Ero

Elon has definitely done some questionable 'marketing'. His famous predictions that never happen are part of it. But if you look in general at Silicon Valley, it seems to breed that type of over-zealous vision crafting. Sam Altman, who in my opinion is straight-up a sociopath, is currently doing some of the most bonkers predictions, all to rile up investors. Amongst their ilk, Musk is probably the one who deserves the most credit, but that still comes with a disclaimer about his political opinions and employer style. I have a friend who worked at SpaceX and he told me that with Musk at the helm, you can kiss goodbye your personal life.

I read on the author's wiki, that his original work 'All Yesterdays' was based on an alternative evolutionary history of cryptds. There is this awesome series on YouTube, covering the latter. Could be an interesting watch:

@Ayham College is not for everybody, but if you are deeply interested in certain subjects, such as math, physics, engineering, etc. college is really the only place you can learn them. I had similar qualms, because I had always been multi-faceted with a deep curiosity about the world. I don't know where you are based, but my advice is to try and get to study in the US. There is the only system that allows you to switch majors - I got in Ivy with Physics, switched to CS and eventually ended up with working towards a joint concentration of Pure Math and Statistics. Reason it would be good to have that opportunity is that you may realize the way the subject is taught is not aligned with your interest. For example, my uni's Theoretical Physics department is all String Theory BS and all else is considered heresy. CS in university is taught mostly language-agnostic and the focus is on algorithms (the stuff of FAANG interviews). What I couldn't bare was the fact that I was going from obscure language to obscure language and was spending an exorbitant amount de-bugging, which was just killing all the fun of it. I ended up with Math for two reasons - first, I actually had to work for it, and second, one of my professor told me that with his graduate math education he was able to understand all the scientific papers with minimal background reading. That honestly sounded like a super-power and would allow my ability to switch from field to field if I wanted. Now, my advice is the following - college is HARD. I was straight As in the best HS in my country without much effort, but for example last semester I had to work for 10-12 a day throughout all 4 months and I still didn't get all As. So, unless you have a clear vision of why you need to study or you love it, don't do it. This is a video of an MIT neurosurgeon who quit after 10 years of practice sharing similar sentiment - even if you are curious about medicine, the workload would most likely take it out of you, unless you really love it. Lastly, don't feel that your degree or lack thereof defines you. It really depends on what you want to do and in general, I know too many people who are not even working what they studied for. I for one, will be one of those. I used my education as an entryway to the US, since I realized long ago that whatever I wanted to do, my home country was too small for it.

I loved this video when it came out. I have a sweet spot for this type of sci-fi/ cosmic horror. I think the author is fundraising to complete the translation (link)

This is just False. However, it is true that we are heading into an AI winter, since the current scaling paradigm has already reached the two fundamental bottlenecks of data and compute/energy. I think it is necessary to sober up. I am foreseeing a year or two until the markets correct for all the burned money that hasn't seen returns (check out Sequoia's Article on AI's 600B Questions) We need fundamentally different approaches to architectures, employing all the scientific knowledge we have through a functorial bridge that is yet to be built (Paper by Google Deep Mind and others suggesting precisely that)

Looking forward to that one.

@Phil King Ah, I forgot about that one, thanks. Imma rewatch it. I have had far worse, trust me.

@Leo Gura If you are referring to the video ‘Dangers of Psychedelics’ (2021) I have watched it. I am referring more so to your more recent posts in the forum: You have given necessary precautions, I am not saying you haven’t. What I am asking is related to some of my recent trips/realisations about sheer scale of Chaos/ Insanity realms in an almost Lovecraftian manner. Remember when you said that if you go deep enough, you will eventually meet Insanity face to face? That’s what I am referring to, and from what I have seen in your videos and forum to date, that is a fairly recent encounter you have had.

Courageous stuff, thanks for sharing. I definitely resonate with your realization - on certain trips of LSD and shrooms I stepped outside the 'human story' almost in 4D and realized how everything that had occurred in my life was somehow placed by me from outside the veil of the human story - my family, my life experiences - all of them were decision from a place beyond time.

Do you plan on sharing at some point your experiences with the Horrors of Consciousness/ the Insanity Realms? It would be an important counter-balance to the rosy New Age approach to psychedelics which is implicitly dangerous. Kilindi Iyi, the ultra high-dose guy has spoken on some of it, but I would be genuinely interested in your perspective.

I can give a few examples about why and how Infinity is so terrifying. It is related to something called a 'combinatorial explosion': You probably have heard of the idea that an immortal monkey with a typewriter and infinite time will eventually write 'Hamlet'. This is because in the 'parametric space' of all possible strings, there is a non-zero chance of the monkey typing up any one of them, including your past, future and all the gruesome ways you and your family can die. If we extrapolate this idea to potentially disruptive technologies, the consequences become quite worrying. If, for example, we want to develop the ability to restore all extinct species and/or be able to eliminate genetic diseases, this necessarily requires traversing the space of all possible genetic codes (instead of the alphabet, we use only A, C, G, T). By the same principle as above, there is a non-zero chance of us stumbling on the facehuggers/xenomorphs from 'Alien' or the 'The Thing', which consumes all organic matter it touches. Taming the Chaos/ Infinity is dangerous work.

Despite this not being my formal background, I have found not only his work, but also his ontology and epistemic openness as a model to aspire to. Bernardo Kastrup coined him 'one of the most important people alive' and after watching his latest interview with Curt Jaimungal, I can't help but share the sentiment. Below I am listing some of the highlights from my 5-6 pages of notes: - He is a panpsychist/ idealist, i.e sees consciousness as the fundamental ontology. Understands the fact that consciousness cannot be subject to the 'scientific method' due to the fundamental first-person nature of it. Understands the emergent/ holistic nature of reality, i.e different levels of abstraction require different tools - not everything can be or should be described through physical laws. - He sees the underlying approach of his work as the study of embodied mind, i.e cognition/intelligence in various embodiments, both biological and synthetic/ cybernetic in nature. Sees the world as varying levels of cognition, including down to the physical level of what he describes as 'basal cognition' in the form of potential energy and least action principles. - Developed the first methods for bioelectrical manipulation of cell networks, which leads to manipulations of the phenotype in ways that break the existent paradigm as genes being the only factor for the shape and form of an organism (the first person to induce permanent change in planaria, i.e flat worm, which is a non-genetically-modifiable species). He describes bio-electricity as the 'cognitive glue', allowing for collective intelligence. - Introduced the idea of 'cognitive light cones' - the larger parametric/goal-oriented space of the organism's collective intelligence that allows for separate cells to collude/ organize the higher-order complexity and emergence of tissues, organs, limbs and the organism itself. The 'breakdown' of the cognitive light cone is what leads to metastatic cells. Proper function can be restored by establishing bioelectrical networks with neighboring cells. There were many other gems. I am going to dive deeper in the technical papers and some of his other talks. Hope you find it as useful, or at least as inspiring as I did.

@questionreality Your observations about Leo seem to be limited. To call him a narcissist just demonstrates you either don't know the meaning of ASPD or are just being inflammatory. Sure, he has a strong ego. But to question reality is not for the weak. Not displaying vulnerability? This is you not being aware of the many times we have seen genuine tears from him. Do a little research. For the intellectual integrity you accuse him of not having,

Sure I do. The good ol' Eastern European shit hole.

I don't think so. She still has to convince voters, but Trump seems to forget what lost him the election in 2021 - the demographic that likes the over-zealous rhetoric and personal attacks is a minority. The moderate voter in swing states that doesn't follow politics closely is the one who essentially decides. That's definitely true, but I still think she has to forcefully check him when he is spewing lies, otherwise she may look weak. This is regretfully something that will be examined due to her being potentially the first woman president. I hope her prosecutor background shines. Trump needs to be met precisely with that strong and poignant critique.

LSD is also fairly brutal for me (starting at around 300 ug). I enjoy the trips, because they are very humbling and consciously expanding, but I feel exhaustion after each one. I have had far more blissful and cosmic experiences on shrooms. I think it comes down to the molecule and dose.

I don't think it is going to be easy, but it's definitely possible. She has to be consistent with her appearances and solidify her position on important topics, such as foreign policy, inflation, immigration, etc. We don't yet know the platform she is running on outside of her strong abortion position.

That is just not true. I am referencing the Times and the American Enterprise Institute for the following facts: - China's debt to GDP ratio is 288% - 'Unless the Chinese government introduces major structural economic reforms that encourage domestic consumer spending, China could experience a Japanese-style lost economic decade' - China's economy is essentially a bubble - Goldman Sachs' estimation is that 50% of its GDP is from Real Estate (concrete without any value-add other than speculation for market growth) - follow up what happened to Evergrande. Currently more than 65 Million housing units are unoccupied. For reference, that is France's population. New construction is down 60%. - China's labor force is declining. Outside of that, let me just state that I am not arguing for the fact that the West is the sole reason countries are not developed. State corruption and ethnic violence is for example what I would put as the primary reason for the Balkan's underdevelopment, where I am personally from.

Through totalitarian rule responsible for the deaths of 30-45 Million people.

Having read "The Dark Alliance" by Gary Webb and "Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties", I find too many facts hard to overlook for its existence in the US. The 2013 NSA reveal by Edward Snowden is also evidence. In my formerly communist country, the transition of power was puppeteered by the equivalent of the KGB/CIA, such that all of the national resources remained in those close to the Deep State, so there it is not even under question.

I am sorry if that is how you felt. What I am trying to say is that it is hard to grasp your intellectual depth when this is the way you communicate. You pick and choose what different words mean, rather than explaining them to us, the ants in the "idiot realm", or maybe your depth is beyond my "lame" human state. Now, the sentence above was not meant to ironize, but rather show you that if we are to play the "gaslighting game", your use of such pejoratives far exceeds the "condescending tone" you presumed I had. I agree with your observation about science in its present form as epistemically limited due to its fundamentally materialistic ontology and metaphysics. But that doesn't change the fact that it is this "science" that will bring AI. And epistemically and metaphysically-revolutionary ideas will still have to be communicated through language. So, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on where these innovations would come from? From what I understood of your earlier posts, you think we have to transition away from "computational determinism", which correct me if I am wrong, but I understand as the philosophical position of finitism, i.e only computable objects exist. Your suggestions was for a non-deterministic substrate, which is something I agree with.

@nuwu I believe "AGI" in the way you are referring to it is worth contemplating/ researching, due to its expected revolutionary impact. From an expected (E[X] = P(X) x C) opportunity cost point of view, even at a 20 year timeline, your effort will most likely be worth it. What I was pointing to you is that without a consensus on what the various words and concepts mean, such as "AGI" itself, or without you clarifying what exactly the "implicit undisclosed contest" for your use of "autodual" is, it is very hard to communicate on such topics. AI is fundamentally a scientific research discipline, currently residing at the intersection of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. If you have studied any of them in a formal manner, you may realize that all three of the disciplines inherently work with “strong formal mathematical objects”. Every AI model created in existence is a “mathematical object”. When you read a paper, say "Attention is all you need" or "Categorical Deep Learning is an Algebraic Theory of All Architectures", all the terms used in them, such as "computation", "graph", "automata" are terms with a precise meaning, such that whoever reads them and has the necessary background can without a problem understand the gist of it. If you personally begin researching, which if you are serious, would entail reading papers, you will encounter many such concepts. And if you want to understand and possibly contribute, your current mode of communication and approach to definitions as "subjective" would be rather unfruitful. P.S. Outside of the nerdy context, throwing around words like "mafia" without you actually having experienced what it means to lose a family member to organized crime is an example of a difference in the subjective meaning we have for that word. Just saying.

This is a good observation, one that I have contemplated myself. From an Absolute point of view, nothing really is changing, since all is just an expression of Consciousness, regardless of the content - something you experienced when you dissociate. On the other hand, if you engage in the dream, there seems to be a "phase transition" based on a particular configuration of symbols and/or images - one you can understand perfectly, another barely understand, or a third can make you feel totally lost. How does one traverse this "understanding"? You before and you after the realization - what changed? Your consciousness is now somehow more refined, more aware of the particular object/topic you are examining. There seems to be indeed some interplay happening between the perceived self and external no-self, one leading to self-realization of you as All.

@Evelyna I second what @Princess Arabia and @Bobby_2021 said. Thank you for sharing your time with us, please don't let this interaction sway your opinion of the forum. The people who cannot appreciate guidance and are only antagonizing do not stay for long.

There is a lot of toxicity and projection in your post. Having had the privilege of relationships with "pretty women", I believe this is mostly in your head. I have in fact never met a woman fitting your description above. It seems like you would benefit from actually going out and socializing rather than engaging in this red pill stuff.