zurew

The argument is that the alternative is worse, and you have yet to make the argument why would it be worse than cults being totally free to trap people and to operate.

The point is not to give a specific number, the point is to make at least some action, more specifically a structure (like an ethics code) that can lower it, without ignoring it all together and without not giving any fucks at all.

and yet how many bad examples we can look at. This all or nothing mentality is bullshit, because basically in one hand i can take the teaching of truth and on the other hand I can put anything (any volume from the worst things possible) that can justify the teaching of truth. Also I don't see what serious teaching tool is taken away by the implementation of that list. Also, we can talk about the modification of that list (but we can't get to that point, if we can't acknowledge, that no list is = to (the spiritual teacher can do basically any fucking thing he/she wants for the sake of teaching the truth)

Google has their own shit, I don't think they need to fear anything, they have an AI that is not even public and people who used it says its good. There is definitely a competition to be the first company that can build the best AI, and this competition will be even bigger as time goes on and as more company can compete with different implementations and models.

I didn't say that, I just said its not the same as with other services or products. I guess maybe positive testimonials don't hold that much weight in this subject (at least for me), but negative ones can do a lot here and they can have a lot of weight, but the problem is that people are shy and don't know what to say or how to handle these things (when they get fucked over by a cult or and get mind raped by a teacher) so they often don't say shit, and some of them don't even know whats good or bad treatment anymore, because they get brainwashed. - thats why it would be good that some people could look and go to this list and decide which teacher is high quality and which one is low quality and unnecessarily dangerous.

Yeah but that doesn't really give you any objective image about how effective that teacher is. I don't think you can judge testimonials the same way as with a random other service or product. For example in this case in it doesn't really matter how many students claim that they got enlightened by the teachings because there is no way you can measure that objectively, you can't have access to their state or to their mind. So you are saying that people will go with the teacher , who is basically the best marketer? So claiming outrageous stuff just to lure in people? Now, I could agree with that, but that has nothing to do with how effective you are at being a teacher.

The reason why its irrelevant because following these rules won't necessarily make you less effective. So being ethical is not mutually exclusive to being effective. I don't think this is a problem. There is no good way for someone to measure which spiritual teacher is more effective than others, when you have almost no experience with the subject. There is no metrics by which you can judge which teacher is really effective ( at least I don't really know any), people will go with a teacher that they can resonate with the most.

The effectiveness is irrelevant in the context of this conversation. The effectiveness is a separate conversation, right here we care about the ethics part.

How any of those ethics rules make the teachings less effective or significantly less effective?

"there is no one to be narcissistic and there is no one to manipulate" - thats how retarded is to say that there are no teachers. That level of dismissiveness and inability to engage with the topic at hand is fabulous.

Would be curious how many spiritual teachers you could list, who checks all of the things on the list.

Again, that list is for spiritual teachers, and those things might seem obvious to you or funny, but a ton of people got fucked and tricked by spiritual teachers and got stuck in cults. So I don't think its unreasonable to talk about these things or to how to hold these people accountable. So brainwashed and manipulated people should get fucked or should we protect them from getting fucked?

The "authentic path" is a loaded term that assumes thats the right path. When you start you have no idea which path is the right path for you, so the best thing you can do is to try out a lot of paths. Also when you walk alone without taking any information from anyone that can also be a trap, because you will fall into a lot of traps that you could have avoided if you would have been open to outside info. But regardless, this thread is not for people who wants to walk alone. This thread was about how to hold spiritual teachers accountable and to what to look for when you are a seeker and you go to a spiritual teacher.

You almost never walk the path alone without searching for teachers or without gathering info from teachers, so knowing that almost everybody will seek to find some teachers, there should be given an ethical code for the sake of protecting the students. If we don't have any ethical code, that leaves the door open to all the potential negative things such as : creating a cult (consciously, or unconsciously), misleading people (make people to believe they can achieve xyz things with your teachings when you haven't achieved those things yourself and you have no data to back your claims), exploiting your students by making yourself an authority figure, and by making yourself the center and an essential part of the teachings and so many more. Also we have to note here, that the vast majority of the seekers are people with traumas or people who are depressed and people who want to deperately find meaning in their life, and just from that they are much more vulnerable than other people.

You can ask it specific questions that google won't give answer for, especially when it comes to solving certain problems. If you give it vague open questions it can't give you quality answers. Also its not just cherrypicking and ctrl c + ctrl v, it displays the data in a way where it adapts to the question, so it has some skill to apply the data and not just copy data.

Thats what maybe some people tell you, but if you look up the numbers thats not the case at all. Some conservative people blow up these numbers enormously - just if we are talking about hormone blockers just that number alone is much much lower than what people expect. Be careful of holding positions dogmatically and never changing your position even if the outcome of holding it dogmatically can result in much worse outcomes. We should be able to change our views if given enough convincing evidence.

From the data Ive seen, the people who regret it are much less than people who commit suicide because of not getting surgery. More research needs to be done, but we have to recognise what the data suggests right now. So the real question is what if your kid kill him/herself in the future, because of not getting surgery before going through puberty? Its justified, because you can significantly lower the likelyhood, that your kid will kill him/herself in the future, becasue of this problem. Before going through puberty, I don't know the exact age, but around 11-12. The numbers I have seen on that is just incredibly low compared to trans people who couldn't get surgery in time and attempted suicide. Look up the studies on this matter , the studies I have seen on this issue all suggests that surgery is the most effective method when it comes to lowering suicide rates. The problem is that you can't wait until adulthood, because as I said,when your body goes through puberty, it changes in ways that can't be changed afterwards, and then these people won't have a chance to have a decision, beacuse their life is already set in a way where it cannot be changed. These surgeries don't happen easily. A psychiatrist or a psychologist first find out if the child really wants to do it, and after a long trial if the doctor agrees to it, then the kid can have a surgery.

This problem is not easy ,because the suicide rate is incredibly high among trans people, and if you have gender dysphoria and you go through your puberty there will be irreversible changes to your body and then those people will need to live the rest of their life hating themselves and being uncomfortable with themselves - which will lead a lot of them to commit suicide. The statistics and the current data on this shows that surgery is a very effective way to make these people feel much better and to not commit suicide. No other method have been demonstrated or suggested that would be nearly as effective as surgeries.

Im not sure, I haven't seen any official information about it yet, but according to the rumors - it will be around February.

There are some rumours that gpt 4 will be able to take video,image,audio and text as an input, and even if it won't be able to produce video output just the ability to produce audio and image files as an output will be very interesting, because it will be able to communicate things that can't be put into words. Also fun fact: gpt 4 will have 100 trillion parameters compared to gpt 3 which has 175 billion parameters thats more than a 500x size difference. Hopefully the rumour about the video format part is true. The hype is big, hopefully there will be a good delivery

I was just trying to point out, that the logic you were using (don't take advice from people, who haven't embodied the very thing they preach about) is not necessarily always a good approach, when it comes to taking advice or learning from someone. You were specifically focusing on happiness, but essentially that was the logic,that you were using.

natural language + a systemic understanding of the frameworks and how those overlap + a very good ability to understand and articulate problems. I think that even though there will much more programmers, the need for them will stay the same or will even grow (and the need is which mostly prices the salary). If a workplace can have such programmers that can utilize AI as a tool to be 100-1000 times more productive, that means that every programmer will be much more valuable, or at least thats what I would expect.

If you don't have time or a way to do proper research on the ideas a person gives you in a field that he/she hasn't embodied, then yeah, you can use your rule to filter out people, however if you have time and if you have a good way to do research, then you shouldn't trash people just because they haven't fully embodied the things they are saying. I think the number 1 way you should judge a teacher or a coach is by looking at how successful their students . If most of his/her students are successful, then that says a lot about the coach/teacher, and that coach/teacher must have some level of system thinking and also a good amount of knowledge in the field he/she teaches. Also,there are a thousand things that can overlap, if you are good at something you can have some useful and good things to say about things that are related to the thing that you embodied. Also the other thing you need to understand that just because someone embodied something that won't guarantee that he /she will be good at teaching it. Being a good teacher is not exclusive to embodiedness. The easiest way to demonstrate why its not good to always rule out people who haven't embodied the things they preach and teach about is coaching, more specifically sport coaching. You can be a number 1 box or football or weightlifting coach without any need to do competition in any of those sports.

Its hard to properly predict anything, because everything is changing at a really fast pace, but I think , first it will probably make developers 100-1000 times more productive. I think it won't replace programmers overall(at least not for now) ,because that will take a lot more time (thats my assumption, but I can be wrong), but maybe we will shift into natural language programming, where programmers will program by giving natural language prompts to the AI ,but these engineers and programmers will still need to understand when to and how to use certain frameworks and in what circumstances. It will be very interesting, because the best programmers will need to be super good at articulating problems to the AI, because that way they will be much more effective and AI will find the right answers much easier and faster(but of course to be very good at describing problems you need to have the background knowledge as well, so its not easily replaceable). The other thing that might happen is that AI might be able to automatically generate documentation for the code, and that would be insanely helpful. I think programming, but eventually AI will totally replace programmers as well, but I think that will take the longest time . If it can totally replace programmers, at that point AI will replace every job, because it will be able to do anything, so I think if you want to be safe focus on programming.

It can be used with a debate template as well: replace {1} with one stance, replace {2} with an opposing stance and replace {3} with the debate topic. So it can look like this for example: After it gives the first round, tell it to "continue the debate" or to "continue with the next round" or with anything similar to that. It can go through several rounds. Here is a snippet from the first round: