zurew

Its insane how much we will be able to automatize things and to make things 100x more productive.

This is some really insane shit

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/11sfqkf/gpt4_day_1_heres_whats_already_happening/

Yes I am biased towards survival , just as you and just as everyone else, who is here. The word "better" have to be shaped by a finite context, if you remove all context the word "better" doesn't really mean anything. When I say the word "better" it is given in a very specific context (in the context of survival) and it is not intented to be an ultimately objective sentence (when you remove all finite contexts). We can take any finite set of metrics (for example who is a faster runner or who is stronger or any other finite metric) and then we can compare two person and we can find out who is better at those things. This is false, and here you are making valuejudgements in the context of finite metrics and now we can objectively evaulate your claims. If I get tortured by the most horrific methods for weeks, that will objectively bring more pain to me than somebody shooting me in the head.

You are not even trying to engage with my point. In the context where a person wants to survive (which I clearly stated and you deliberately try to miss it) it is indeed worse to get shot in the head than dying by old age. But notice that you made a valuejudgement by saying that dying by old age is worse than getting shot in the head. By that statement you showed that you are just as biased as everyone else and you have no high ground here and you are not participating in any "I have no bias" kind of bullshit. The fact that you are alive right now, shows that you are biased towards survival ,and no fancy philosophy or thoughts will get you out of that. You are that hippy kid who recognized that ultimately everything is relative and now incapable to engage with any topics, and you think that you are more intelligent and conscious than everyone else - not realising , that everyone else had the same realisation years ago. The fact is that you are not revelaing anything new to anyone here, the only thing you are showing right now,is that you lack the ability to properly weight variables and things in a given context.

The concept of advantage and disadvantage can only make sense in the relative world. In the relative world, there are necessary tradeoffs, because of the limitations and if someone is for example is biased towards survival, we can use the variable of survival as a context to evaluate certain things. Getting shot in the head is bad, if you are a jew and a nazi party is on the rise thats extra bad for you and increases the chance of you getting killed (threataning the variable [survival], that you care about). Going from that, not voting on a nazi party is good, doing certain things that will avoid the nazi party to get elected is good, God doesn't care about any finite set of metrics, only a human care about finite metrics. But if you do care about a finite set of metrics, then you can use those to evaulate situations and things in the biased context of your own survival. God doesn't care about your survival more than about anything else, but you do. You keep talking about bigger pictures, but humans don't have the capacity or the intention to always care about the bigpicture. If humanity care about survival, then God killing all humans on this planet would be bad for humans, but it might be good for this Planet overall. You can keep changing the frame and about how meta you want to go, but as long as you acknowledge that in God's eye humans are not on the top of the value hierarchy (because everything has the same value), you need to acknowledge, that there are things that could be considered bad in the context of "humanity surviving" or developing.

Its still from human general intelligence, so its unlikely, but when it comes to optmizing its own code, thats much more likely. But maybe if its somehow good at manipulation and at how to fake things, then it might be actually able to make people to do things for itself.

I tested it how much it understands concepts like synthesis and synergy, because both of those are very useful to understand and both of those concepts could be applied for a wide variety of topics.

Because that would require a perfect understanding of its own self and knowing how to code is necessary but far from being sufficient. Thats like saying "dude , you know how to use a pencil and draw lines with it on a paper, why can't you create a perfect drawing of myself or of nature?"

Creating an ego that revolves around "I am being anti establishment" makes it so that you won't be able to accept and stomach and acknowledge, when the establishment is right. Besides these very vague and general statements, what tangible things or criticisms do you have that couldn't be applied to the anti establishment crowd if the same standards are applied?

It seems, that if you have access to bing , you are essentially talking to gpt4, which is cool. https://blogs.bing.com/search/march_2023/Confirmed-the-new-Bing-runs-on-OpenAI’s-GPT-4

In that case, you should abandon the context of "being unbiased" and you shouldn't have any problem with people who are not totally unbiased, because if you have even a slight problem with it, that means that you are biased towards being unbiased and by that, you instantly defeat your own argument . If you would truly value the concept of being unbiased, you wouldn't have made any judgement regarding this issue, and you wouldn't value being unbiased more than being biased. The moment you make a judgement, you immediately put yourself in the biased camp (which is totally fine and good, because all of us are biased).

@MisterNobody here is a mindfuck for you, if you want to hold others to this Absolute standard: not valueing everything the same and valueing everything the same all have the same value from the Absolutistic view, so why judge it? Taking a step back from conflating the absolute with the relative, you have to read things in the context they were given. Of course, if you put a certain thing in a different context, then it will mean different thing and it will have to be judged according to that context/standard. Also, you can value things based on different metrics and for different reasons. If you value survival thats already a bias, and some things will be more useful for survival and for politics than other things and denying it would be a big mistake. Its completely useless (in the context of survival and in the context of politics and a buch of other things) to virtue signal the "I am unbiased" behaviour , because 1) its not true (the fact that you are alive, already necessitates that you are biased towards survival) and 2) its impossible to give prescriptions or to move towards any specific value or goal.

But its better to watch a random low quality youtube video on a topic and immediately believe it , because it confirms your beliefs on the subject? In other threads you sometimes use statistics and studies to make your point stronger,so its seems to me, that you are very selective about this epistemic process and you choose it when it suits you and abandon it or even trash it when it contradicts your beliefs about a subject. How do you know that, without looking at studies? You probably have never tried seed oil yourself, so what epistemic process you are choosing over studies to arrive at the conclusion that people should stay away from seed oil?

Yeah I will edit my post, but when I posted the time stamped link, at that time it worked fine ( but probably because it was live streamed, it seems that they cut the first hour waiting time).

https://openai.com/research/gpt-4

Thats deep.

What do you mean by the "trick of the youtube" (do you say, that when you switch back from 2x to 1x the 1x is slower than the 1x it was before)? Its about your mind getting adjusted to one speed and once you change it, it takes some time for your mind to adjust itself to the switched speed. But you can test this very easily by opening up two tabs in one you are doing 2x for a while then switch it back to 1x and then you play the video on the other tab with 1x as well and see if there is a difference between the two tabs speed.

We are getting back to the point where we talk about that each side gives value, but we often times forget that part because we are so focused on the money and resources part. A 10/10 chick will give beauty for being on a yacht, so it is not like , only one side is giving value, but more about each side is giving value (that the other side care about) (women in this case give beauty and the men could give the opportunity for that women to be on his yacht). You might say ,"yeah but money is more valuable and has more utility than beauty", but that doesn't matter (and depending on the context, it might not even be true), because we need to evaluate all these things in the context of the dating market. It seems that men value beauty so much , that they are willing to do such things that you described above. But if we only want to talk about the money, then we could talk about rich sugarmommies. Of course number wise there are more men who are using their money and assets to attract women, but it start to become more popular when it comes to rich single middle age or elderly women (and we know that women start to outearn men, so its safe to assume, that it will become more of a trend as time goes on). That is true, technically everyone is unique in their own way, but yeah in the context of dating we can somewhat reduce it down to countable variables. Yeah, but when it comes to women not all women are hot and just as not all men are high in the traits that matter in the context of the dating market, the same is true for women, who are not that beautiful. But there is a big difference. The difference is that men can work on most of their skills to climb up and making themselves more valuable in terms of dating, but women who were born with bad genetics will have an insanely hard time dating and she can't even change that disadvantage, unless she has enough money for surgeries. And again, I still disagree with some of the phrasing. Hot women will have an easy time finding sex partners, but them being hot will make them harder to find a long term relationship, because almost every men will look at her as a sexobject even more, because she has outstanding looks. Men will look for different traits when it comes to sex vs when it comes to long term relationship, and when it comes to long term relationship, beauty will be important , but not the most important. You talked about certain positive traits that women can have to have a massive advantage in certain contexts, but we shouldn't forget, that every positive trait can become a negative if a different context is given. Just as a rich man having a lot of money can be a negative, if he is actually looking for a normal relationship and not for a gold digger, the same way being a 10/10 women could be good at in some cases, but when it comes to you being intelligent and hard working its a big negative, because no one will acknowledge your intelligence and what you achieved, because everything will be dismissed by assuming, that you achievied everything ,because you just used your beauty, and you will only be looked at as a sex object and you will be reduced to just that variable and nothing else will be taken into account. All men, and a lot of people directly connect their selfesteem to their career + the feeling of being useful is very important and finding meaning in things is also very important, and work is one things that gives people meaning. I would be very curious how most men would be selfesteem wise, if they would be forced to do all the women roles at home and the taking care of the kids for decades, while not being able to work on their career at all (lets say scenario , where women earns twice as much as her men, and her career is on the rise). Now, you could say that kids give meaning too, yeah, but those kids will grow up and what you will do then + nowadays in a lot of cases ,where men wants to dominate the whole relationship (where he doesn't let his women to work) and they don't have kids the 'kids will give meaning to your life" is out of question. Here is a relevant thing here. Women have to do a really big gamble here, because she needs to have an insanely big trust in her men, that he will be a good husband and won't fuck over their relationship, won't leave her for another women, will stay with her when she gets pregnant etc, because she is sacrificing her career, and imagine spending 10-15 years on a relationship , where you didn't imporve anything on your career and then you need to start everything from scratch. I agree when it comes to the child being under 2 years old, but when it comes after that it comes down to who has better traits for staying home with the kid and that can mean feminine traits of course, but masculine traits are not exclusive to men, and feminine traits are not exclusive to women, so the correct thing to say here is that , lets evaluate who is more applicable for staying home based on who has what career and who has what traits. Roles shouldn't be given based on sex, it should be evaluated in a more nuanced way, where we look at the set of traits that person has. The same logic is applicable to men and I already outlined the argument why it is silly to equate 'dating up' only to women (all depends on what variables you are looking at). If a high quality men has 1000 options to choose from he will obviously pick the option that is the "best" according to him, not surprising that women will choose the best from all the options she have. Your article disagrees with you. Said by all men, who wants to dominate and lead their relationship alone, without the cooperating with their women . Imagine being a men where you want to dominate your relationship and the main leverage that you bring to the table is your money and your resources and your women starts to outearn you, having a higher intelligence than you, and you eventually lose all your leverage and you either have to lose your leader role or have to leave. + most men are not equipped to be in more feminine roles (taking care of the house, cooking ,cleaning , taking care of the kids), and they don't want to be forced into those positions, therefore they will rather choose a women, who is not earning that much money, who don't have a successful career, and who is not that intelligent (because that makes dating even harder, she will be more likely to see through your games, most men [and people in general] have too much of a fragile ego to stomach, that they are the less intelligent in their relationship).

Yep, Im obsessed with Tate, not you who are making his 5th thread about him or mentioning him in the beginning in your threads

I will make sure to learn all the lessons from Tate's pimping course, how to handle these heartless , transactional women.

So you are picking and choosing from articles the stuff that you agree with and totally exclude everything that you don't agree with, thanks god that you are not doing motivated reasoning and cherrypicking. I don't know why you are referring back to the video, when I responded to your reply about "women being totally transactional" and at the same time implying ,that men doesn't.

You need to get off from slurping Tate and F&F content for a second and think one time in your life from the female perspective as well. You literally did nothing so far, but just reiterating brainded redpill talkingpoints and haven't responded to anything I said. I don't know where you saw, where I implied that women and men don't have different desires and expectation in a relationship, in fact I did the opposite like multiple times, where I made the arguments why its silly to use arguments that you used "women date up and men date down" when men and women desire different things and the evaluation of all those things will be totally depended on what variable you will use as the standard to judge all things by. Its very easy, there are variables where women date up, and there are variables where men date up.

Thats a very weird way and very reductionistic way to use the word "transactional". Your article said, that they were too much of a people pleaser, and thats literally the opposite of waiting for an exact return for what you give. You are trying very hard here to paint women as purely rational, almost sociopathic beings, who can't get attached to anyone and only driven by resources and money. An exchange of value will always happen, and it will happen naturally, without a person consciously calculating and evaluating all the contribution that their partner gave, before they make a contribution to their partner. If we were to use the word transactional the same way you defined it above, then literally all relationships from all end are transactional. Why do you think people leave any relationship? Because they get all the things they want from that relationship, and they are totally satisfied with their relationship or they don't? You are trying very hard to make this a women thing, when this is a human thing.