Scholar

There is no such thing as "really awakening to god". If you did, you wouldn't be here talking to us. Everything else will be partial, limited by your identity. Your awe a psychological phenomena, a phenomena of particularized mind. All are Awakened to God, the notion of Awakening itself is delusional. You can immerse yourself in aspects of the Divine, and there are infinite aspects. So, there cannot ever be a full awakening, not until you dissolve completely. It's not, it's a reaction of mind. There are beings that are incapable of experiencing awe, or fear. They can experience everything you have experience, and not experience an ounce of awe. If you think that's impossible, your knowledge of consciousness is more limited than I thought. To bring up the Infinite nature of Consciousness to pretend like your particularized reaction to the Divine is silly. Of course Consciousness is Absolutely Awesome, that silly framework applies to all forms of existence, so it's meaningless. It in equal measure of Horror as it is Awesome. You still do not see how the structure, the particularized form of mind influences the "awakening" experience. The fascets or structure of your particularized mind will determine the fascets that will come to be revealed to you as the Infinite of God. Which, of course, is Infinite. It is actually a function of your ego that your limited human mind cannot conceive of the Infinity that is possible beyond it. That Infinite can be so utterly foreign to what you are experiencing now, that notions of beauty and awe could be so infinite foreign to you as the infinite fascets of existence that you have no conception whatsoever could even exist. You are underestimating Infinite, and I have no idea how you could still do so after the many trips you had. I never said anything about being awestruck or not. You seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. There are infinite possible minds, and they will all project their own particularized nature onto an experience of the Infinite, because the Infinite is experienced through those particularized fascets of existence. That is how your mind can form a memory of it, and analyze it. That's all you can hope to do with your human mind. You'll see eventually. There will be super-human minds in the future, that will be capable of experience fascets of the Infinite that your mind simply cannot engage with. It's so funny, because it's your ego telling you that you, in your lifetime, must be able to experience of all God. What a silly notion, you'll die. You will not be the one with the greatest understanding of God, your mind is not even capable of it. You can barely walk if the consciousness is high enough. That's a limitation fo the fibre of your being. Anything beyond that, the true wisdom of Godhead, cannot be transfered through this particularized life form. It's a pipe dream, it would fry your brain. And then, you'd see what I mean.

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.

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.

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.

Have you tried experimenting with proper probiotics in form of pills? I assume you did.

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.

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.

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.

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. https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/ 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.

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.

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.

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?

This is not true Leo. Most models have been trained on LAION, including Stable Diffusion and I am pretty sure Midjourney, too. https://laion.ai/blog/laion-400-open-dataset/ 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: https://support.google.com/legal/answer/4558992?hl=en 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. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03860 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?

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.

Oh look, at least someone agrees:

The argument would be that the company made an active effort to pursuit certain kinds of speech because of fear of public backlash, where as the topic of child exploitation is not really part of the public consciousness and therefore not worth pursuiting as actively as contemporary cultural issues. AI's don't make independent decisions, they make decision based on training data and so forth. To make an AI better at detecting child exploitation takes ressources that you might not even think of investing in that area, because you are focused on investing them in areas you evaluate as more pressing to the interests of the company.

AI's are not stealing, they aren't doing anything consciously at all. They aren't referencing images either, they are sampling them. If I work as a concept artist for some big company, I am not allowed to just use photo's that I don't have a license to in a photobashing process, even if the end results becomes unrecognizable. Fundamentally, the violation of rights occurs at the point of training these MLA's, because you are using data that you have no license for to create a product. If I as an artist create 100 images, those images are my data, and I ought to have the right to sell the licenses for these images for others to create MLA-based product. Or I might not want for people to use my data at all, and that should be fine too. Or maybe I want to create my own AI with my own images, so that I can actually contribute to the evolution of art by expanding the latent space of the AI's. Instead, everyone can take my art for free and then create product with it, which then they can sell for money? That's insanity. These MLA's run on visual information, so that visual information is literally the oil they burn to fuel the imagination of the AI's. That's oil I have ownership over, because I have created that oil. The comparison between artists references other art or photos, and AI's that are products designed and created by people, and do not reference, but sample the actual data I have ownership over, is simply not apt. This is just so stupid. Imagine I took your videos and reuploaded them, telling you "Well, I am Leo, we are all god, therefore I created this video in the first place, so I can use it!". I think you are the one with the Double Standard here, because if someone appropriated your intellectual property, you'd be furious. AI's can exist, but we ought to do this ethically. We know that AI's do not reference art like humans do, they don't reference at all. They are a set trained model based on certain data they was sampled, not referenced. Either way, the AI fundamentally is not an individual making choices. The way it creates is fundamentally different from how humans create art, any expert on machine learning will tell you this. Your attitude in regards to this is just so irresponsible, but at this point that does not surprise me, because you have demonstrated this kind of immaturity more than once now. How pathetic I am that I am even engaging with your red herring of trying to make this about spirituality. Utterly absurd. I will not be using tools as they currently stand. If someone will create an AI that is based on ethically acquired data, I will gladly experiment with it. And AI is, as it currently stands, not really a tool for me. It does not actually extend my creative capacity, it replaces it. But again, people who are unfamiliar with the creation of visual art will think that we just shit out images after we quickly imagine them in our heads. That's not how art is created. All you guys seem to care about is the destination, when the journey in the creation of art is one of the most essential things about it. AI will not make visual art more valuable, it will actually trivialize it completely. What you thought of as a beautifully painted image before, which you would have felt awe for, will now be nothing to you, because you will get used to it as a standard. The experience of beauty and awe you feel when seeing a beautiful piece of art does not come from some sort of intrinsic value that art has. It comes from the contrast between the mundane and the beautiful. If everyone can shit out master pieces at the click a buttom, it is no longer a master piece. More, Faster, No Mastery, No effort, Destination over Journey. That's all I am seeing here, and it will do as much for mankind as Mcdonalds and Hollywood Action Blockbusters do. The artist who spend dozens of hours to create pieces filled with intention will see no more recognition, because their work was appropriate by a machine that can shit out soulless visual noise that you cannot even know whether is plagiarized or not, by the millions. I want everyone to be drawing, to explore their own imagination and give actual expression to it. Rather than that, we are seeing peoples imagination being replaced by machines, and the consciousness-connecting process of creating art will be replaced by a hyperautistic, results-oriented process that turns images into something as trivial as breathing. The entire point of being an artist is to be immersed in the process of creation. Something I wish everyone could get a taste of. But now, with people having the option to tell AI's what to imagine, to tell AI's what to create, people will not pursuit that anymore. Why don't we create AI's that watch movies for you and play games, to summarize them so that you yourself don't have to watch them? Why don't we create AI's that experience life for you and then summarize to you how it was, and all the conclusions it arrived at that you no longer have to think about. Because that's what life is all about, arriving at the destination! It's not like that if you have too much of a good thing, it could possibly become a negative! I'm just blown away by how much people on this forum lack wisdom and consciousness, including their leaders.

That's how the machines get you, everyone has a carrot.

Imagine your original ancestor on earth, the first microbial life. Imagine all of it's descendents, as they evolved. As they started to feel and experience, to see and smell. When the first onced started walking on the earth. When forests began covering the earths, and your ancestors, every single one of them, was successful in reproducing. Imagine all of their struggles. Imagine all their suffering, all their love, all their fear, their happiness, their anger and hatred. All the adventures they lifed, all the 5 mass extinctions they survived, even the one that shook the earth and wiped out most dinosaurs. Billions of years of struggle and suffering, all of that was experienced. Put that into perspective, how much death and misery that is, how life was merely survival, struggling to stay alive long enough to procreate. And now imagine all those that failed at this task. All those who who went extinct, who did have no descendents. All the evolutionary pathways that lead nowhere, just so a few of them could go on. Now, imagine all the worlds with life in this galaxy, and all the galaxies in this universe. This process of evolution, it is taking place in the same way in the entirety of the cosmos. Most planets will perish, so that a few can go one. And in the end, everyone will perish. Nobody will go on. The entire universe will disappear into nothing. And beyond this universe, there are more universes. Infinite of them, all going through the same process. It could be that for this universe alone, it might take 1.7×10^106 years to perish, that's a number with 106 zeros. And now imagine all this time blinking away in a second. In each universe, possibly millions or trillions of civilizations falling and rising. Imagine a multiverse, fillied with an endless number of blinks, like small fire crackers, each and every one of them them a universe being born and dying. And that is still one infinitely small part of infinity. When you perish, like all your ancestors did, you will return to the beginning and end of it all. From there, you will realize that you have been all of it, and that you are going to be all of it, for all of eternity.

The greatest challenge of the 21st century will be to grapple with the the effects machines have on us and the world. The internet is the wild west, and the harm it is doing to individual minds is unfathomable. We expect catastrophy to stem from war, climate change, disease. But in the end, it is possible that it will be our minds that will erode, until we are not longer capable of upholding civilization in the way we currently are. All the lessons that will be learned, imagine how wise those who will persist are going to be, and how foolish we will look in contrast. So foolish, we could not even see the obvious coming. We will look like people who swam in their own feces, wasting our precious lifes away, doing nothing but seeking endless stimulation. And even those of us who knew it could not resist, because the machines had learned how to erode our resistance.

It's not a question about robustness. I feel like you just refuse to contemplate this topic in any serious manner, your analysis is so incredibly surface level, which is very disappointing to me. The difference in AI and human learning does not lie in degree of sophistication, but rather in kind. The AI is already more sophisticated in certain aspects than a human mind is, but like with calculators, the impressive results are misleading. Just because a calculator can solve math equations in seconds whereas a humans might take days, does not actually mean the calculator is being a mathematician. What's impressive about the human mind is not that it can calculate quickly equations, but rather that the human mind actually understands and explores math itself. There is a substance, a qualia to math, that is not present in the calculator. The calculator fundamentally does not know what a number is, nor what an equation is. It fundamentally doesn't understand anything at all, because understanding is qualia, it is consciousness, a specific fascet of existence. In the same manner, the creation of visual art is not merely the process of visual information processing and pattern recognition. The creation of visual art involves all manner of qualia, of consciousness. AI is more akin to visualization. Close your eyes, think "apple". When you see that apple in your mind's eye, the process behind that took your own kind of internal visualization system, your own "image AI". That's not art, that's just visualization. A calculator is extremely precise and dependable and fast. AI is extremely precise and fast. it's knowledge, like the knowledge of any computer, far exceeds the knowledge of any human. A computer can memorize an image pixel by pixel, trillions of those images as long as it has access to a database. Now, those are all tremendous advantages that a human does not have. Yet, even a four year old child can do something that no AI can do. If you show them an image of a cat, I can give the child a pen and paper, and it will draw me a stick figure of a cat. For sticks, a body, maybe a tail and a circle for a head. What happened there is not merely more sophisticated than what any machine can currently do, it in fact is different in nature. But of course, if your contemplation of visual art never exceeded the idea of "image that makes me feel fuzzy inside!", you will of course confuse what neural networks are doing for art. You are underestimating the wisdom of God, my friend. Your mind is too focused on the shiny things, and it is blind to the essence of intelligence. And you seem to still think there is a distinction between human and God. There is no such thing as God's creative vs human creativity. It is the same process. How foolisht is it to accuse artists to steal from god, when they are stealing from noone but themselves. And that is the prime reason why you should at least have some skepticism towards how this technology is used. The greatest purpose of art is to connect us directly to the intelligence of the divine, and to realize that it is ones own creativity. That is a direct connection to god. A practice of beauty and love, that everyone who can pick up a pencil can do. That's why the artists have always been the people who tended towards spirituality. There is a difference between creating something that stems directly from your experience, a connection you can probably not appreciate, because you are not a visual artist. You cannot see that AI is disconnecting us from our own vision, and replacing it with it's own vision. The artist does no longer say "apple", to then close his eyes and connect to his direct experience. To then attempt to represent that vision, and in the process discover things about himself, his own sense of beauty that he can share with the world. No, instead he types apple, and let's the AI do the job. He will think "Oh wow, that looks much better than what I would have ever imagined myself!". There is a tragedy in that that you lack the wisdom and experience to see. It will take some time for mankind to realize what it has lost and what dire consequences that had. But that is how it seems we must learn, through suffering, through seperation.

Oh my, I don't know if I have the patience to communicate my entire take on this situation, there is a lot of nuance and insight you can gain from this. I think both Destiny and mrgirl are partially right and partially wrong about their analysis of each other and the situation, and this conflict has become a perfect illustration of the limitation of Tier 1 thinking, or lack of Tier 2 integration. You can learn a lot about the mrgirls operating system, it's unique advantages as a lense, and the limitation in regards to how mrgirl's ego relates to that system. You can learn about the limitation of Destiny's charitability, and how it makes him resistant to genuinely novel perspectives. You can learn about the natural limitations and traps of significant intelligence and social competence. You can learn about ego attachments, how they relate to the mastery of skill and yet in the same manner to the handicap of that same skill. In general you can learn a lot about self-deception. It's a goldmine of insight, because we are observing two highly intelligent minds resolving a conflict. It can teach you a lot about yourself. I would have never thought, for example, that genuine charitability and steelmanning of other perspectives could lead you to being unable to see new perspectives, and that this dynamic might be worsened if you are more intelligent. That's counter intuitive, but I think if you have paid attention to Destiny from the beginning and how he interacted with mrgirl, this dynamic become very clear. I am not as much interested in the game that is played, but rather the minds that are playing it. So that's the basic overview of some of the things I have focused on, I cannot go into detail with all of them because it would be too time consuming, but I can explore some if you have more questions.

Is that so?

Celestial Workshop? Is this paywalled? What happened?

I want a video seeing Leo talk in the alien language, if we don't get that soon I'll be majorly disappointed.