• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scholar

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. I have been watching a lot of war footage lately, and in all the tragedy you can truly get a sense of the way nations are born and survive. Russia has created a national spirit that will be impossible to extinguish at this point. People like you and me, who have been normal citizens only a year ago, are now fighting for the survival of that idea and willing to die for it. This is how you get rid of corruption in your country. If a conventional war with existential stakes between the US and Mexico broke out, chances are the cartels would cease to exist within months, and the nation would be unified, able to create the structures necessary for proper government, for law and order. This is how humanity works, we bind together through pressures of survival, our survival merging into a unified, transcendent identity. Nations are not built through democracy, but through the fanatical idea that nothing matters more than that nation. Human prosperity, technology and wisdom emerged as a result of that dynamic. This is why you can't go to the afghan's and tell them to care about their nation. They will not care about their nation unless their nation becomes part of them, until their survival is deeply linked to the survival of the state. The full potential of mankind will not be unlocked until we have a fantatical identity that binds us all together and to the earth we live on. When a forest is cut down, a human must feel the pain as if it was their own body that was being cut. A development of such identity will be necessary and foundational for the future of mankind. An identity that will make you able to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. If you have resistance towards radical environmentalism, you are underdeveloped. In the future we will be fighting for the preservation of life on this planet, the same way Ukrainians are fighting for the preservation of their nation. Consuming green so you don't feel as bad about yourself will not cut it. I predict there is a wake up call in store for us, one that will shake us out of our complacency and self-indulgence. Suffering so great that radical action will be the only conceivable road ahead. We have lived in peace and luxury for so long that we truly believe our way of life is eternal, that progress and technology will path the way into an easy and convenient future. The Divine has a tendency to eventually bring an end to such delusions in rather spectacular fashions. What could bind humanity together better than an existential threat on a scale never seen before? There is lots of identity work that is ahead of us, and one catastrophy could heave us into the next stage of human evolution. I am not certain if mankind has yet earned the wisdom to get there any other way.
  2. I have finally come to see an important, in fact essential, dynamic that one can fall victim to. In my eyes Leo has fallen to this dynamic, a trap he was unable to predict to due certain biases within his ego. We all understand that to access higher states of consciousness we must alter the structure of our ego-mind. There are different ways to access higher states of consciousness. Leo is a proponent of a brute force methodology, namely the attempt to use radical psychedelic states to dissolve certain egoic structures so that we get access to higher states of consciousness. I will go into detail for why this is dysfunctional in a moment. Now, there is one important key insight that must be kept in mind. A state of consciousness fundamentally has no evaluative quality to it. Meaning, Infinite Love is not inherently mindblowing, it is not inherently awesome. When you have a radically high consciousness experience, you are not crying in amazement because of the experience, you are crying because of the way your egoic structures react to the state. If you were ultimately selfless, meaning you had no egoic structure, you would not get amazed by Pure Infinite Love. There would be no reaction to Pure Infinite Love, you would not deem it to be extraordinarily important. All of those things are egoic mind reactions. When Pure Infinite Love is terrifying, or beautiful, or amazing, that's all a function of egoic structures reacting to an influx of energy. Why is this important? It's important because the degree of corruption of the teachings is determined by the difference in compatibility between the egoic structure and the state that was achieved. The more underdeveloped an ego is, the higher the corruption of the state will be once the structure re-emerges. Leo is exceptionally underdeveloped for someone who has reached such high states of consciousness. His mind is far less developed than that of people who have not even remotely reached the states that he has with the help of psychedelics. This means that his insights, his understanding, his reaction to the states he is experiencing are all corrupted. His teachings are for that reason more corrupt, perverted and devilish than someone like Eckhart Tolle or Sadhguru, people who presumably have not reached the same states of consciousness. There is an inherent limitation to the way Leo is approaching spirituality. The more violent the reaction to a given state that you achieve, the more friction there exists between your mind and the state. Violence in this means any extraordinarily intense emotional reaction, independent of positive or negative charge. To a super-developed alien being, your most intense psychedelic trip would not even evoke a reaction. It would be normal, like you looking at the color red. If this is inconceivable to you, then you do not have a prosper grasp of what ego is. It is true that such experiences permanently change the egoic structure, and to a degree they can aid in development. However, the attempt to bent egoic structures through highly energetic states is barbaric, unsophisticated and impatient. The state can be imagined to be a highly energetic force which is discharged into the egoic structure. The less reaction to a state, the less imprint on the egoic structure, the more appropriate that state was for your mind. The higher the energetic state, the more friction there will be between your mind and that state. To use this as a developmental tool can lead to extreme dysfunction because it is akin to trying to brutally shape an object into a form that will be able to support that amount of energy. It can cause damage to a mind for that reason, damage that can be impossible for the mind itself to detect, because it is changing the very structure of the mind. Leo's entire approach is based on an idea of reaching extreme states to induce extreme egoic friction, in an attempt to reach Infinity. The truth is, the human mind is not capable of holding Infinite Energy. It's not designed to hold that much energy, and the radicalness of his experience is only a demonstrating of the existence of egoic structures. In the future we will not employ such methodology. We will not force inappropriate states into minds to change the structure of those minds. That's just stupid. We will change minds to allow states. It takes more time, more wisdom to do so. And this is good, it is a function of Divine Intelligence to allow for the existence of evolution. The future will not be paved by Psychonauts. The future will be built by people who create roads people can walk on, to venture further and further into the infinite realms of consciousness. In time, this methodology will get us much further than some children tripping their brains out on some psychedelics. What Leo currently is doing is child's play, it's taking a mind and blasting it as far into Infinity as possible. So far that your ego will then inevitably corrupt it because it is not at the appropriate level to process that state. How the egoic structures will bent and permanently change in the process of energetic overload is largely random. If you use this methodology, it is literally only a matter of time before your mind will develope dysfunctions. It comes with the energetic overload, it's literal function is to shred your mind enough to allow that amount of energy to pass through for the amount of time you reside in that state. In conclusion, Leo's teachings are corrupt because his mind has grown dysfunctional, but also because his mind is not developed enough to process the states which he explores during tripping. His teachings, of course, will not be the future of consciousness work. The mind structures required for a proper engagment with the infinite do not even exist today, and the people who will design those minds will not use Leo's teachings either. It will be a slow process, a changing of minds until we reach the states, not the other way around. That is the only sustainable way. What Leo is doing is nothing but the tickling of his own ego, using the Divine to stimulate himself. The best evidence of this is this forum, which has grown to be little more than a platform to fullfill his own egoic desire for self-expression. A clear symptom of this corruption is the idea that you need to reach Infinite, as if this life was some sort of rat race to God. That's absurd. You came from Infinite Love, and you will return to Infinite Love, inevitably, no matter what you do in this life. Leo's most mind blowing trip is nothing compared to what awaits you. Imagine what happens when everyone finds out that all this work was for something everyone gets for free at the end anyways. But hey, the ego is going to ego.
  3. Human learning has limitations, no singular human can possibly process all data that exists and then reproduce that data at a rate that would outcompete all the creators of that data. AI does not have such limitations, it can process an indefinite amount of data and reproduce that type of data at a rate that will outcompete all creators and concentrate the economic value of that data at a singular point, the creators of the AI. This is why the comparison between human learning and AI learning is fundamentally not apt, it is an argument that will enable megacorporations to extract and monopolize all economic value from the general population without permission or license from data owners and creators.
  4. Have you tried experimenting with proper probiotics in form of pills? I assume you did.
  5. You're just asserting things without argumentation again. AI's aren't making independent decisions, of course you can regulate technology. It's not like bob in his garage will be building new AI's. These AI's will be created by megacorporations who can afford to train and run them. These things will only get more compute intensive as we build more sophisticated models. Where do you think this will lead? A few megacorporations owning and selling privileged access to certain aspects of their mega-AIs. You're literally have a stage orange "freedom will solve this" attitude. I don't know if the latest trips have fried your brain or if you have always been like this and somehow I just didn't see it. Really, no regulation with AI? That's your take? Companies like Stability AI can do anything they want with everyone's data and ignore IP? What are you, a libertarian? You keep anthromorphizing these AI's as if they were agents going around and learning things. That's not accurate, they are products designed by select people for profit and extract value from everyone else. The masses will not be the ones benefitting from these technologies my dude. By the way I could use the models that exist right now to make tons of money, which will most likely not be possible for long. But I do not do so because I have integrity and view this as unethical and unsustainable. And yes people should fear them taking our jobs, because that's what they will do. And unless you found some way to implement UBI in every country, I have bad news for you, it's not going to end well for the majority of people.
  6. Sure, because that serves you most. The AI isn't doing anything, because it's not making choices. People are the ones scrape the internet of copyrighted data to build the non-mind MLA. You really need to read up on how this technology works Leo, because you have a child-like understanding of this. You're like a stage orange NFT bro, but considering your shadow that is not a revelation.
  7. Ironic that in the video he describes a lot of misinformation going around and then proceeds to make an inapt comparison between what MLA does and how humans learn. It's not what humans do when they learn. When I draw an image, there is no risk that I accidentally copy pixel by pixel another image I once saw. In strict terms, the AI does not really create images, it is resolving a predetermined latent space as you input the seed and prompt. You can use the same seed and prompt, and it will always generate the same image. It cannot go beyond the images it was trained on because it is defined by the latent space between those data-points. Here you can see how it is moving between different points within the latent space. When you use StableDiffusion or Midjourney, it's not really art being created, it's images being discovered, images that can only exist because of the initial training data.
  8. In regards to training data, I am not sure if regulation will be necessary, because we do not yet know if using copyrighted data to train models is a violation or not. Lawsuits are already happening and more are incoming. I know there are lobbyists being funded to tackle this problem in the US, so we'll see how things wil go. But yes, in my view all data that is used to train models ought to have the proper license or be public domain, or similar licenses that allow such usages. There probably will have to be more regulation regarding the content of models to prevent illegal activity, like CP and the like. That will at least prevent major companies from creating and disseminating models based on copyrighted or private data, who will be the only ones who can feasibly create and train sophisticated models, especially as time goes on.
  9. What does that have to do with what I am speaking of? AI's can still be developed, it doesn't at all need to be done in this clearly unethical and unsustainable way. Nobody is talking about ceasing the development of AI. And ironically, China seems to be one of the first country who is responding to this. They will regulate AI's beginning 2023. Before we solve the monumental issue of a super-AI, let's see if we can get this basic thing right. We also made cloning illegal, even China agreed to that. So let's not pretend there are no solutions to these problems.
  10. The art is just a proxy for the general issue, which is IP processing without consent. The arguments you made on this forum for why it is okay for people to train their AI's without any consideration to IP laws is flawed because of what I argued above. This will, by extention apply to art, and because this is the first issue that is becoming a problem in AI, it is the issue to focus on to start thinking about these problems and begin regulating. It doesn't have to come to the more serious issues, or at least they can be mitigated.
  11. I realized that framing this as an issue of "MLA is doing the same as humans do!" is not apt. It does not even matter whether or not these AI's are doing what we are doing, or whether or not they learn the way we do. (which they do not, to be clear) This will become a much bigger problem, and the art models are just the initial test run for how we will be going to deal with this issue going forward. As it currently stands, under the ethical framework that Leo and others here propose, AI is allowed to do anything a human can do. It can use data, learn from it whatever it wants, and replicate itself in however way it pleases. And people in control of the AI can profit in however manner they please. To understand why this viewpoint is naive and short-sided, we must look at how society currently distributes wealth. Currently, economical value is distributed among all human beings. Every human being, precisely because of the limtation of human beings in general, has some value in the current economical environment. A writer has value because writing is something that takes time, skill and effort. There is demand for that skill, and so that skill can generate economic value. With the advancement of AI, AI will be capable of using the data produced by the hundreds of millions of people to create a super intelligence that will nullified the economic value of all those humans instantly. No matter what humans will try to do, because of the inherent limitations to the human mind and body, the AI will be able to take it, enhance it, and be capable of reproducing it in an instant. This will apply to anything a human could possibly want to do with the help of AI, because the AI will be capable of learning that, too. Now, what specifically does that mean under the current moral framework of "AI learns just like humans, therefore all of this is fair use, because humans are allowed to learn from each other!". In simple terms, this will lead to the greatest monopolizing of power, wealth, knowledge and capacity in human history. Whoever will own most computing power will extract most econmical value. All humans will be rendered useless, and those who own and manage those AI's will have, with the help of data aquired and produced by a collection of billions of humans, extracted their potential economic value without any compensation to any of the generators of that information. We can already see this with Stability AI. What Stability AI did, and what it is going to continue to do under the current paradigm, is that it has taken it's AI and fed it all data it could get it's hand on. That is why Stability AI is valued at 1 billion dollars as we speak. How can this be the case? Well, because it extracted the economic value of the producers of the data it has used to train the model. It can now supply all demand that could possibly exist. This will, sooner or later, apply to all areas in life. Whether you create movies, whether you are scientist, whether you program, whether you create videos about spirituality on youtube. The AI will learn, and the AI will be better and faster than you are. And who will benefit from that? The creator of the AI, ergo, the person with the most computing power, ergo, the person with the most capital. You are pretending that these AI's are just like humans, while you cannot see that what makes these AI's different from humans is precisely what is causing this monumental change to the organization of all of mankind. If they were the same as us, they would not be capable of doing this. It's precisely because they are fundamentally more efficient than us that they can do this. And that ought to be the argument for why the aquisition and usage of data in the form we have seen being advocated for on this forum should be reconsidered. Our moral frameworks, our legal frameworks, are not prepared for the monumental change that will eventually occur. Pretending that they do will cause unnecessary suffering. The free market, in the form it is currently existing, cannot be sustainable in this new era. Sensible regulation regarding this technology, which eventually will grow to be more powerful and dangerous than nuclear weapons, is of utmost importance for the advancement and progress of mankind. We must find a way to transition from where we are today, to whereever we are going. And that starts with regulating data-usage and processing, and creating new frameworks to deal with the advent of this new technology.
  12. Can you actually respond to a single thing I am saying instead of trying to mind-read me so you don't have to engage? I clearly have shown how you are wrong about multiple things you just claimed, and just ignore that? Have you no integrity? Admit you were wrong, and be a little more humble. If you think these AI's will not significantly damage artists potential to generate profit, when they literally take the images of artists and make it so those AI's can generate images of that same style within seconds and for free, you are just delusional. Markets work by supply and demand, and you just made the supply free. No way that will not affect profits. You actually cannot have a discussion of substance, all you can do is talk about everyone elses psychology like some sort of cult leader. And you sneaky weasel! I didn't even notice it, but you moved the goalpost. We never were talking about making AI's illegal or anything of the sort. I am saying that using copyrighted images as training data is unethical. You can still create AI, you just have to do it ethically. That way, there is business for artists and the AI creators. How is that not fair? Why would that be unreasonable? These people are taking the images of everyone without compensation and generating billions of dollars of value with it, while probably putting most of those artists out of jobs in the near future. You really think that it's sane to say that is just fine and dandy?
  13. This is not true Leo. Most models have been trained on LAION, including Stable Diffusion and I am pretty sure Midjourney, too. The Dataset is basically just random images grabbed from the internet, independent of copyright. The Company that is working on Stable Diffusion funded the creation of this databases with fair-use exemption because it was a research purpose only dataset. They then uses that dataset to train the open-source model Stable Diffusion, disregarding any potential violation of copyright laws. Stability AI, the company, is now valued at 1 billion dollars. No, my brain does not contain pixel perfect images of artists that I then use to create art. That's not how you learn art, lol. Jesus Christ Leo, how can you spout such complete nonsense with such confidence? When artists learn from other artist, they look at certain images and look at them through their subjective lense. They might use some solutions to visual problems they are working on, but they don't literally look at the image and somehow absorb it and can then draw that image. That's not how any of this works. The amount of information you can take from an individual piece of art, is extremely limited, that's why it's considered fair use. Humans do not sample art, they reference it. But like I said, you are so deeply ignorant of this topic that it's not really worth to have this discussion with you. You just have no clue what you are even talking about. And you don't even have a good grasp of fair use, here you go: Take a look at Nr. 4. Taking inspiration from the work of other artist and learning from them is sustainable and fair use because it does not render the initial work valueless. No artist in the world can learn how to draw like Kim Jung Gi, no matter how long he tries. There will always be discrepencies. The way artist create their art is as unique to them as their handwriting or their voice, it's an extremely individualized process. And even if you tried to copy another artist and were successful, you would still have to compete with him in the market. With AI that is fundamentally not the case, as soon as you appropriate the image of another artist, you render that artist uncompetitive, by means of his own work. That is fundamentally not fair us. And it's not inspiration, nor reference. It is sampling, it is the using of the data, pixel by pixel, of the work to create a product you call AI. In a world in which AI exists, all that matters is the latent space that AI has to generate art. The latent space that AI has will be determined by the sets of images it was able to use. Meaning, the images are everything, they are everything of value in this new system. The capacity of the AI is directly related to the images used. So, that's where all the values is, that is the oil of the 21st century. If people can just grab these images for free, which are like I said, extremely valuable and essential to these models, you discourage people from actually further exploring visual information the way artists do. The only reason why you have such amazing art on Midjourney and StableDiffusion is because of the art it is derived from. Not compensating artists for that, and stealing the IP is just theft. It has nothing to do with fair use. And like I said above, the artists fundamentally have license to that data, to that metaphorical oil. To compare AI to humans is just absurd. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but you really need to put more effort into finding better sources. And AI is not a brain at all. You actually need to prove that before you throw out all copyright laws. Does the AI change when it is creating new images? If I never look at another piece of art or image again, and I just sit down and draw for 10.000 hours, I will improve signifantly. An AI does not improve as it creates more images. It's not even remotely close to a brain, you are just so deeply misinformed. And the fact that you are spouting this misinformation with this kind of confidence undermines you as a person in my eyes. That's just disappointing. And my brain can create art out of thing air, that is what makes the brain fundamentally different from these AI's. These AI's can only express themselves in the latent space between certain datapoints. I, as a human, can be a caveman from tens of thousands of years ago, look at a bear, and go to a cave and draw an abstraction of that bear. Something the AI cannot do. It can only draw with the latent space of two images, and is extremely prone to overfitting. Please don't be an ignoramus on this, just admit that you are talking out of your depths. You're behaving like an NFT bro. And like I said, these AI's do not mimic art creation, they mimic if anything certain parts of visualization, which is an unconscious process. But that is a different topic and I have no hopes you have even the basic understanding to have that conversation. It's not good for creativity if all work can just be appropriated and used without any fair use consideration. And clearly, you don't even know what fair use entails and what it's limitations are. You don't give a shit about any of this, all you want is virtue signal about your supposed high consciousness position of seeing the progress in everything. Not everything can be just blindly accepted as progress, especially when it would be so easy to do all of this ethically. The artist have license to their images, and you can't just use those images against their consent to create a product. Capitalism only works when property laws were protected. That's how capitalism started. If you don't protect people's properties, they won't give a fuck about being productive. Why would I, as an artist, ever release my art that I worked decades on to refine, that would be a unique addition to the latent space of the AI, if I gain literally nothing from that?
  14. I don't think so. Progress is good if it enhances our life's. Blind technological progress for the sake of making everything effortless and replacing humans is not wisdom, it's just blindly following todays hyper-achievement and results oriented paradigm. It's just boring to discuss with you when you are more keen on creating a strawman rather than engaging in this discussion in an insightful manner. It is obvious that you have no interest in expanding the scope of your perspective. I never said I was against technology, artists, including me, have benefitted and used technological progress. We are in fact the people who are naturally at the forefront of innovation, and we in fact are the ones who inspire the future of mankind, by creation visions of those potential futures. I'm not arrogant at all, I specifically told you why I think the way this technology is being employed is unethical and unwise. Are there ways to employ and use this technology with wisdom and love? Of course there are. But using nuclear weapons just because we can invent them, and cloning people just because it's progress, is not smart. Instead of arguing with things I have never said, why don't you engage with the substance of what I have been saying? In fact, if you want to be the one drawing art on caves, the attitude you hold is the best way to get there. I'm trying to make a rule about not engaging people who are not having discussion in good faith, so I will give you one more chance. Next time, instead of creating conclusions from position you presume I hold, I want you to make an effort to actually understand my position in a charitable manner or ask clarifying questions. I never disputed that artists are going to be using AI. Improving your workflow does not actually mean giving expression to your genuine imagination. Of course artists will scramble and try to adopt these technology. Artists are forced to adopt all kinds of creativity-destroying and soul-crushing processes to make a living in the highly competitive environments we exist in today. I don't think that extends their creative capacities, I just think it creates more output, and more output is more profit for the companies. Just look at most veterans in the entertainment industry. I bet you don't know the name of a single one, but let me tell you, they are not a happy bunch for the most part, and even though they are creating amazing imagery, they are completely burned out from the amount of images they have to output. Now, the expectation will rise, and everyone will be forced to adopt AI. AI art will benefit a specific set of artist who focus on a specific part of their creativity, whose way of creating and whose particular biases lend themselves to the way AI's function today. Like I said, for the companies, these AI's are wonderful. Cheap art is good art to them. But in regards to connecting people to consciousness and love, these AI's will not benefit the creatives. They will do the opposite, they will disconnect them from their self, and instead of their own imagination, the AI will be imagining the images for them. Right, I'm sure you are an art lover.