Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Yet, that still doesn’t explain why this particular dream.

The answer is so infinite that a human being cannot fathom it.

[JoshB]

49 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When you are God, you want to be human, and when you are human, you want to be God.

God is human for the same reason humans play video games.

 

[Thought Art]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The answer is so infinite that a human being cannot fathom it.

That is interesting. I think if I could answer that my understand of God would be stronger. Actually, a state of true God Realization should reveal that. But, did it for you?

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

But, did it for you?

No.

Your human questions are too shallow to matter to God.

[PenguinPablo]

I've been doing some deep meditation combining binaural beats, kriya yoga, self-enquiry, breath work, etc...

And when you start to think about it the notion of where I begin, the sensations of @PenguinPablo as a self vs. say Tom Cruise is an optical illlusion basically, albeit a persistent one and effective I suppose for functioning.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

@Leo Gura I don’t understand how you can make a blog post about Hallucinating Tom Cruise and then say manifestation isn’t real.

Edited 3 hours ago by AtmanIsBrahman

[TheEnigma]

Hello Leo and anyone who is reading this. How come I noticed this pattern in North America at least. Right wing conservatives tend to be more pessimistic (the elites are pedophiles!!) So they are more likely to say Canada or America is doomed. Yet Left Wing woke or liberals tend to be more optimistic "I think things will improve! Look our government is already building more housing and transit! Look Carney is so trustworhy he's a banker and not a politican, he is good with numbers he will take care of us" Or i tend to see more conservatives be more likely to say America and Canada are 3rd world countries now. Where as more liberals are likely to still see America as a 1st world country. Why is it not by luck that I observed that more likely conservatives tend to be more negative about the outlook of Canada or USA and I'm more likely to find more liberals with a positive outlook? Also why are conservatives less likely to trust a public government and more wanting private businesses more likely to admire Andrew Tate, Musk etc?

Edited 1 hour ago by TheEnigma

[Magnanimous]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

To escape Omniscience.

You are dreaming in order to gain relief from being God. Being God is too easy and boring. You are so bored you want excitement and drama. That is the purpose of life. Life is a vacation from being God.

When you are God, you want to be human, and when you are human, you want to be God.

God is human for the same reason humans play video games.

Now that you know that Leo, do you enjoy the challenges of life?

 

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura So, why am I this way in my relative totality is too unimportant for God? What is God busy doing dishes or something? Jk

I don’t buy it. You don’t know why, and maybe that’s okay. I don’t know why. Does God even know?

To me, this seems like a fundamental question and an aspect of "what the hell is reality". Because if you can’t figure out why reality is the way it is… it’s not omniscient because you’d imagine as a human an omniscient awakening would explain finite human reality. 
 

Also, to grasp Gods will would also explain this. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Thought Art

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Leo Gura, great you got into Babylon interest. Take a look the Book from David Graeber "Debt" it touch on the themes of Barter,Slavery,Guilt,Gold,Coinage,Sin, and overall the origin of the Idea of Debt or that one being Owns another being. Because well, the ideia that I can own another human being must be created even if was bit by bit or bite by bite if we go back to pre-history.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, TheEnigma said:

Hello Leo and anyone who is reading this. How come I noticed this pattern in North America at least. Right wing conservatives tend to be more pessimistic (the elites are pedophiles!!) So they are more likely to say Canada or America is doomed. Yet Left Wing woke or liberals tend to be more optimistic "I think things will improve! Look our government is already building more housing and transit! Look Carney is so trustworhy he's a banker and not a politican, he is good with numbers he will take care of us" Or i tend to see more conservatives be more likely to say America and Canada are 3rd world countries now. Where as more liberals are likely to still see America as a 1st world country. Why is it not by luck that I observed that more likely conservatives tend to be more negative about the outlook of Canada or USA and I'm more likely to find more liberals with a positive outlook? Also why are conservatives less likely to trust a public government and more wanting private businesses more likely to admire Andrew Tate, Musk etc?

Because leftists are utopians. They don't understand survival so they demanding things they will never get.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

@Leo Gura I don’t understand how you can make a blog post about Hallucinating Tom Cruise and then say manifestation isn’t real.

Manifestion isn't real for the ego. It real for God.

[Rafael Thundercat]

I had a chat with Claude on the topic of the last post on AI Delusion.

AI Delusions https://share.google/TxWA0rkVvwsteDRU9

 

Weird, having a chat about AI delusion with the AI itself. 

Here is what I got:

Claude:
There's a strong core here, but also some weak points in the argument.
What holds up: an apocalyptic or messianic belief combined with enormous incentives distorts judgment. When the goal is "infinitely good," any means starts to look cheap, and that logic has caused a lot of damage in history. It's also legitimate to fear that the promise of an "AI that solves everything" serves as a veneer for concentrating power, and that the real costs (jobs, energy, inequality) fall on people who have no say.
Where I'd push back:
"Most CEOs believe it" is a generalization. Some believe it sincerely, others exaggerate for marketing and fundraising. The two cases call for different responses, and the text treats everything as sincere delusion.
"Zero evidence" is too strong. There is evidence of real progress; what doesn't exist is evidence that the extrapolation to a "digital God" will pan out. Uncertainty is not the same as absence of evidence.
The suicide-bomber comparison and "would kill a million children" are rhetoric, not argument. They weaken the solid part of the text.
"The problem is not AI" may be a false dichotomy: the technology can carry real risks and the ideology around it can be dangerous.
I'm an AI made by one of those companies, so take my analysis knowing that. But I think the critique gets stronger if it targets incentives and power structures rather than psychological diagnosis.
A question for you: what draws you more in this text, the analysis of incentives or the moral certainty that they're monsters? It's worth noticing which of the two is moving you.
You:
I think you analyzed the text more than I did. I don't take anything for granted.
Claude:
Fair, and thanks for the correction. I assumed an endorsement you hadn't declared: I read the text as if it were your position and responded to it, when you were only bringing it into the conversation.
So the right question is a different one: what do you want to do with it? It could be testing whether the argument holds up, understanding why it resonates, or seeing what happens to reasoning when one premise (the belief in the "AI-God") is pushed to the extreme. Each of those paths calls for a different conversation.
You:
The only way would be to meet some of these CEOs and see what they say, to know whether they're really that deluded.
Claude:
Good idea, and you can do it without meeting them in person: many have already spoken at length in long interviews, essays, and congressional testimony. But what they say in public is filtered by incentives (fundraising, regulation, image), so listening to them alone doesn't settle the question of sincere belief.
A few signals help separate conviction from marketing:
Consistency across audiences: does what they tell investors, regulators, and casual conversation partners match?
Behavior: do they act like people who believe in extreme risk or extreme gain? Where do they put money, time, and people?
Stated uncertainty: people who use "maybe," "if," and "I estimate" tend to be better calibrated than people who speak only in certainties.
Disagreement among them: if people in the same industry openly disagree, "most of them are like that" loses force.
Want me to look up what some of them have said recently, so you can evaluate concrete material instead of the caricature?
You:
Sure
Claude:
The material I found shows a more varied picture than the text you brought suggests.
Who speaks with certainty:
Sam Altman says we may be only a couple of years away from early versions of true superintelligence. He also said that OpenAI will have an internal system it calls AGI by the end of 2026. But his track record matters: one compilation of his statements shows that in February 2026 he said "we basically have built AGI" and later backed off, calling the phrase a spiritual statement, not a literal one. That fits your doubt about conviction versus marketing.  (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2)
Dario Amodei, of Anthropic (the company that made me, so weigh that), argues that the next level of AI could debut in 2026 and be smarter than Nobel Prize winners.  (khaleejtimes)
Who speaks with doubt:
Demis Hassabis, of Google DeepMind, is more cautious: he sees AGI on the horizon, maybe within the next five years. He has also said AI is overhyped in the short term but underappreciated in the medium to long term, and that parts of the industry probably are in a bubble.  (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2)
Sundar Pichai acknowledged elements of irrationality in the market, similar to the dot-com era's exuberance.  (newatlas)
Yann LeCun, who isn't a CEO but is a heavyweight voice, called the idea of manufacturing "geniuses" in a data center complete BS.  (malaymail)
What this says about the thesis: "most CEOs are deluded in the same way" doesn't hold up well. Some forecast extremely short timelines, and others warn of exaggeration, sometimes inside the same companies that profit from the narrative. That doesn't absolve anyone: the people with the most aggressive timelines are also the ones who most need capital. But "sincere conviction" and "marketing" seem to coexist in different proportions in each person.
A question for you: after seeing this, what changed in your initial impression, and what stayed the same?

Edited 8 minutes ago by Rafael Thundercat