zurew

AI is most likely gonna replace most artists in the next decade or so, because the current quality is just the start, now more and more company see a big business in it, and the competition is getting bigger and stronger and it drives the development pretty well. I haven't seen any good argument yet, why an AI wouldn't be able to do 99% or 100% of the things in the future, that human artists do right now. What structural limitation an AI has that won't allow it to do certain things that a human artist can? Before answering these questions we have to remember some things here: Depending on what company we are talking about, you can very very specifically give information to the AI what you want to create (the same way if you would go to an artist) Given enough training time and data, it can basically learn any style It can generate photorealistic images right now When you generate an image you can further edit that image with the AI, you can give specific instructions what you want to change and how you want to modify it or if you want to create new images that are very similar to the image that you created before, you can do that as well Most people will be able to use this AI, without any specific qualification or knowledge needed to create art, and people will use it, because it will be much cheaper than to hire an artist There are some bad images, but there are some beautiful images as well, so structurally its capable to generate stunning images if it is trained on enough data. Also, this is just the beginning, as time goes by it will get better and better and more advanced. What about these images?

Thats a strong statement. How is the government paying a little bit more %, leads to dystopia? Competition won't be lost if the government start to pay more (not all). Universities will make money the same way they do now, the only difference will be that a littile bit more % will be paid by the government compared to now. A littile bit of a change at a time doesn't necessarily lead to backlash. Also empirically this just isn't true if we look at other countries that already adopted this strategy.

@Devin Most countries who adopted "the free college" or "the making college more accessible" strategy are doing it from taxes. So yeah, the initial downside could be that people will have to pay more taxes, however thats not necessarily a downside longterm, because if it has a positive effect on the country's economy, then it will be beneficial for most people, even for people who don't have kids who will go to college. I will concede my point about making it completely free for now, because to my knowledge, there is no clear stat that shows that this is a much better strategy, however I will stay with this point: Government funding some % of university fees seems a good strategy to me, becuase competition between universities won't be lost but on the otherhand, middle-class and lower-class citizens will be able to access college more easily and people won't need to this heavily focus on how they will be able to pay back giant student loans after they graduate. Why do you equate the opportunity that exist in the US primarily to the free market system?

@DevinUniversity incentivisation don't have to exclusively come from the money that the students pay.

@DevinSo your strongest point is that universities make more money,so it worth it?

How do they get better education compared to giving everyone free education? They study at the same place, with the same people the only difference is that they don't need to pay for it, but they don't get better education. The problem is that if we go by your way, you are only optimizing for 0.001 people (geniuses) and rich people. That way you are polarizing people much more and you make the gap between the rich and poor even bigger and people who want to study but can't afford it will lose the opportunity to get educated and maybe the opporunity to get out of poverty. If you want a somewhat workable democracy and if you want as many educated people around you as possible and if you want an educated society, then you shouldn't put high quality education behind a paywall.

Why would you assume, that student loan is the reason, or that student loan is one of the biggest reason why the US economy is thriving, compared to other countries? First of all, if you can get into a top level university (no matter if you can go there for free or not) you are not dumb at all. Its not about being dumb or smart, but more about giving more opportunity to people who are smart, but can't afford it.

Ambiguity is the problem where Carl is pointing to. Even you don't know yourself what Nick means when he is making a statement. If someone is that vague, he leaves the door open for speculation, and thats what Nick is doing here and thats the problem. Its impossible to properly evaluate his sentences because he is not being specific enough. Its a problem because being that vague you still influence people, but at the same time, you cannot hold that particular person accountable, because of the ambiguity.

Yeah unfortunately its really hard and the worst part is that even if I stand with my point (that one should judge a teacher based on what quality students he/she generates), its easy nowadays to generate fake testimonials and fake reviews. Yeah, agreed.

Achieving something doesn't automatically guarantee that you will be qualified enough to teach other people with completely different skills and people who are walking on a completely different path than you. A very simple example is with sports. Just because you become a world champion at something you won't automatically become the best teacher or won't necessarily will be equipped enough to be even a normal teacher at all. Being a teacher of something often times requires a different skillset than achieving that very thing. Teaching vs executing. The main achievement that should matter when it comes to picking a teacher is looking at what quality students he generates/creates. Thats how one should judge how good that particular teacher is. If the success rate is very high, when you look at that particular teacher, then you can confidently say, that what he/she teaches and how he/she teaches is effective and informative and its working. Simply check how Andrew became wealthy (what methods he used [creating a cam girl business and creating a casino business]) and then check what he teaches you and how he wants to make you rich. Those two things are not compatible, so he is not as qualified as he seems to be.

That guy is a fraud.

Give this pool more options (like making it a spectrum), because then people can express their opinion more accurately (and probably more people will engage with your pool).

What kind of and how much value and knowledge have you gathered so far, from researching conspiracy theories? Do you think the time-value ratio is better than to research and learn from any mainstream source?

Based on what metric(s)?

Yes, i assume that 99,9999% of people can't embody high levels of consciousness in a short period of time, most of them won't be able to do it in even in their lifetime, because we have a loong long way to mature, evolve , grow, and develop.

So according to you, its reasonable to assume, that any person can go from the embodyment of intuition level 1 to level 100 instantly or in a short period of time? (Notice, that we are not talking about experiencing a short 10-15 mintues DMT high, we are talking about maintaining and embodying a high level of consciousness)

Yeah, but notice, that paradoxically we need to be biased towards survival first, in order to care about a certain outcome (which is to try to avoid civilisation collapse) and just after that we will be able to buy time to get developed enough to be able to follow your idea/advice fully.

Its not baseless assumptions, its personal experience. Now notice, that i haven't said that all people who are into conspiracy theories are necessarily have to be that way. I am open minded to certain conspiracy theories, but i don't automatically believe in them just because they are able to give me an alternative explanation to an event. What metric do I use? Open mindedness (if that particular person isn't capable to explore alternative or in this case the mainstream narratives, then that person is way too biased and he/she doesn't care about truth, but caring more about being right) Being able to use critical thinking objectively and not selectively (using the same standards for both sides) Being able to represent and steelman the opposite side in a good faith, well intentioned, well informed way. Being able to use the least amount of assumptions to explain an event or to create a theory. Not automatically assuming the worst stuff about the opposite side One of the most important one: Being always open to the possibility of being wrong It seems to me that you have certain beliefs and a certain ideology and you found a person, who is exactly compatible with your beliefs and with your ideology and you automatically put on him the "he must be the most developed and the most wise person ever" label and anyone who disagrees with you, you automatically assume, that he/she must be underdeveloped or bad faith. Leo was always gravitating towards some level of censorship,but on the otherhand, it seems that Tj Reeves was/is really against censorship, but at the same time he is/was using hardcore censorship as well. So how does that make any sense to you?

So you basically you reduced the "wanting a certain outcome" to fear(ego) and "not wanting/caring about any certain outcome" to joy(intuition). Using your system, how do you differentiate between "I don't care/want" person who is being operated by his ego, and "I don't care/want" person, who is following his/her intuition. It seems to me that the "he is missing the boat" criticism boils down to one not following his/her intuition 100% of the time. The problem with that, is that this criticism could be given to 99,99999% of people on this planet, because almost no one is operating by his/her intuition 100% of the time, so honestly this kind of criticism isn't that valuable/usable because the chance that the person who hears this criticism will suddenly be able to follow his/her intuition 100%time is basically close to 0. This whole "he is missing the boat" could be summarised like this: "brother, just stop being biased towards survival".

@DevinSo how do you know that Daniel isn't making his decisions based on his intuition? What if his intuition tells and informs him to prefer certain outcomes?

Your "he is missing the boat" point essentially comes down to the fact that he is biased towards survival, and that bias implies, that he is wanting a certain outcome. You had your main problem with the "wanting a certain outcome" point. So the question is this: Why is having no want for an outcome better, than having a want for a certain outcome? This question still remains: How can one make a decision, if he/she has no want for any specific outcome?

But regardless, our main disagreement was this: most of us here think that being biased towards survival is okay, but you tried to argue that being biased towards survival is not okay/good, because of the fear factor. But at the end of the day it seems that your bias still involves fear in it, so i don't see your main point here.

Yeah but fear isn't coming from nowhere, because fear essentially comes from the need to survive or in other words, to not die.

if fear is a relevant factor ,then we basically coming back to the main point, which is being biased towards survival, which bring us back to the "valueing utopia over dystopia" point.

Can anything have an effect on your level of enjoyment?