Scholar

I don't sound like anything, I think you just like the role of being the smartass teacher so you usually interpret what others write as uncharitably as possible so you can find in it something to criticize, at least on this forum I have noticed this a lot. You want to see me as bitter and afraid because you enjoy being a smartass Leo. But why? The images you picked are of far higher quality than this image you generated, nor is this one actually unique. Just look at it, it's not even coherent in terms of what it displays. Everyone and their mother will be using Ai for thumbnails and it's going to get old very quickly, whereas the images you usually choose I found had a certain design coherence and style that fit your brand and made it unique. I definitely think this was a downgrade not an upgrade. Especially Midjourney, I am not sure if you have worked enough with it to notice that it has a very specific style. And you can just immediately tell that it is a Midjourney image. In my view the images you used before were perfectly fine. I would recommend using stable diffusion or some other AI though to avoid the obvious problem with the style recognition. No I'm not, you are being uncharitable towards my position again. I don't think you have contemplated these topics deeply enough to even have a stance, you just want to sound provocative. It's like you are not even reading what I wrote. You have a reductionist and unsophisticated notion of creativity in my opinion. But I doubt you are open to even have a serious conversation about this. Contemplate the difference between creativity and mind's eye activity/visualization. Also, ponder this: If you give these neural networks only photos, will they ever be capable of generating something like a Disney cartoon style, by giving it some sort of prompt? Why are humans capable of evolving from realistic images towards abstract style's like a Disney style? There are clear answers to these questions, and if you contemplate this you will realize what the differences are. It fundamentally has to do with consciousness. I have, your notions of art and creativity however are reductionist and one-dimensional.

Think of yourself as God sitting behind a lense and looking at the world though what you consider your human self. And part of that lense is an addiction to thinking. But thinking is very limited, notice that thinking is one-dimensional. It is linear, not even 2 dimensional, let alone spatial or beyond. Even from your human perspective, you have far better tools available for discovery, but getting addicted to analysis will make it difficult to engage and find the value in those other tools. So before you can get distance from the human lense altogether, I think focusing on things beyond the particular narrow set of tool of this particular lense will be helpful.

Sure it's a tool, but the unwise will use to the detriment of their own craft. Looking at the most recent thumbnail for your video as an example. It does seem like you are jumping onto it just for the sake of jumping onto it, rather than actually asking yourself whether it improved the quality of your art. Yes, but human visual art is not inspired by mere visual information, and that's all the AI could possibly do. That's it biggest limitation, it has no unified, multidimensional, "self-aware" consciousness that is capable of understanding. It does not know what it is creating. The human mind is not a neural network, rather neural networks are part of it. Having a very reductionist view of creativity will of course make you think the AI is doing the same the human is doing, but that's simply not the case. It does seem to me like you have not contemplated this in depth.

You are trying to grasp something ungraspable. Imagine you had a mind that could only understand things in 2 dimensions. Then, that mind tried to look at a 3D object. You'd look at it, and say it is a square, then it would change, and you'd say "Oh, it's an oval!". And then it would change, you'd say it is a circle. Now, from your perspective it was all just a 2D object changing it's form. But imagine someone who could understand 3D objects came to you and told you "No, it actually never changed it's form, it was the same object the whole time, just changing direction!", it would make no sense to you at all, because you cannot grasp what a 3D object even is. Now, imagine your entire human life is limited to 2D, and what Leo tried to describe to you is 3D. Your entire life is 2D, including the very question you are posing, and the frame you use to talk about this. In fact, all you are doing is just describing a 2D shape. That's your limitation, you could not ever hope to go beyond that. For you to see, you have to become God. And once you are, any questions a human will pose will simply be a 2D object, one of infinite. Just that the object being described is not 3D, it is Infinite Dimensional. You are asking a human question, to which you could only possible how to attain a human answer. Only you will see, this question will become mute. It will seem to you like someone asking what shape a 3D object has. It has no shape, because it is a form. Thinking and asking the questions you do simply reaffirm your human limitation. That's what you are doing by trying to finding answers to human questions. You're just being a human, like an ant is being an ant

Sure but there is a great irony in telling people to get into AI art and right after having a post about Mastery. These AI's are the most magic pill thing I have ever seen in the history of mankind and it will discourage an entire generation to learn and master art, which could very well lead to a temporary degradation of the evolutionary process of art, because of how much time investment it takes to get to a point to evolve art, and because these AI's are not capable of generating genuinely novel styles in the way humans can. Again, AI = Visualization, not Art Creation. There is a big difference and one should contemplate it. Just to understand how art evolves in fields like animation for example, I can recommend the book Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life.

Legally things are a bit more complicated, because how you described it is not really how it is done. The AI does not look at an image and use it to generate a certain result, rather, the developers of the AI used certain images to create a certain machine learning system which is capable of the given result. I've been experimenting with them for the past few weeks and there are very clear limitations to these AI's. Fundamentally, they are not imitating the process of art creation, as that on average requires a different set of cognition than what is simulated here. Rather, they are imitating or accessing a kind of intuitive impressionistic visualization. I'm too lazy to go into detail, but in my estimation it's probably similar to what the brain does during dreaming or mind's eye activity, far less sophisticated due to lacking in dimensions, but doing what it is doing much better and clearer. Imagine it the difference between a mathematician and a calculator. Sure, the calculator can do certain things much faster and easier, but it is fundmanetally doing something different than a mathematician when she contemplates the nature of math. But on the other hand, calculators can certainly do things no human can do, atleast not in the same span of time, which is precisely why they seem so impressive. I am kind of frustrated in how limited these are because I was hoping to use them for some projects, and I don't think these limitations will ever get resolved due to the above mentioned nature of these machines. At least not with the current approach, and I also suspect that the very nature of the hardware will be the limiting factor. I think there are going to be some really cool use cases for artist in regards to their painting process but I suspect that it is going to take some years if not decades for this to actually get standardized and interesting for everyone. Maybe one day I will be able to feed it images of my style and it'll be able to help me create images faster, that would be super cool. Img2img is also super interesting but also kind of limited. Been working with concept artists and tinkering around, and you can get some really, really good results when you use sketches and let the AI "finish" them with it's own interpretation of what it is seeing. I kind of don't like it because it's hard to uphold a flow state and it is kind of ADHD inducing for me, but in terms of output, this will definitely change the industry. You can take a very rough design thumbnail and get hundreds of images, variations of that thumbnail with the style you want. It does feel cheap because you can just take your design and turn it a design that will look like it came from Ruan Jia, but I would not say it can even remotely replace the complete design process, simply because of the lack of coherence and design purpose. This will replace a lot of jobs simply because the best artists will be able to output much more, and it will probably influence what kind of styles will proliferate in the future (kind of how we don't have 2d animation disney movies anymore because of how expensive they were), but if you think you'll be able to keep up, as a layman, with someone like Craig Mullins, because you can turn a prompt into a visualization, you are just delusional. I've seen some mindblowing stuff from artists who are integrating this into their work process, these guys were just supercharged onto a new level. It certainly alleviates a bit of the craftsmanship for certain styles of digital painting. But it does not replace things like design and composition whatsoever. Everything that takes a certain degree of intentionality and sophistication of coherence will still require a human mind.

I was giving you my perspective.

My first comment wasn't addressing you specifically, that's why I put a space between my response to you and the rest of the post. And I am too lazy to clarify, because I don't think it will work and this topic is to trivial to argue about it like this.

Well, like I said to me it's pretty clear, I wouldn't know how to word it differently.

Who knows.

Well, at least that makes sense, because I think otherwise you would have understood it when Destiny explained it. I don't know how else to explain it, to me it's pretty clear and straight forward.

This is only a double standard if you remove it from all context, and I assume your implication was: "He doesn't think he should call him a nazi even if it fits his definition, because that would undermine his goals, but he does think he can call him a fascist, a racist and an anti-semite, even though that undermines his goals." If that was the case, there might be a double-standard, but this is not the case. The right way to frame things, and Destiny went into detail on this, would be the following: "Destiny thinks he ought not call him a nazi, fascist, racist or anti-semite, in the context of a conversation where he deems that would undermine his goals to a sufficient extent. He does think he can call him a nazi, fascist, racist or anti-semite, in the context of conversations where that would not undermine his goals to a sufficient extent." Only by applying reductionism or pedanticism would there actually be a double standard. If you know the underlying dynamic, it makes sense and is consistent, only if you boil it down to the outcomes, omitting the particular conditions, would there be an apparent contradiction, for example: "Destiny does think he can call Nick Fuentes a nazi, but Destiny thinks he should not call Nick Fuentes a nazi."

That's not what a double-standard is. Using the same words with different meanings is just how language functions. And no, MrGirl showcased how he does not care about that mission, because his entire line of argumentation failed. In the end all he could say was "Because I wanna!", and that is where all his conversations necessarily lead to, because he does not do anything beyond describing self-bias. And no, they have completely different goals.

Depends on your goal. Watched some of the conversation now, it really showcases the limitation of MrGirl's stage green lense. He is all about recognizing ones own bias and expressing it authentically, which is why he was urging Destiny to express his actual moral stance. MrGirl's goal is to be authentic, for the sake of authenticity. It's ironic that he makes claims like, if he lived among nazi's, he would not fight them with violence but rather try to convince them with this methodology of his. It's such a naive, limited stage green perspective, and Destiny is right to point that out to him. The truth is, MrGirl cannot convince anyone really, who does not already tend to align with his values, all he can fascilitate is an exploration of perspectives. The contradiction and flaw in his system is that, he obviously does want to influence and create a world akin to his own moral views, yet the tools he is so dogmatically attached to will not allow for that to happen. He is failing to convince Destiny of his own value system, because all he can do in the end is say "Well, that's how I feel because I was raised this way.". All he can do is express his value system, but anyone who does not align with it can just reject it, and in fact is right to do so, because MrGirl admits it's just his on self-bias. So really, MrGirl is trying to achieve two things at the same time that are just opposed to each other, and it just undermines the whole process. Also notice, that because of this lense MrGirl is attached to, you cannot ever really move him off any of his points, because in the end it's all just self-bias, and he thinks everything boils down to self-bias, so in the end he thinks that nothing is more valid than anything else, so why would he ever change any of his positions.

Interesting thing we have kind of completely forgotten about: Nazis don't exist anymore by the definitions we used to use, even like 10 years ago. People who adhere to nazi ideology are not nazis, they are neo-nazis. We specifically had that term to describe these people, and I remember vividly in my youth we used that term, and the term nazi had an exclusively historical connotation. So, it's actually pretty easy to avoid the "nazi" term altogether, by just referring to actual neo-nazis as... well, neo-nazis, because that's what they are, and that's the term we specifically have assigned to them.

What you fear is death, because death is ultimate uncertainty. Death is the most radical change into the, appearing, unknown. You are terrified because you do not know what comes after, and that is okay. Look around you, trillions, in fact, infnite of your brothers and sisters facing death every day, and another infinite of them having faced death in the past. Many of them terrified, even more so than you are. We, as worldly creatures, naturally resist death in the form it is unraveling for us. I could tell you a story that might sooth your mind, but it is likely that you will still experience the uncertainty, the terror, the fear and the dread eventually. This is because you are human. I know that you do not want to experience the fear, the suffering, the loss, the resistance. But I want to remind you that, you are allowed to fear. You are allowed to resist, to want it not to happen. You are allowed to suffer, and to resist your suffering. In that you can find your ultimate freedom. When the suffering becomes unbearable, when your fear overwhelms you, that is okay, and it is okay for you to not be okay with it. In fact, this is your ultimate freedom, your ultimate Love. You are Christ, bearing the unbearable, as we speak. You are just not realizing it. And that is part of your Love, your Ultimate Sacrifice, your Ultimate Selflessness. You have created yourself, you have made yourself ignorant, so that you could allow Creation to be itself. Creation, including your suffering, your fear. And because you are the Ultimate, your suffering cannot ever harm you. No matter how much your resist, no matter how much you suffer, how much you want it to stop, it will never touch you. It will only appear and disappear in your Presence. So go on my brother. Fear what you must fear, desire what you must desire. Allow yourself to resist, and allow yourself to be uncertain. Or do not, that you are equally allowed to do. That is the cross you bear, that is your Love. That Love, nobody can take away, not even you, no matter how blind you or anyone else might be to it.

Yes, it is Impossible. That's the final insight, unless it is deemed otherwise. Once you recognize Impossibility, there is no more need to make sense, unless it is deemed to be needed. And then you realize the Nature of Manifestation, that it's Nature cannot be captured, not by infinity, not by duality, not by anything, and yet, by infinity, by duality and by anything, unless it is deemed otherwise. That is the miracle of Existence: The Laws of Logic always apply, throughout all of that which exists. Unless they do not. It is necessitated by Oneness, unless it is not. Saying Creation is Limitless, is putting a limit on Creation. It is Impossibility.

Indra's net.

Are you sure this is still true? Courses are just knowledge, you can buy a course, extract all the knowledge and sell it for cheaper and make tons of money that way, so usually there are cheaper alternatives around for that kind of stuff. Unless it's a course where you literally get taught and tested.

But this happens because Green has cut itself off from Orange. This is why I respect people like Destiny and even Mr Girl so much, because they are reaching out a hand, and narrowing the gap between these two value systems. The reason why they are getting so toxic is because green lost all influence over stage orange, and there is a reason for that. This is not how evolution happens, it requires a transition, not a jump. There is no bridge which will lead you from orange to green at the moment. Green, in it's excess and dysfunctionality, will demonize orange to such a degree that of course none of them will take a step towards them. One small error, and in the eyes of green, you are a bigot who needs to be eliminated from society. That's not healthy, and I think we can blame social media platforms for that.

It started by you framing it as if healthy orange was already out there and it's all some sort of dysfunction stemming out of stage orange, when I think there are different dynamics at play which give rise to these phenomena. And being aware of that is the first step towards a solution.

But the issue isn't just economic. And the irony is as long as green has no holistic approach to this, the very people they try to help will be resisting them. They sit in their ivory towers, educated, raised mostly in wealthy families, and then they look at the plebs beneath them and call them racists and bigots. They are this way precisely because they did not have all the things the greens had. Demonizing them is the height of hypocrisy.

But it only works because the people have a lack. If they didn't have a lack, they wouldn't be seduced by it. Yes, I agree. But that doesn't change the underlying dynamic and the proper solutions. We need strong, healthy stage orange and blue. We need to take a step back and focus on all the people we left behind, because they won't be served by the current progressive value system.

If Hasan or Vaush watched your video they would call you an incel. But that's part of what stage orange desires. You must agree that there are some unhealthy, runaway manifestations of stage green going on. Just look at what happened to Vaush lately, it's just pure cancer. If you are progressive, you can't criticize any of progressive ideas as long as they are framed in a way in which, if you do, you might possibly be a bigot. This dynamic is happening and it is extremely unhealthy, and that's what stage orange is reacting against, which of course leads to further division and extremes on both sides. This is not systems thinking. You can't just assert "Ah he was good at manipulationg therefore he was able to exploit everyones ignorance!". I'm actually surprised that you would say something like that. Because the obvious question would be: Why are they capable of doing so today? What makes it so people are ignorant and unconscious? Your answer has no explanatory power because master manipulators always existed, yet this phenomena is clearly different on multiple levels. They get popular precisely because of the landscape of the time, and that is related to spiral dynamics. They are exploiting the dynamics, they don't give rise to them. Social media algorithms are doing a lot of damage here and it's not necessarily the case that we can just break through that, without changing the systems first.

You got no flack for it because you are not popular. If we got some stage green people to watch your video, and if they thought you were actually influential, I'm pretty sure you'd get a lot of backlash for that. Jordan Peterson is a good example, he is giving people basically a good foundation for stage blue and orange. But because of the values that system comes with, people reacted against him which lead to him equally reacting back against them. Why do you think Trump and Andrew Tate are so popular? It's just coincidence? There is a clear lack of healthy stage orange in the current Zeitgeist. You are not part of the Zeitgeist, most stage orange people will look at you and cringe. You do not appeal to those people anymore nearly as much as what is needed to get people up the spiral. To me what we are observing is clearly an ego backlash, the way we are trying to transition into green is simply not sustainable and healthy, and the ideologies emergent due to the changed social dynamics on the internet do not allow for healthy evolution.