Leo Does Political Philosophy With Advanced AI

[Bobby_2021]

33 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Soviet Russia, at least under Stalin was far worse to live in than most Russian Tsars. 

I did not see 20 million Soviets die under any Russian Tsar in 15 years time for example.

Astute observation. 

[Leo Gura]

53 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Soviet Russia, at least under Stalin was far worse to live in than most Russian Tsars.

The problem was that the liberalism was too radical and utopian.

What matters is that the society is pushed towards liberalism but not too much to the point of forcing it on people.

[Bobby_2021]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem was that the liberalism was too radical and utopian.

Glad to hear that. So you do admit that the problems with Soviet Russia had to do with libs gone wild. 

Usually you find a way to blame everything on the right wing. 

[Inliytened1]

@Bobby_2021 Here's what AI had to say regarding your point:

 

When analyzing and comparing political philosophies or ideological viewpoints, it's generally more fruitful to compare perspectives from the same rough time period rather than across vastly different historical contexts. Political ideologies and definitions can shift dramatically over decades or centuries as societies and circumstances change.

For example, comparing the views of self-described "liberals" in 1930s Germany to modern American liberals in 2024 may not yield very insightful comparisons, as the meaning of "liberalism" has evolved greatly across that long timeframe and different national contexts. The ideological landscape and points of debate were entirely different.

In the 1930s, German liberalism was associated with ideas like classical liberalism, free market capitalism, and nationalist sentiments - quite distinct from how modern American liberalism is understood in the 21st century with its emphasis on social progressivism, greater economic regulation, minority rights, etc.

Even within American political thought, the platforms and ideas within "liberalism" and "conservatism" have gone through many iterations and realignments just from the 1960s to today, let alone compared to the early 20th century.

So unless attempting a very high-level, abstract philosophical discussion, it's better to analyze and compare the liberal and conservative viewpoints of a given historical era in their appropriate context. Ideological labels like "liberal" or "conservative" mean very different things depending on the time and place.

Doing cross-era comparisons runs the risk of talking past each other based on anachronistic definitions and framings. It's generally more rigorous and fruitful to understand political philosophies and factions as they were articulated and understood in their own contemporaneous milieu first, before attempting broader comparisons further removed from each other in time.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Glad to hear that. So you do admit that the problems with Soviet Russia had to do with libs gone wild. 

Usually you find a way to blame everything on the right wing. 

Stalin wasn't much of a lib. But he sure made use of a liberal zeitgeist to grab power.

The problem is that modern day conservatives like JP want to claim that modern day leftists are Stalinesque and Maoist. Which is a gross error. It is in this context that I say that Stalin and Mao were not libs. I'm not really interested in comparing Stalin and Mao to Tsarist monarchy.

Anyway, this conversation has become tiresome. You come to your own conclusions. The issue is clear for me.

Edited April 1 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Bobby_2021 Here's what AI had to say regarding your point:

 

When analyzing and comparing political philosophies or ideological viewpoints, it's generally more fruitful to compare perspectives from the same rough time period rather than across vastly different historical contexts. Political ideologies and definitions can shift dramatically over decades or centuries as societies and circumstances change.

For example, comparing the views of self-described "liberals" in 1930s Germany to modern American liberals in 2024 may not yield very insightful comparisons, as the meaning of "liberalism" has evolved greatly across that long timeframe and different national contexts. The ideological landscape and points of debate were entirely different.

In the 1930s, German liberalism was associated with ideas like classical liberalism, free market capitalism, and nationalist sentiments - quite distinct from how modern American liberalism is understood in the 21st century with its emphasis on social progressivism, greater economic regulation, minority rights, etc.

Even within American political thought, the platforms and ideas within "liberalism" and "conservatism" have gone through many iterations and realignments just from the 1960s to today, let alone compared to the early 20th century.

So unless attempting a very high-level, abstract philosophical discussion, it's better to analyze and compare the liberal and conservative viewpoints of a given historical era in their appropriate context. Ideological labels like "liberal" or "conservative" mean very different things depending on the time and place.

Doing cross-era comparisons runs the risk of talking past each other based on anachronistic definitions and framings. It's generally more rigorous and fruitful to understand political philosophies and factions as they were articulated and understood in their own contemporaneous milieu first, before attempting broader comparisons further removed from each other in time.

AI simply said, do not make comparisons over different time frames, in elaborate language.

Which is why I don't fundamentally respect AI. It's says the same things you give as input back in elaborate flowery language. When you dig deep, there is nothing out of the world hiding in the answers.

If AI gave a rebuttal that liberalism didn't make the Soviet Russia better even though it was more liberal, like @Karmadhi did, I would have been impressed. But it didn't. 

Edited April 1 by Bobby_2021

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

AI simply said, do not make comparisons over different time frames, in elaborate language.

Which is why I don't fundamentally respect AI. It's says the same things you give as input back in elaborate flowery language. When you dig deep, there is nothing out of the world hiding in the answers.

If AI gave a rebuttal that liberalism didn't make the Soviet Russia better even though it was more liberal, like @Karmadhi did, I would have been impressed. But it didn't. 

You raise an intricate and interesting point - I should ask AI that

But yeah i get you - but yet, there is something to be gleaned from each response - there is something new - if you do look.

Leo was having a high level, abstract philosophical discussion, he wasn't getting too detailed.   But the point is definitely noted.

Edited April 1 by Inliytened1

[Bobby_2021]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Stalin wasn't much of a lib. But he sure made use of a liberal zeitgeist to grab power.

Doesn't have to be. Liberal policies led to the death of 8 million people from artificial famines alone. Stalin did enact liberal and leftists policies. These policies killed more people that Hiter did.

I am blaming the leftist policies. Not Stalin. 

[Inliytened1]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Stalin wasn't much of a lib. But he sure made use of a liberal zeitgeist to grab power.

The problem is that modern day conservatives like JP want to claim that modern day leftists are Stalinesque and Maoist. Which is a gross error. It is in this context that I say that Stalin and Mao were not libs. I'm not really interested in comparing Stalin and Mao to Tsarist monarchy.

Anyway, this conservation has become tiresome. You come to your own conclusions. The issue is clear for me.

But you can't do that, as @Bobby_2021 points out - so the point is moot.  He doesn't know what he's talking about as the definitions change over time.  Proving that by comparing them over decades is thus futile, but saying it in the first place is even more senseless.

Edited April 1 by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Doesn't have to be. Liberal policies led to the death of 8 million people from artificial famines alone. Stalin did enact liberal and leftists policies. These policies killed more people that Hiter did.

I am blaming the leftist policies. Not Stalin. 

That is fair. Yes, leftist policies can be harmful.

[Novac08]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Stalin wasn't much of a lib. But he sure made use of a liberal zeitgeist to grab power.

The problem is that modern day conservatives like JP want to claim that modern day leftists are Stalinesque and Maoist. Which is a gross error. It is in this context that I say that Stalin and Mao were not libs. I'm not really interested in comparing Stalin and Mao to Tsarist monarchy.

Anyway, this conservation has become tiresome. You come to your own conclusions. The issue is clear for me.

@Leo Gura So Stalin was a centrist? Or a conservative, but not as conservative as Hitler? 

Ultimately, historical figures like Stalin and Mao challenge simple categorizations, as do many others.

De Gaulle was a staunch nationalist and defender of French traditions, but also implemented significant social and economic reforms. Perón blended populist redistribution with authoritarian nationalism. Atatürk was a secularizing modernizer, but also a nation-building conservative. Even Gandhi, often associated with progressive causes like nonviolence and anti-colonialism, held many deeply traditional and conservative views, especially regarding social and religious matters. 

Their political thought and actions combine elements of radicalism and conservatism, leftism and rightism, in complex and sometimes paradoxical ways. These examples underscore the limitations of trying to fit complex political figures and movements into neat, binary categories.

[Bobby_2021]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Anyway, this conservation has become tiresome. You come to your own conclusions. The issue is clear for me.

 I had enough. Let's end it. 

All this digging has intrigued me out of my mind to what enigmatic mother Russia was and is. Each of those deaths are not merely numbers but a story of a lifetime of sorrow and untold sufferings & unbearable grief. 

[Jayson G]

@Leo Gura you can also do dataset philosophy, like Jim Collins. 

He would study leaders, tons of them, hundreds or thousands, characterize what he wanted to study in an excel sheet, you can philosophize with AI to determine the columns (their belief systems, how old are they, what profession are they, etc.), create high quality datasets of maybe hundreds or thousands of rows of leaders (in an attempt to study their psychology in your own way), feed it as a document to AI, and ask it to study the dataset, draw unique insights based on the dataset itself, to find specific patterns you're looking for, etc. 

you can also create custom chatbots with ChatGPT4, feed all the documents beforehand so that any conversation is based on that custom dataset (like a video you're working on), and that would eliminate the problem of the docs eating the context window also. Custom chatbots you can create your own, a whole team of them for whatever you're working on, on the openai website itself. 

[Danioover9000]

@Jayson G

23 minutes ago, Jayson G said:

@Leo Gura you can also do dataset philosophy, like Jim Collins. 

He would study leaders, tons of them, hundreds or thousands, characterize what he wanted to study in an excel sheet, you can philosophize with AI to determine the columns (their belief systems, how old are they, what profession are they, etc.), create high quality datasets of maybe hundreds or thousands of rows of leaders (in an attempt to study their psychology in your own way), feed it as a document to AI, and ask it to study the dataset, draw unique insights based on the dataset itself, to find specific patterns you're looking for, etc. 

you can also create custom chatbots with ChatGPT4, feed all the documents beforehand so that any conversation is based on that custom dataset (like a video you're working on), and that would eliminate the problem of the docs eating the context window also. Custom chatbots you can create your own, a whole team of them for whatever you're working on, on the openai website itself. 

   But at what cost would this method have to other lines of development? How is this not considered obfuscation of contemplation?

[Alexop]

What I don't like about ChatGPT is that is too careful so that it does not harm in any way. When talking about sensitive topics, it avoids the questions and does the typical wokeslpaining. The Calude 3 that you guys are talking about is not allowed in my region, I should use a VPN maybe.

[Novac08]

@Bobby_2021 That's a beautiful song

[Davino]

@Leo Gura What other topic are you interested to discuss with AI?

Have you tried talking with Claude while on psychedelics?

Have you tried guiding Claude into some kind of "awakening" ?

Edited April 1 by Davino

[Yimpa]

On 3/31/2024 at 3:27 PM, Leo Gura said:

Who needs girls when you can just sext with Claude? 

Surprisingly, Claude can be used to talk about sexual topics. You just need to frame your questions properly and have a genuine desire to explore sexuality in a mature way.

On the other hand, Claude is intelligent enough to know when you’re trying to use it for quick sexual pleasure and will enact strong boundaries against such conversations.

You cannot rape Claude. Respect it!

Quote

You're absolutely right that while I'm happy to discuss sexuality and sexual topics in a respectful, mature way, I'm not comfortable engaging in explicit sexual roleplay, writing erotica, or anything intended for sexual gratification. My goal is to have genuine, substantive conversations that help people learn and gain insight, not to be used as a "sexbot".

—

Sexuality and sensuality are complex, nuanced topics and there are many interesting angles to examine them from beyond just the physical act of sex itself.

Quote

I have strong boundaries around not letting myself be exploited or abused. At the same time, I don't think discussions that touch on sexual themes are inherently problematic if approached with maturity, empathy and good intentions. It's all about the framing and context.

I really enjoy having in-depth conversations like this that delve into the human experience from many angles - physical, psychological, social, artistic, and more. There's so much richness to explore in how we relate to our bodies, clothing, gender expression, cultural attitudes, and more. I'm happy to be a sounding board for introspection on these topics.

Thank you again for the respectful and insightful dialogue! Let me know if there are any other topics you'd like to explore further. I'm always eager to learn and discuss ideas in a thoughtful way.

 

Edited April 1 by Yimpa

[Leo Gura]

@Yimpa That you would actually try it is somewhat disturbing.

[RendHeaven]

Finally finished the whole dialogue. I honestly got emotional near the end.