. I understand how hard it feels to beat genetics, but the critical question is: What is prior to genetics?

I seriously do not understand this or the “thanks God” comments. You can use AI to do so many things and improve the quality of any book so much, that I am not seeing 1 reason to not use AI. If the writer wants to completely write the book it is ok, but AI can do infinite more tasks than that to improve the quality of the book. Is it based in ideology, survival instincts, or paradigm lock? Maybe I have a blind side I am not aware of, but it is like saying that I will not use the internet to write my book ?!? PS: Leo is one of my highest influences, and I am really excited to read his book!

@Leo Gura , Sara Landon could be a good match for you. From my point of view, she teaches what you can maybe be missing. Would be a powerful couple.

@Leo Gura, I don’t pretend to have every detail of a future where machines do almost all paid work, but three plain signals stop me from believing society will stay broken: Cash alone or unemployment doesn’t drag people down. Tests in Stockton (US), rural Kenya, and Finland handed out money with no strings. They found better health, lower stress, and no jump in drug use; Stockton even saw an uptick in full-time work and skills training. Sharing the gains can outlast partisan fights. • Alaska’s oil dividend has mailed every resident a yearly cheque for 40 years, backed by both parties. • Milton Friedman—no progressive hero—once sold a “negative income tax” to trim welfare bloat. Billionaires don’t have to volunteer; a distressed majority can legislate. Maslow’s ladder still applies. Once food and safety are covered, most people aim for community, mastery, and meaning. I can’t yet see our exact post-AGI missions, but I don’t see the ladder breaking. Maybe even “galactic challenges" will give us fresh purpose. Let’s hope. Short-term turmoil? Almost certain. But history shows a rough adjustment → new rules → new balance, not endless collapse. I’m betting we rebuild rather than rot.

@Leo Gura, I honestly don’t follow your conclusion that a super-intelligent AI inevitably leaves humanity purposeless. If people no longer need to work for survival, they could devote themselves to collective self-development and spirituality—sharing insights, exploring consciousness, and building communities around growth. In that scenario, the majority would likely gravitate toward deeper learning and collaboration rather than languishing without purpose. Moreover, sources like Bashar and some other psychics suggest that ETs are scheduled to arrive in 2027 to help us manage these sweeping changes. It seems that all these events around ETs cannot be coincidence, let’s see. If extraterrestrial guidance comes online just as automation reshapes our economy, we might receive new frameworks for planetary resource management and social organization—perhaps something akin to unconditional basic income on a global scale. Yes, such a shift could trigger confusion and even conflict in the short term, but it also opens the door to radically reimagining human potential. Ultimately, I see a path where AI liberates us from mundane tasks and usher in an era of exploration—both inner and outer. In that light, the future looks far more promising than one defined by mass unemployment and existential despair.