Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[UnbornTao]

41 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I don't know but something lol.  Haha.  Something.  

What?

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

What?

Whaat?

[UnbornTao]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

The sage/saint is supposed to be the only one above corruption because he lives a life of truth.

Of course even sages are corrupt in practice, just relatively less so.

I am still corrupt, but much less so than most people would be in my position.

I see. We could think of sages as just people - obvious, perhaps, but it keeps them from being idealized too easily, even when their wisdom is recognized. And as Diogenes may have learned, there aren't that many, I'd say.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

And as Diogenes may have learned, there aren't that many, I'd say.

Of course, humans who know Truth is the rarest thing. That's why they are regarded as saints and mystics.

But in practice Awakening is not enough to rid oneself of all corruption. That is a superhuman feat.

Edited March 7 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course, humans who know Truth is the rarest thing. That's why they are regarded as saints and mystics.

But in practice Awakening is not enough to rid oneself of all corruption. That is a superhuman feat.

We should all start with a barrel and a lantern.

[Joseph Maynor]

Seems like there's an inconsistency with how philosophy is being used.  

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How can we verify the corrections are right? 

I always think on this when using ai for any contemplation. It makes me aware I could be outsourcing authority.

By not being passive. By interrogating and being critical of the output. It's a reasoning instrument, not an authority. 

The most powerful use of AI is interactive interrogation.

The very fact that everyone is asking "How do we know if we can trust it?" means the idea of epistemic responsibility has gone mainstream. Humans will adapt, just like how they stopped trusting the first answer they saw on Google.

AI will eventually normalize interrogating answers. If that happens, it would be one of the biggest shifts in the epistemic environment humans have ever experienced.

[Yimpa]

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

For example, take a lion that wants to hunt a gazelle in order to eat, and a gazelle that runs away to avoid being eaten. Is the lion being “untruthfully truthful” here? Should a lion somehow become vegetarian, even if that goes completely against its nature?

Animals are survival machines. They don't know anything about truth. No other possibility exists for them. But you are not an animal.

Quote

It seems like, as long as you have finite creatures with finite resources and finite ways of keeping themselves alive, some degree of conflict or apparent hypocrisy is bound to happen.

Yes, all finite beings are limited. A finite being cannot be perfectly God-like. But also that is not needed. The point is that humans can become more God-like through truth-seeking.

Some degree of hypocrisy is acceptable in mortals.

Quote

That’s why I originally said I’m not sure truth is the main issue here. It seems more like a question of incentives and social structures that shape survival and behavior.

Truth IS the main issue. You're still not understanding how deep the connection between Truth and Good goes. Contemplate the connection deeper.

Good is not a social structure. Good is Truth itself.

Edited March 7 by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

By not being passive. By interrogating and being critical of the output. It's a reasoning instrument, not an authority. 

The most powerful use of AI is interactive interrogation.

The very fact that everyone is asking "How do we know if we can trust it?" means the idea of epistemic responsibility has gone mainstream. Humans will adapt, just like how they stopped trusting the first answer they saw on Google.

AI will eventually normalize interrogating answers. If that happens, it would be one of the biggest shifts in the epistemic environment humans have ever experienced.

Do we know how it is programmed?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

just like how they stopped trusting the first answer they saw on Google.

Ahahahahah....

[Joshe]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Ahahahahah....

Progress has been made. Gotta start somewhere.

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Progress has been made. Gotta start somewhere.

The first answer now on Google is AI, and people read it and believe it.

Zero epistemic process there.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

I would argue that I am more like an animal than I am any sort of "being of Truth"

That's why I say most humans are animals.

But if you follow my work then you should aspire to something more.

Edited March 7 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, No1Here2c said:

@Leo Gura

How to Solve this problem Once and for All?

What problem?

[Leo Gura]

@No1Here2c You speak gibberish so there is nothing more to say.

[Julian gabriel]

PERFECT

[VioletFlame]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The first answer now on Google is AI, and people read it and believe it.

Zero epistemic process there.

@Leo Gura That's the problem. People search for a quick and dirty, promptly answer now, then blindly accept it as truth, without thinking for themselves. We search for an "answer", but fail to search for the true meaning. And the craziest thing is.. Google AI isn't even always accurate, it makes errors all the time, and AI itself can be biased! It accumulates data from peoples' opinions on the internet, not just "facts", but can be disguised as "facts". It is rather deceiving and misleading. Remember there was a time we'd actually have to do some research on the internet to find the answer we were looking for? We'd have to dig through various articles, forums, and sites to actually thoroughly learn something? Lol. I still favor this method, because I believe it's the most effective. However, research to most people now is an inconvenience. If we can obtain the "answer" instantaneously in a matter of seconds, why would most people bother to "go the extra mile" and dive deeper into the meaning of a thing? It's like it feeds on our obsession with convenience & taking the easy route. 

Edited March 7 by VioletFlame

[VioletFlame]

I've tested its accuracy before and I believe Google AI actually said that the relative minor of the key G major is A minor once and I was so appalled, but also found it kind of amusing, lol. The relative minor of G major is E minor. I literally outsmarted AI. Haha.

But like my point is, for someone who didn't already have that knowledge, and was genuinely trying to learn say a relative minor to a key signature, for example, searches it on Google, and the first answer that pops up is blatantly false, then that's concerning. It's literally spreading misinformation and dumbing us down, in these instances.

[TheEnigma]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Animals are survival machines. They don't know anything about truth. No other possibility exists for them. But you are not an animal.

Yes, all finite beings are limited. A finite being cannot be perfectly God-like. But also that is not needed. The point is that humans can become more God-like through truth-seeking.

Some degree of hypocrisy is acceptable in mortals.

Truth IS the main issue. You're still not understanding how deep the connection between Truth and Good goes. Contemplate the connection deeper.

Good is not a social structure. Good is Truth itself.

So how can psychedellics just make you into a being that's the next level of consciousness than a human? Because for a dog to have the consciousness of a healthy adult human, it would take many years to train it, even if it had the potential. So how can a human being just take psychedellics and expect themselves to be the level next of a being just for a few hours? for a dog to become the level of consciosuness of a human, it has to train to read, write, speak, understand logic, math science etc... so I just don't see how taking psychedellics can create such a short cut. Cause if a dog or chimpanzee took psychedellics it still has to learn how to be an adult human and what an adult human does, it will just be given the mind, but an adult human understands things because we also have life experience. A person can't just take psychedellics and expect for themselves to understand what it's like at the next level in just a few hours, because that next level has years of being that self, therefore has the experience that a human can't just understand in hours, similar to how a dog can't just take psychedellics and become like a human, nor understand what we understand. How would you explain this Leo?