zurew

NLP (natural language processing) is still in its infancy. There will be a lot and i mean a lot work that will need to be done before we will talk about an AI that can compherend text better than a human. Current AI isn't capable of abstract understanding, it doesn't have an inner understanding of things like a human do, it just trying to find some patterns based on the given data. Current AI isn't even capable to understand text like a normal human can, and its a question if it can even reach human level using the current training methods and models. Don't forget when it comes to NLP, AI can only be trained on data that was produced by humans, so for instance when it comes to making text summaries, at max it will only be as good of a summary as if it would have been produced by a human. Summarizing is just one part, the other big problem is the "trying to figure out the meaning", because one sentence could be interpreted many many different ways. Not just that you can interpret one sentence on its own many many different ways ,but if you try to add context to it you will have to be able to see the big picture and the whole context, and then the smaller context to get the "real" meaning out of that text. I think its one of the hardest problems to be solved. That being said, DALL-E 2 and its other upgrades will be a real threat for artists .

Need to make it super fucking hard for yourself to be able to reach for your mobile phone or to reach for the things that you want to limit or the things that you don't want to do anymore but you do it because of the dopamine. You will automatically do things that are giving you do most dopamine and things that are easily attainable (easily reachable + high dopamine is the deadliest combination here). Being the most attainable part is super important , because if you make an environment for yourself, where the only thing you can do and to reach for are the things that you know you have to do, then your brain won't have much of a choice but to do the 'right' things. In practice this could mean delete youtube from your mobile phone, or download an app that actually blocks youtube as a site ,and blocks it as an app or it can limit for you. You could actually turn your mobile off and put it far away from yourself and let yourself literally suffer for the next 1-3 days until your brain recovers a little bit from the enormous stimulation it gets 24-7. So in a nutshell, contemplate what things you have a problem with and either delete those things from your life, or make those things super hard to be attainable or usable.

One big problem i have with this video , that he is not talking about how to motivate yourself consciously. He is talking about things that are actually applicable but i don't think widely applicable for guys that are highly unmotivated and sad. This video has some tangible advice in it (but its still surface level, because he doesn't talk about how to actually do those steps what he is mentioning, he is just saying you need to do these 4-5 things, but he is not talking about how to start doing those things and how can you maintain doing those things etc). The very group that he is trying to target with his message will get a false sense of knowledge and hope that they can actually do it and after that they will become even more depressed (after the false sense of hope from the motivational video runs out) because they will think that they are dumb or something is wrong with them because they couldn't get shit done with even kinobody's advice. This video is more of a motivational video than a real practical one (imo). Most depressed people know already that they want to have this x kind of lifestyle , they know what relationship they want, they know that eating shit food is not good, they know that fapping all day all night is not the best for your mood etc or if they don't know that already, they won't get suddenly enlightened by this video, because what they need is an actual guidance and not surface level motivational speech. The reason why some of them won't be able to do it is because they don't really get guidance how to do it. This is a stage orange level analysis and advice and a big generalization as well. His advice could be good for some people, but for others its terrible, because they will feel even more shitty after they can't change their lifes on their own. He is also blurrying the line between feeling temporarily sad and actually being clinically depressed. That being said, this video still has its own value, becuase it is more of a motivational video, and it might motivate some people to start doing shit (and hopefully they will be able to maintain that thing/lifestyle, but at the end of the day this guy can only take credit for the motivational aspect, and not for the most improtant aspect (which is how you can actually change your life in a way where you can maintain it and not fall back, and how can you consciously motivate yourself).

This was a really good debate.

I've read a little bit about it and the blockchain tech definitely makes it much more safer for users to use this kind of service and for investors to invest in this company. So one big benefit that is exclusive to companies like this is the high level of safety, which couldn't really be achieved without a blockchain. One other thing that is closely related to security, is this decentralized structure and business model, which makes this whole thing much less prone to corruption.

Why is the token part needed there? Couldn't you support such companies in other ways than buying tokens or crypto?

This is maybe the wisest answer here. @Jannes There would be one more thing here. Sometimes the best thing to do is to search directly for the thing that you actually want, and not for parts. (In this case search for bots that are specifically created for clash of clans). So, you could directly search for clash of clans bots, and you might as well find one that could work, that way you don't need to create it yourself, and you don't need to hire anyone to do it for you. But of course, you have to be careful not to download some virus, so you will need to make sure if its something reliable or not before you try it out.

I think if you have some time to learn a little python (one of the easiest programming language) ,then i think its better to do it by yourself. But if you don't want to spend any time with it and you have enough money to pay for it , then you could search for bots on freelance sites. I think a clash of clans bot will be a cheap project. here is a freelance site: https://www.fiverr.com/gigs/bot-development Other freelance sites: https://www.upwork.com/ https://www.freelancer.com/jobs/?keyword=bot

Its hard to make an AI and then to train that AI to play videogames for you. I think there are better ways to do the automatization (for example creating a bot), especially, if we are not talking about complex actions. Its not that hard to make a bot that can do some easy repetitive steps for you. Sometimes the problem is that some game engines can detect that you use a bot and that can be a challenge to try to get around. Other thing you will need to be aware of , is that after every game update, you will need to check, whether your bot is still working fine or not.

So the rationale here is that if someone can't protect literally everything the same way, then he is full of contradictions? Scholar was never took a position where you need to hold everything to the same moral standards, so he doesn't need to protect that position. If you want to say that why would you value some things over others the answer is really easy: Because no one can live up to those standards. No one is denying these things. But just because we can't live up to those ultimate standards, where you need to be able to save everything and protect everything, that doesn't mean that its hypocritical to take a position where you want to protect animals. Right now you are attacking a position, that was taken by no one.

I can't tell if you are trolling or not, do you think those two things are comparable? There is no reason to correlate the releasing of odors with the communication of fear, on the other hand we know that if you have a functioning central nervous system (which most animals have), then you can feel pain. When it comes to moral questions like this, its mostly about the causing of suffering.

If you care about brain damage, then doing MMA is considered to be safer compared to doing only boxing on a high level.

I don't know about people who are teaching it, but i have an idea that might be able to help you with understanding the negative polarity or service to self more. http://www.lawofonesociety.com/index.php/other-materials/historical-figures/genghis-khan-rasputin-taras-bulba <-------- if you click on that link,then you can find historical people who were allegedly harvested into the 4th negative Density. I think learning about their characters and lifes could give you a picture how a highly negatively polarised entity thinks and lives. these characters namely: Genghis Khan Rasputin Taras Bulba

Sorry then i misunderstood your point, we actually agree on the core points. Yeah agreed, and i can also see why people question this kind of stuff, namely because the current set of definitions and paradigm is not sufficient enough or usable anymore, we have to address it , and we can't ignore it anymore. People have to understand that they are not defined by only one definition or one set of definitions, they can't be fully defined with any finite number of labels or definitions. But people also have to understand that just because they can't be fully defined, that doesn't mean that creating labels and new categories is not important anymore. I also understand that definitions and labels are super important, because in society you are being treated based on those categories and labels. I think the creation of new categories and labels is the best way to try to solve this problem. We can create uniting categories and labels (that can unite us all in one category, so people don't feel exculded or totally different) and we can also create reductive categories (where we try to define ourselves based on a very specific set of values and traits). Being treated everywhere only based on your genitalia is just dumb and way too reductive, but being treated based your genitalia and looks when it comes to sex can be important. So,Imo, if we have multiple labels and categories we can solve this overall problem.

I totally agree with that one. Or we can create more definitions like nonbinary, transman, transwoman etc, without the need to change the already established definitions. we can go from general to specific and as the topic gets more nuanced the specific automatically becomes more general and then we can create even more specific categories. I think thats the way to go, not by trying to destroy/widen already established definitions (because that way we lose the ability to have any reductive lense) . There are things that are easily observable, but there are other things that we like to have a knowledge about, without having the need to ask you about. I think creating more definitions is the way to go here as well. Lets say there is a person, who wants to know what genitalia you have before you go on a date with him/her. If we don't have specific labels that are directly connected to our private parts, then this poor individual won't be able to know what you are working with, without asking you about it (which can be considered disrespectful in some cases, depending on the person how he/she reacts to it). The other way how he/she can recognise what genitalia his dating partner has, is by the time when they get into the bedroom , but by that time its too late and it can become embarassing for both person (assuming the genitalia part is important, which is important for most people nowadays) But I assume, we can agree at least on this point: Depending on the usage and the context, there are times where being reductive about it is important, and there are other times, when being reductive is not just that its not important, but its missing the point and the big picture. So my overall point here is that having the ability to describe you reductively can sometimes be important, and that doesn't mean that i will look at you through only that lense. I will look at you through that reductive lense, if there is a specific need for it or context to it. But i won't have the ability to look at you reductively, if we don't have the specific labels and definitions for it.

Yes this is true, but there is a difference between saying that an oak tree is a tree compared to saying an oak tree is a birch tree. We can recognise that they are both in the tree family, but we can also recognise that they are different kind of trees on their own. Now, conflating an oak tree to a birch tree is a mistake, or not being able to differentiate between an oak tree and a birch tree can also be problematic. We can recognise here, that the definition of a "tree" is not changing and it is kind of rigid, but we are still able to differentiate between different kind of trees, because we created more definitions. The definition of an oak tree have to be rigid, because if its not, than chances are really high, that we will conflate it with a birch tree. The difference recognition is not always important, so in those cases, we can use the word tree, but when it is useful to differentiate between those two, then we can use their own specific definitions. So in the real world when can it become handy, to be able to differentiate between a trans and not trans individual? When it comes to special hospital treatment (for instance they have to know your original sex type ) When it comes to finding a sexual partner (because for some people its important to know, what kind of genitalia the other person has)

What definition do they use? I'm sure they don't use the definition of self-identification either.

Then sure you won't have a hard time to debate/enlighten us.

If it doesn't negate the man part, then why is it important to use the label of "man" rather than the label of "trans-man"? In other words, whats being taken away by using the label: trans-man rather than the label: man?

@Raptorsin7 Good luck! Hopefully you will get useful information for your money.

Sadghuru is a very conscious and great leader, but lets give huge credit to his team too, because they are the ones who are collectively doing the heavylifting for him.I don't want to take any credit away from sadhguru either, because he is amazing, but i rarely see people give credit to his team.

@Stovo How can you go from "science is biased and not good on this matter" to "i can confidently say, red meat is good for you, according to my bro science" ?

If we frame the Occam's razor this way: "Use the least amount of assumptions to explain things", then its easier to see that it can be used to cut through a lot of bullshit. That doesn't mean that it is always true, that only means that thats the most reliable tool you can use to try to make sense of things. More reliable in this case means, making it less probable to be wrong. There is no reason to use more assumptions than whats needed. In other words: why would you make it more probable to be wrong, if its not necessary? If we have 2 explanations and: Explanation 1) has 4 assumptions in it. Explanation 2) has 1 assumption in it. Then its much more probable that Explanation 2) will be correct, because there is a much lower room for error.

I think there is a meta question here: Why would anyone not trust the institutions? There could be multiple answers given, but i don't think that the main answer is that "because they think, that the epistemic process is flawed" and here is why: Those people who don't trust institutions , they either have to trust other sources of media or other alternative sources , or they are the ones who only trust themselves, so they think that they are knowledgeable enough to decide complex stuff on their own. People who consume alternative media without any critical thinking, are the majority, and those are the ones who use a very similar epistemic process like us (because we have to have a blind faith in institutions, if are not educated enough, and if we don't have enough time to research and learn about the subject). Of course, the difference is that we don't have to trust only one source, but it is still a kind of similar epistemic process. So my point would be that the majority of people from that "sceptic" group isn't sceptic, because what kind of epistemic process is being used, but because of other reasons, so the solution need to be found elsewhere (imo). On the other hand, some people from the "I don't trust any single outer source, i can know things by myself better" group could be educated on certain subjects by experts, because some of them are open to learn how things work. Depending on how well educated im on a particular subject and how much time i have to learn and research, im sometimes in the "I will find out myself own my own" group (which in practice means that i will try to learn the subject from experts), and in other times, becuase i don't have time to research everything, i will have to blindly trust the institutions and sometimes there is the middle line, where i know some stuff, but i also have to have some faith.