zurew

This question is incredibly loaded. What does being white or black have anything to do with being a good or bad president or a person in power?

Its interesting because it can give the assumptions, the logical extension and the underlying implications of a certain sentence or argument.

I found some tech related and programming stuff, but this is very impressive that it can do these things, and it can give explanations with such clarity: 1,2,3 It can write a convincing scientific paper from any idea: 1 This AI got some jokes: 1,2,3,4

This AI can be used for contemplation and for brainstroming. In this case it asks a question answers it, and then ask a next question related to his previous answer to go deeper and deeper , and it does it all by itself.

Okay, it can get creative if its given a good prompt and a specific ask. Girl with a tinder profile: People call me Dumbledore, because I'm the headmaster AI: "I'm a Gryffindor at heart, but you have me under your spell like a powerful Hogwarts Headmaster. Can I be your personal Harry Potter?"

I don't think so, the answer is kind of abstract but not too much. I didn't ask it to go super in depth, but I can try it.

I mean there is no good pickup line material on the internet just cheeky ones, so it didn't have good data to learn from or to build from .

Yes it is, i was shocked by it too.

The spiral dynamics didn't break it, in fact I think it has a pretty good understanding of it, however this pickup one is a big challenge for the AI .

This stuff is amazing. If you want to, you can ask it to make a simple website for you in a specific format you want, if you want to create a simple game it can create it for you, it can give you answers for almost any question, it can debug your code, it can give you solutions for certain problems not just programming problems, it can give good arguments regards to specific questions, it can impersonate certain characters and pretend to be those characters and give you arguments and talking points from that pov, it can summarize stuff for you, it can find certain nuggets of information in a large text and so much more.

The solution is to create a system where being open minded is much more beneficial than not being open minded. That way the person who is not open minded will be kind of forced to adapt, because if he won't, then he won't have much power in that hypothetical system and not just that, but he will have less power than an open minded person. Of course this assumes, that the system is already in place, the transition part is the tricky question.

Depends on how much you need to be taken care of. Even if you have children and you need to be taken care of 24/7, your children more than likely won't have the capacity and time and attention to take care of you, so you will end up in a nursing home. If you don't need that much attention and time , then even your friends can take care of you, or you can probably pay people money to check on you and help you with stuff. So if you are really sick regardless you have children or not, you will probably end up in a nursing home, if you are not that sick, then your children can take care of you or if you don't have children your friends can help you, or your other familiy members if you have, or you can buy people who can help you.

"I could fuck a lot of women if I wanted to, but I am a sigmamale"

I would say to let it go, because in most of the cases it doesn't worth the time and the emotional effort you need to put into it (assuming you can move their position even a slight bit). There is just way too much stuff that you would need to debunk one by one and all of those stuff is probably connected in his head. If the person you are talking about didn't rationalize his way to arrive at his worldview and at his conclusions, then there is almost no way you can make him drop that position with rational arguments. The problem is that, he probably has 100 different defense mechanisms (like for instance anything that goes against my narrative probably comes from the devil and from the deep state and stuff like that) and you probably won't be able to cut through it. But, If you really want to try it, then start by asking how confident he is in his deep state narrative in a 1-10 scale? After you get your answer to that, you should ask him, if there is anything that could change his position about the deep state narrative, and if there is something, what is it? Then you can start to build from there, and you can do this process with all of his beliefs. You can also try to take his logic and show that his logic is limited and that it can lead to absurd conclusions if it is used on a different ground. Like for example if the ground is being a satanist, then the same logic could be used and that worldview could be defended the same way as a fundamentalist christian worldview (by demonizing everything that goes against it). ---> basically you need to show him how limited his logic is, and that might shake his rock bottom beliefs (But you will need to provide many examples, and that will take a lot of time to construct those examples). The most important question 'Is there anything that could change your opinion or stance on this particular matter' , because this can reveal if you will waste your time or not.

It seems that you haven't responded to any of my points. Also, if someone disagrees with you, it must be because he/she is a hardcore Leo fan. - thats right, thats the only option, what a good rigorous , good faith analysis of this whole situation. Don't pretend that you didn't say anything here. - You were implying very heavily that he is a pedo supporter, and now that you got some pushback, you try to backpedal. Please don't pretend that you tried to do a good faith inquiry about this subject, when you were very cleanly biased and dismissive from the get go.

You are littile too fast jumping to conclusions with no or very weak evidence. He had a logo that was kind of similar to the pedo symbol, but if he would be truly supporting pedos don't you think you would have found more dirt on him other than a random logo (keep in mind his channel is 10 years old, so in 10 years no leaks or anything?)

I don't want to derail ,but holy shit this is funny.

Yeah, I would say the solution will be in the combination of culture, parenting, and better school education, in the restriction of certain external stimuli (things that hijacks your brain and because of them you can't think clearly and in a rational way). This again assumes that people value facts, truth and are open minded to be corrected and to be educated. This is not the case at all. People value echo chambers, people value shitting on the other side without making any good arguments, people value holding their current beliefs to the end, people are drawn to entertainment. and rationality is being overwritten by external stimuli. So in this case the 'best quality content' would mean posts that are the most stimulating , entertaining - so for example hate posts, memes, circle jerk posts . (not posts that are about truth or facts or education) You also have to consider that words and not just words. If certain ideas are being spread it can lead to actual violence and genocide down the road. Look up the pyramid of violence: You start from the bottom with jokes and just the discussion of certain ideas, and slowly with talking about these stuff you desensitize people, and you can end up at the top given enough time. So knowing that people are not perfectly rational and people are highly effected by external factors (upbringing, culture, and nowadays yes the internet has probably more effect on kids thinking and valuesystem than parents who don't have time for anything), we need to be very carefuly what ideas we want to spread without any restrictions.

My point is that debates can't work with most people, because they don't want to debate in good faith, so this is not a good solution for the problem you want to solve. You also have to consider, that most people are not well equipped enough nowadays to debate about complex topics. The problem you want to solve (to reduce echo chambers), you need to have a better plan that requires serious planning and a complex solution (giving people better education, educate them how to debate in good faith, making algorithms that motivates seeking facts rather than stimuli [this is a really complex one to solve for many reasons], and many other factors as well) one of the biggest from these is the stimuli problem, because people seek whats emotionally stimulating and things that reinforce their beliefs and things that are salient (such salience that have nothing to do with any facts or truth or reality)

@mr_engineer You assume that people who are going with the alternative narrative are perfectly rational, logic based people who can be debated out their position if proven false. In 99.999% cases this is false, and these "debates" end up with personal attacks and posting a lot of garbage links that could be debunked with a 5 second google search.

To me it seemed that you sometimes conflate the absolute with the relative (so for instance, if there is a relative question about something, you don't engage with it and you dismiss it, because the question is biased, and you sometimes don't want to take any stance, because you think if you take a stance you will be stuck in that limited perspective, but thats not the case) This is related to the first one. You sometimes use the Absolute in a way where you relativize everything to a point where every stance, every position, every value judgement has the same level of correctness and validity and depth to it. This is correct from the absolute pov, however we need to be able to make sense of things from a relative pov (where we use certain collectively agreed upon subjective structures to judge and to make sense of things). You sometimes have a hard time meeting people where they at.