Leo Gura

Irrelevant to what I said.

Or this: Can you tell me what is the most intelligent/interesting prompt I could ask you?

Advice for how to have sex as if it was written by Shakespeare This AI could be used purely for comedy.

You can try to give it the task to read Chris Lagan's jargon papers and translate into normal human language. That would be quite the achievement. Or can you can ask it to try to render an intelligent criticism of Leo Gura's philosophy.

Haha, that's hilarious! That's exactly what academics do! "Robust ocular contact" is my new fave pickup advice I must admit, it's nice to finally be recognized as an "orator" Robust ocular contact and vigorous verbal intercourse will surely result in boisterous penial junction.

Enough that I am too lazy to itemize them all.

But what is meaningful about that? Of course you can buy a parrot and teach him to talk like me. You can even teach him to say, "But Leo!"

Very interesting, thanks! He's as incompetent and stupid as Trump. The only reason Trump didn't make things as bad is because the US has a highly effective deep state of world-class professionals.

Well, that's easy. You can just ask it. But in order to ask, you yourself would have to understand science, which almost no human does. I could easily ask it and see how good it comprehends the limits of science, if I wanted to. Because I spent my whole life contemplating this topic and I know all the traps. Of course it could. But will the AI be wise enough to appreciate my videos? How will the AI know to weigh my statements higher in truth value than all the other crap found on YT? The real magic would be if the AI could arrive at all my answers just by contemplating what it reads on Wikipedia about science, without ever reading my work. Then it is truly thinking. If you just give it all the answers that's not meaningful. - - - - - Basically you can ask the AI to this: Read through all the information about how science works on Wikipedia, then contemplate the nature of science for yourself and generate some unique insights about the limits of science which you did not gather from any online source but came up with independently by looking at the first principles of science and their inherent limitations. That's basically what I did.

Chess develops a very narrow kind of intuition. It's an intuition for the mechanics of the pieces on that board. Of course your intuition for chess is massively developed through play. Doesn't mean it will translate into other parts of life. It almost certainly will not because it is so deeply tied to the mechanics of those pieces. That intuition will hardly even translate to another board game like Go. You speak nonsense.

We'll allow the link in this case.

What you said does not connect with what I said.

What happened there?

There is actually good reason to rush. If you truly need to transition, doing it before adulthood is key or your results won't be good. You just need to be damn sure you want this. It can't be some flakey group-think cultural programming crap. That is really the only concern: How much of this stuff is pure group-think?

@something_else Interesting. Thanks for sharing. But all that info can basically be found on Wikipedia. Still impressive how it assembles it with such fluency. Actually I would say this is false. Incompleteness is the very reason for mystery. If reality was complete it would could be fully explicated and therefore lack any mystery. Incompleteness = infinity = mystery But you will not find this insight on Wikipedia. You gotta think it thru for yourself.

Soon enough I predict these AI will learn to think for themselves. But even so, I don't know how good it will be at thinking about the kind of stuff I teach.

Chess is deeply intutive because intution is the highest intelligence. You don't have time to do brute force calculations in chess. The best math/logic is actually also deeply intuitive. See Ramanujan.

The best benefits of pickup are not the sex.

Daygame is amazing if you got the right location. It's all about location.

Yeah, it's gonna reflect the biases of the culture and data it is fed. Wikipedia has this bias too. I would never expect this AI to have a deep metaphysical understanding of science's limits. No scientist understands that.

Of course trans is a much more serious issue. But also, it's done so rarely compared to roids. Yes, deciding to transition and then changing your mind about it is a failure of the system and ideology. What I would like to know is how many people transition and then love the result? This is the key metric for success. The fact that right-wingers are not interested in this metric tells you they are using this issue in bad faith. If anyone here wants to dig into the studies and offer some unbiased analysis, that would be very helpful. Honestly, I have not looked into the studies so it's hard to say. A lot of studies are crap these days so the trans side cannot be taken blindly. This issue is way too politicized on both sides.

These numbers are so low given the US population that is shows how blown out of all proportion this issue is.

That is a fair point. We def need better studies. But will the regret rate really jump to 50%+? Unless you're willing to bet it does, it's not looking good for the anti-trans side. They need to demostrate that it does more harm than good, which I have not seen anything close to yet from the science. Let's say the regret rate is 20%, that still not too bad.

Top Gina

The reality is that the actual rate of saved lives is nothing as small 0.1%. So your point is moot. Millions of lives were saved. If anti-vaxxers were in charge millions of lives would have been lost. The irresponsibilty of anti-vaxxers is almost criminal.