integral

@Leo Gura As unemployment Rises, total taxable income for the government will fall, So eventually the government will basically go bankrupt as it has no income, and it will be forced to depends more and more on taxing companies. But of course this dependency only further gives companies more power over the government. I know it's naive but I don't think Elon, OpenAI and Google is going to allow everyone to starve to death. I think these people genuinely want to make a world of abundance. They just wont be able to build the uncorruptible systems we need. It is predictable that when Elon controls trillions of robots it is not that difficult of a task to solve world hunger. The effort and cost to do so is so low that it's a joke at that point.

All ai generated

@Leo Gura Most people are doing jobs they hate, a very small percentage of people <0.01% are doing meaningful fulfilling work, So I don't think unemployment is the problem for an AI take over. There is still plenty of things to enjoy and have fun in life, competition like chess is still fun even after AI solved it. The dream is fun... for people who don't have health problems. The real problem I think will be corruption as usual, People like Trump and Putin couldn't care less about a Utopia of abundance, they will corrupt and climb whatever ladder they can. There will be no Utopia. The only reason the government supports the quality of life of the average person is because those people are necessary to help support the power structure, the moment the average person is useless the people in power do not need them anymore. I think the biggest risk is the massive power imbalance. The government will not give companies less power.

For them to care about this logic they first need to acknowledge the differences between the sexes. They are blind to the differences in favor of values and ideals, so this idea you suggest looks like more inequality. In addition they will say we should apply the same logic to same sex sports, "if a man is taller he should have a 0.2 second penalty for every inch... (100m sprint) so everything is equal and fair. They want to eliminate all differences.

shhhhhhhhhhshhhhhh, don't say that outload, its propaganda 😉 You should also begin medical intervention right away by chugging 2 bottles of probiotics.

I had a debate on this topic that went nowhere. I made some really good points during my debate but it was completely dismissed as self-deception games. Vegans strongly believe science has proven as a fact that the vast majority of people can cut all animal products out and take a bunch of supplements as a replacement, and that all anecdotal outliers are 1/10,000 rare events. They will never acknowledge that science does not say any of this. The mindset is, if you have any problems while doing veganism you either have a rare health problem or you did it wrong. Nothing outside of that exists. No diversity exists in biology.

Sensationalism sells

This is true but it also reveals the limitations of Western psychology. They're not able to fit everything into a larger framework so they still keep these super broad terms and cast big Nets that basically lose all meaning. It's similar with the big five, it is one of the most useless models. What they have to do is dissect the Mind into many models and then view it from all these different perspectives at the same time and then incorporated it all into a larger framework. Most models are very limited in isolation.

That's why I'm starting a sports betting platform, we need conscious people to occupy the spaces of every business niche, to then funnel that welt to better things.

@Lucasxp64 and this is the worse its going to get.

Prompters watch the prompty suffer existentially while blinded to their own property origin

Law of Ego Repulsion “Two massive egos cannot coexist within a 20-meter radius without generating a destabilizing field of interpersonal conflict.”

@Aaron p don't worry I plan to remake the sequels with AI the moment the technology is ready lol Well call it "The Matrix Absolute Consciousness".

He's aging very fast. Twice as fast as a normal person.

@mariabudanova only Leo can change usernames @Leo Gura We can only ban your account we cannot delete it but you can hide your Journal if you want to.

Only fans

We Trust Google, Openai, and Elon Musk that they will all do the right thing when their companies Own 100% of the job market with AI robots.

So what you're thinking is there would be evidence that people taking B12 would get sick -> so because there's no evidence showing people getting sick -> there is no diversity trend. This is the problem with that logic: 1) Most nutrition RCTs are: • Small (<300 subjects) • Short (<2 y) • Focused on correcting deficiency, not on long-term health span outcomes (fractures, cognition, IBS, etc.). Hence slow-burn problems could be missed (Which is how every vegan reports getting sick). If a side-effect appears in 15 % of people after year 5, these studies are literally incapable of detecting it. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. 2) Single-marker tunnel vision Elevating serum B-12 is treated as “mission accomplished,” yet the body is an ecosystem: methyl-folate balance, homocysteine, iron status, gut microbiome shifts, and hundreds of downstream reactions are left unmeasured. Assuming that one corrected datapoint equals full health span is the same reductionism that plagues drug trials where an LDL drop is taken as proof of overall benefit. There are strong parallels between the logic that you're using and Pro-Pharmaceutical companies who have deceived and corrupted the epistemology of science. All of these companies are using the exact epistemic tricks to push their drugs into the general population. Masking long-term harm with "lack of evidence against it" and "single marker tunnel vision (LDL lower = good = 1 marker)".

I'm sure you feel this way about Leo in certain areas? What part of Leos body of work actually fits in your models?

@zurew lmAOOOOO it must be tough being a living calculator. That video had some good moments 😆

@zurew I think there's plenty of room for the level of rigor you want to bring here, and I agree with it for the most part when it's appropriate, but I think it can be used wildly, leaving no room for anything really that isn't academic perfect writing. There is a certain extent to take it and then there's taking it too far. I do agree that most spiritual type people are hiding behind lofty language. I like that there's academically-minded people on the forum because we need diversity in perspectives.

@Emerald in my opinion the goal post has changed unintendedly because of miscommunication. Initially you made a strong Association that your beliefs are backed by science which is what I was addressing. Then I responded by showing what the science was saying. When you say my beliefs are backed by science and then in the same sentence you say that you believe veganism is the healthiest diet. It's very easy to mistake this for you claiming -> science has proven veganism is the healthiest diet. You've now clarified that veganism isn't proven or disproven by science Just that a reduction in red meat and a increased in plant Foods is the healthy scientific trend for meta-analysis studies. So you then have a personal belief that veganism is the healthiest diet based on this data. If this is the case then we never would have had a discussion to begin with. It's been a miscommunication. I agree with all of this and respect your position, it's completely your right to extrapolate the trend to its ends. Because there's no evidence against it or supporting it. It's essentially the epistemic hole that data can't account for as of now. That epistemic hole also allows for my belief which is that taking the data trends to the extreme is wrong and causes problems. because of: Extrapolation jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best.” Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best + supplements” 2x Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “improves CVD + all cause mortality, therefore no health problems with no meat + supplements.” (ignores non-fatal health problems, adds supplements to the equation for no reason) Because of this hole in the data I personally believe there's much more diversity and variation there. So my position is backed by science in the exact same way your position is backed by science.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FDVR_Dream/comments/1kst5mp/once_this_real_time_fdvr_will_be_right_around_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button This is exactly like the ego backlash of God realization 😅 blaming God for everything. Trying to escape reality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1kte90l/giving_people_existential_crises_with_veo_3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Imagine the same person being forced into different perspectives and realities just jammed in and then they're for 5 seconds have to experience that entire world having an extensional crisis And then 5 seconds later they're a new person new reality over and over again.

Key Concepts and Arguments within the Video (Summarized): Shape-shifting: Women adapt their personalities and interests to match the men they are attracted to (1:35). Outspoken "Trad" Girls: The video claims that women who are openly traditional online are often disingenuous and exploiting male fantasies (4:00). Gaslighting: Women gaslight each other to raise their comparative value (5:58). Collective Brainwashing: Women collectively promote narratives (e.g., what they want in a man) that can manipulate men (7:38). Shaming Tactics: Women use shaming to discourage men from adopting certain ideologies (e.g., "red pill") (9:55). "I'm Sorry You Feel That Way": a manipulation tactic that is used in place of an apology (11:29) Lying About Their Nature: Women misrepresent what they truly desire in a partner (12:06). Acting Friendly: Women fake friendships with other women, even when they dislike them (13:04). Leading You On: Women intentionally give mixed signals to keep men interested (14:08). Projecting: Women accuse others of behaviors they themselves are guilty of (15:14). Cosmetics: Makeup artificially inflates women's value and perceived self-worth, disrupting the dating market (15:39). Sabotaging Friends' Relationships: Single women undermine the relationships of their friends (16:58). "Your Mileage May Vary": Women categorize men and treat them differently based on the category (18:19). Playing the Victim: Women portray themselves as victims to gain sympathy (19:16). IV. Tone and Perspective: The video adopts a cynical and critical perspective on female behavior. It uses terms like "manipulation," "tactics," and "game" to frame interactions between men and women. There is a strong emphasis on the idea that women are deceptive and that men need to be aware of their "true" nature. The tone is often sarcastic and dismissive. --AI