Scholar

mrgirl is not claiming that Destiny is doing something illegal, he specifically is making a moral claim. If you were to insult your spouse all the time, that is not illegal, but that might constitute abuse. And mrgirl thinks if you publically demean someone with the amount of power Destiny holds while secretly engaging with them sexually behind the scenes, that it constitutes sexual abuse. mrgirl already made the case for why he thinks he is the best person to investigate this, he explained it in the orbiter interrogation stream. Also: Nice Questatements.

That's not what I said, but here is a nice simplification that should help you understand what's going on: Read the entire thread.

It really is tragic, but it was fairly predictable with the limitations of mrgirls philosophy and general dysfunctionality and Destiny's sociopathic tendencies. It was a recipe for disaster, and it seems like both sides are completely incapable of reading the other.

Thank you, seems like you are the only one who took the time to read it. Yes, the problem is misusage and complete lack of ethics because of how excited everyone is for this new technology. It's so funny, but this really shows you that humanity has not become more wise with technology whatsoever. This kind of attitude will be our doom sooner or later, if we don't wise up.

Did you watch the video? What AI does and what humans do when creating and getting inspired by art is fundamentally not the same. The AI's basically take an image and relate certain keywords to the shapes found within that image. When you generate a new image, it will create shapes based on on a seed and other parameters. It will generate a series of images, and at each point of the image it will ask the network of relationships, in relationship to the prompt, what kind of shape is most likely to exist next to the shapes currently existing on the image. It does not understand what it is drawing, it does not understand composition, anatomy, object relations and so forth. It has no interprative lense, it is not inspired, it is not studying art. It is literally taking the shapes within an image, extracting them into a network of relationships, and using that exact set of information in the process of image generation. Again, all that is happening is that it is looking at the shapes it has created (most likely given the networks of relationships related to certain keywords) and then iterating and saying "What is the most likely shape that I have extracted from the sets of images that would be placed next to all the shapes currently existing on this canvas?". That's fundamentally different from how humans create or learn from other artists. And in the music industry this is very clear. Because of the lack of complexity, the AI's would commit copy right infringements if they were to train on copy righted music. That's simply because music is less complex, and rhythmical relationship are far easier to note and analyze. Meaning that, with music AI's, it would become very apparent that all the AI does is say "If this were music made by artist X, what is the most likely rhythm that music would have? What is the most likely series of notes that would exist next to this set of notes?". Because individual parts of copy righted music can be copyrighted, unlike with art, you would very quickly infringe on the rights of those artists. Because all the AI does is use those very information it has found in the initial training set, and use that to generate new information that will be the most "most likely result" based on the prompts given. For this process it is not inspired by the initial training set, it is literally using the network of relationships of shapes found within the images it was trained on. So no, it's not what is happening with AI art whatsoever. And making it seem like that is just flawed thinking. Take the example of recently deceased Kim Jung Gi. Here is his artwork: Here is an image generated by an AI trained on his art: If you look closer at the image, you will notice it completely lacks coherence. That's because it is not actually creating a scene, with people in in a busy market place. It is creating shapes based on training data that are most likely to exist next to other shapes. It doesn't know what a head is, what a line is, what a person is or what a market is. All it does is put down shapes based on a prompt, then put down more shapes that it feels most likely would exist at that point given the information that is related to the initial prompt. Fundamentally, the AI cannot create novel information. If you give the AI images of all objects in the universe, other than art, it will never be capable of ending up at where Kim Jung Gi is here. It will never be able to draw a stick figure. Why? Because it does not know what a stick figure is, it does not know what a human is, it does not know what any of the objects are. All it knows is visual relationships correlated to certain keywords, and even that it doesn'T truly know, like a calculator doesn't know what math or numbers are. This is 40.000 year old art. The AI could never create this if it did not have these shapes in it's training data. It it had photos of all animals, all objects, all it could create is photorealistic images. It would never venture into stylization, because those shapes do not exist in it's training set. There can be no abstraction without understanding. What this means is that the AI cannot ever generate new art that is not a combination of previously existing art. This is not true for humans, because humans do abstract, and humans do have understanding, and because the process of art creation is fundamentally different in humans than in AI's. While a calculator might imitate and be very proficient at math, it is not doing what the human is doing when he is calculating something. If AI was to reign, and somehow develope enough coherence to actually create genuinely coherent art, then it would halt the evolution of art, for the reasons I have mentioned above. If AI art existed before art styles were invented, no art styles would have ever existed. Why would it? People would have never created the art, and put in thousands of hours to create abstractions and idealizations and so forth. What AI art will do, is flood the internet with art which only has human spirit within it because it is imitating the art of people who have human spirit in them. If you look at the art above, you can see the human spirit not because someone has learned from another artist, but because it was a human who created it. A human who knew what he was creating, a human who could abstract, understand, and then engage in the creation of genuinely novel information. This is not just because the AI's are not yet ready yet, but because they are not individuated consciousness. In other words, the reasons why the AI cannot create new information is because it's metaphysical limitations. But for that to be discovered scientifically, it might take hundreds if not thousands of years. For as long as that is not the case, we will stumble in the dark, and be imitating forces on nature and deluding ourselves we have surpassed the wisdom of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Another point would be very easy to make, even if I was wrong about everything above. The difference between an artist getting inspired and creating art is that the artist does not nullify the value of the artist he is studying. I can study Iain Mccaig for my entire life. One, I will never be truly able to create art like Iain Mccaig, I will always have individual biases within my art that I will never get rid of, because I am human. I will never be able to replace the effort Iain Mccaig puts into his art, meaning even if I studied decades to copy Iain Mccaigs style perfectly, I would still have to put in the effort to create the art, therefore not nullifying his life work and his value as an artist. If I was a God, and I could look at all artists and copy their styles effortlessly, then create trillions of images that nobody can compete with, rendering them all homeless, that would be unethical. The only reason why we allow other artists to get "inspired", by each other is because of human limitations, and because the way you study art is fundamentally different from the way AI's do it. You would, of course, know this if you were an artist. Ever artist that studies the greats of the past and present, cannot help but add his own voice to that art. He is not just taking these images and saying "Oh look, I have these shapes now, what is the most likely shapes next to the shape if this was a drawing by Iain Mccaig?". The fact that people are framing these things as comparable is mindblowing to me, and it shows me that schools have failed in educated people about art, but that is not very surprising to me considering the level of art education I experience myself in school. An artist will understand the process of other artist, sure they will get inspired, maybe they will try to understand the way certain shapes are expressed, but humans are humans. We cannot help but inject our own voice into what we create. Nobody can become a second Iain Mccaig, because nobody is Iain Mccaig. To be Iain Mccaig, you have to have the genetics and the life path of Iain Mccaig. That's what makes his art what it is. If he had different dispositions, his style would look differently. And with his dispositions he added new, novel information to the world of art. He is not just a mixture of previous art styles. His art contains an imprint of his own unique consciousness, his unique sense of appeal, his unique way of understanding the world, his unique way of learning how to draw and how to try to create the illusion of life, probably even the unique anatomy of his body. All of these are factors, limitations, which create new art that humans can relate to. Without people like him, these AI's could do nothing but photorealism, because that's all that would exist. Photos of objects.

The argument for this was made in the video. With the music AI this is already the case, because there it is more obvious that the AI is actually stealing certain segments of the copyrighted music. The same is true for the visual AI's, just that you cannot copy right the complexities of shapes and compositions because visual art is more complex than music. It doesn't really matter whether or not it's going to be difficult, in the end you are stealing copy righted art so you train your models for commercial use. Obviously this is the most profitable way of doing it, if the lawmakers don't stop this madness. The point is that it is unethical, and that the lawmakers ought to be doing something about it, and for that you need public support. The purpose of the video was to make arguments why we should pursuit these ethical issues. Of course, if you give a corporation the chance to enslave you, they will do it, because they only care about money. But right now it's about making the ethical argument and getting people to agree on it, so that we can strive to create new laws.

But Leo is not supposed to lead you, because nobody can lead you to God. That's not possible. Whatever insight he has, it was not some blueprint he was given that made him attain that, it was specific conditions within his mind. It would be the work of a teacher to create such conditions in others, rather than simply telling them what awaits them. That's my opinion. No way Leo would have been like you guys and listened to some guy who talks about space rabbits and been like "Yes sensei, that's amazing, tell us more!". Being open minded is one thing, but you guys have like no distance. You accept it as truth immediately, and you know it. I don't even find what he said so radical, it's more that his behavior is becoming unstable. And like I said I have my own theories why this happens and why it probably is almost necessitated with people on similar paths. But either way, you don't know if he has gone batshit crazy. He might have been an expert, and then maybe he took the wrong psychedelic and it burned a fuse in his brain that melted his mind in a way that is not condusive to "Truth". And maybe the same will happen to you, how would you know? Once that fuse is burned, there might be no going back.

Leo you are getting one layer deeper here, and confusing the two layers. When I say "The mountain is ugly!", I am doing the "world illusion building", that is a function of the ego. Then we have the metaphysical nature of the shapes of the mountain. And the metaphysical nature is different, because it contains Infinity. That Infinity, and the recognition of it, is different from the "world illusion building". And then the problem is if you zoom out completely, it is all the metaphysical thing again, and that's where we get into the Impossibility and the Deeming. Imagine it like a sandwich, the middle layer is the ego mind doing it's world illusion building, but the aspects it is building with is fueled from the beneath by Infinity. But really, the interconnectedness and the workings of the ego itself are also Infinity, because the very glue that creates the illusions are made of the same substance. And that is what you might call imagination, and one of infinite ways of looking at it.

It doesn't make sense because the entire endeavor of language is to weave these connections, that's how concepts functions. For example, say, a cat. Now, the concept of a cat is the shape of a cat, the color of the cat, the sound of a cat, the feeling of a cat and so forth. Notice how all these things are their own separate, distinct substances of existence, completely different from each other. The function of a concept is to say "This is one thing!", connecting all of those things together to create the illusion of one object, or objecthood in general. Another way i direct delusion, which is something like saying "The mountain is beautiful!". The mountain is just shapes, and the beauty is another distinct substance of existence. The function of language here is so to melt those two things together, until your mind is convinced that these things are actually one. At some point you just think the mountain is beautiful, not that you connected two experiences together. This is especially relevant in regards to moral evaluation, because that's how morality works. We have a perception of shouldness/goodness/evilness, and then we link them to other experiences, until our mind deems them to be one. Then we say, certain things are evil, and we become immersed in that illusion until we cannot see it's true nature. So that's why it doesn't make sense to really speak of ths recognition, all you can do is point to it until it is recognized. All language functions this way. The reason why existence is impossibility is recognized if you look at the nature of existence. You will recognize it's impossibility, and the Infinite Intelligence and Power that makes it arise. We are discussing this because Leo lacks insight and integration into these things, and it is frustrating that he keeps strawmanning and misunderstanding me, because of his attachment to being a leader. I can see that you are not genuine in your wishes, you just seek to mock me and undermine my perspective. I am not jealous of Leo, but I am frustrated with him, and I think you feel threaten by me challenging him.

I think you just like being a bully. No, I have not lost all common sense, it's not my fault you can't see the profundity of what I am speaking of. I suspect it is because of certain biases resulting from the particular path you took. And in this way, I have recognize a single human cannot ever experinece all of Infinity. The very point of Infinity is that it can never be fully explored, it requires infinite entities. And nothing you will ever get to explore will be the end of it, and nothing you will ever recognize will be the maximum. It's Endless. You are just arrogant, so you make yourself out to be a special snowflake, and that is part of your pathway through Infinity. So, it confirms, the ego structure is paramount in the exploration of infinity, because through it's dissolution, and the particular manner of it's dissolution, it can travel through the pathways towards infinity that it's particular form takes from that location, as a metaphor.

It's a thing of perception, you are making a language game out of it. It really doesn't make sense to apply it to language because existence is impossibility, so to engage in existence, or illusion, means to engage in impossibility. That's how relationships between 1 = redness can exist. Delusion means Connection. And framing it as mental projections and imagination is bias, a construct you have made for yourself.

Okay bad faith, strawman-Andy. What you fail to see is that everything is an Absolute Feature of everything, that's Infinity. You can find in everything Infinity, and in that way, any duality into Infinity. The flower is also Absolute ugliness. The problem is you pick and choose and then you go around saying things are this and that.

If you recognize that the experience was merely an intermingling of your own projections and imagination, you should recognize why it is delusional.

I am chill my friend.

What I would tell the child is that, it's not the flower that is beautiful, it's her own mind. Her recognition of the what the flower is has created beauty, and in that way, she is the sovereign of beauty, the source of beauty. It is her mind that is carrying beauty, not shapes of the flower. The fact that the daughter say the flower is beautiful, tells me about the grace of her mind, not anything about the flower. And that is what you seem to fail to recognize. It is her connection to the flower that is beautiful, not the flower itself. The flower is the flower, nothing more, nothing less.

Someone can be deluded about some things and be insightful about other things. You are deluded about Nessness/Isness and the nature of delusion/deeming. Like I think you could go completely insane, and become more aware about certain aspects of God, while becoming less and less aware of others. Awareness is complex, it is not simple progress towards higher and higher levels of everything. In fact, it might be that the way ego minds are structured in this reality necessitates that some insights will make you insanely delusional in some manners. That might simply be the limitation of the human mind.

Leo, EVERYTHING is EVERYTHING. The problem is that you have say the mouse kangaroo i more beautiful than any other animal on earth. That's not true, the degree to which an animal is beautiful depends on the BEAUTY, not the ANIMAL. Which means, it will be as beautiful as you are capable of projecting onto it. If you can't see, I'm sorry but you are delusional imo.

Yes I don't understand what Rolston teaches because I don't follow him. From my perspective, the same applies. Even if you have become conscious of some things i might not have, you have not become conscious of the Beingness of Beauty, or any other substance of existence. Things are not beautiful, unless it is deluded (deemed/imagined) so. I am telling you that the way you speak to others is by undermining them. You do not encourage them on their path, all you do is replace their authority with yours. Just look at the kind of people you produce. You could see eating shit leads to enlightenment and everyone on this forum would start eating shit. I don't like that, and I don't like how you are unaware of the way you interact with people and to what kind of minds that leads, no matter how awake you are. I asked myself, the answer is because I want you to recognize that you are not a teacher, you are a leader. That's the way you interact with people and that's the way you communicate your understanding. There is like, no sophistication in the way you approach teaching, and it is damaging to people in my view. Most of the people listening to you now are not doing so for the right reasons, and this kind of acting only exaggerates this dynamic. Also notice how I simply shared my experience with you. That only beauty is beauty. You don't talk about why that is wrong, and you don't tell me how I can achieve an insight to realize that is wrong. You just tell me I'm wrong and dumb. That's all you did. And I do think you genuinely lack insight into what I am speaking of here, and it leads to a lot of delusion.

I never talked about spirituality or true spirituality, I am just reporting what I became conscious of. You can play as much spiritual games with me as you want, you cannot undermine my authority, because that's all I have. if I find that you were correct, then that's going to be it. But so far, you just seem delusional, like Ralston. From my perspective I might as well be the only one who has realized the true nature of existence. Good luck to you too, my arrogance is a reflection of yours.

Peter Ralston is equally convinced he knows the Truth as you are, in just the absolute way you think you know yours.

I am reporting what I became conscious of, your opinion is irrelevant. What now, master?

@Leo Gura Let's say I do everything you say and come to completely different conclusions and realizations? What then, you tell me "No you are wrong!", how do I know that you know I am wrong? Ralston told you you are wrong, and yet you showed him the middle finger. You are asking people to undermine their own authority, and trusting your own authority was exactly how you got here. So you are not teaching shit, you are just becoming a leader of ideology.

The fact that you seem unaware of how foolish and childish you sound to anyone who is a genuine seeker is worrying. What, do you expect people to just believe this? Would you have believed this a few years ago? Say I believe you and blast my brain with psychedelics and have the same experience you have, how could I possibly know whether or not I have just created that experience by having intended to have it? None of this will help anyone, it will just attract followers and delude people. Any such teaching will.