yetineti

@nuwu You chimed in saying wetware was slavery, and you want to talk to me about gaslighting and straw manning? Yeah, what you mentioned is not revolutionary, or what I was talking about. Edit: It was what I was talking about. I didn’t know Leo’s exact ‘AGI definition’ and I did not ask. Instead, I just poorly explained what I don’t think it is and what it is and a bunch of nonsense, besides the point. Also, wetware can be slavery. Lastly, the tone I had is paranormally defensive for an internet interaction. - ❤️

@Leo Gura AGI is a misnomer. AGI would just be all of the complex systems of a human, but man made. Not going to happen. Realistically, it will be a combination of the useful systems and pissing and shitting, for example, will be excluded because it’s not useful for the type of intelligence the people building this stuff care about. Nobody is going to program a robot to think it is peeing when it is not.. But that all would be required to get ‘AGI.’ Nobody is trying to create AGI or humanoids and if they say they are they are mistaken. They are just creating robots and they just need to be ‘relatable.’ We maximize specific fields, such as language, vision and moving to more of the physical abilities such as walking, grabbing, etc. All of these require new types of computing, mass data input, mass data retention, high levels of energy expenditure, etc. All of these things biocomputing will do better. I don’t know what else to tell you. Whether or not we agree on what is ‘AGI’ or how we get there- high levels of computing will be needed and biocomputing is clearly going to have certain advantages.

@nuwu Actually, slavery is what was used to make the device you’re typing on. Biocomputing uses lab grown brain tissue from stem cells. Your fear, however, is not unwarranted. This technology would be the foundation to, yes, harvesting brains or lifeforms for computational power.

Look into the Biocomputing developments from the past couple of months. Actual brain tissue is grown from stem cells and incorporated into computing. It has cut energy usage and improved overall processing while enabling further study into more organic algorithms and compressing data. @Leo Gura

Leo has enabled so many men to get hot witch girlfriends that they just don’t have time anymore.

@strika Relax.

@Leo Gura If Trump wins, how do we combat it?

Brave browser (at least on IOS) also now has a shorts blocker extension built in, for YouTube.

If you could squat 500lbs you would be extremely bulky already. What you’re saying makes zero sense.

@Leo Gura Never seen you so back and forth on a subject. I quoted you saying it does nothing for health. You responded it did then. Are you trying to reverse gym culture or something? Misrepresenting exercise and weight lifting is not a good way to do that. In your example, the ice cream would make you gain fat. Not muscle. They’re obviously different. And yes, in your other example- if you were to stop eating, you could lose weight without exercising at all! And if you never drove your car- you’d never have to spend on gas! You just can’t drive your car anymore! I’m not going to explain 5th grade health class to you. I don’t think you need me to either. You clearly have some bias against physical health or are failing to clearly portray your thoughts in this medium.

@Leo Gura Muscle mass promotes good health directly by increasing insulin availability, monitoring blood sugars, supporting amino acids and cytokine proteins in the immune system, activating neurotransmitters in relation to mood, such as with serotonin or different endorphins. Muscle mass also reduces overall risk factors with daily activities, making them easier. It strengthens bones, tendons, etc. All these things help delay aging and aid in mobility when we get older. Not to mention weight lifting and general exercise’s positive effect on the heart, circulation. Your point about having the muscles we need is a wild take. A lot of people do not even have physical jobs- they do not need any muscles, according to those claims. Yet, strengthening themselves would serve them well. Not for looks. Not to over-lift. A very gentle, light-weight, full range of exercises that are lifting based. This is well published. There’s no incentive behind lying about it either. Plenty of people live lives where, sure, they take creatine, protein powder, etc. But plenty just eat a lot of meat, eggs, veggies, etc. Still, masses of people void from any marketing or business profits agree with this. Muscles do not have to be massive, but we should not just be skinny either. Not if we can help it. And it can be done without the ‘gym rat’ esc. And it can be done regardless of genetics or most instances. Yes, genetics sets the bar for how much work it takes and what you even get to work with. But I am blown away by your take on this. Is it to push back against the gym culture? There are plenty of meat heads. I don’t like them either. This has nothing to do with them. Imagine saying the mind has just enough for what it needs and we shouldn’t learn anything or educate ourselves. We grow the mind not because we wouldn’t be fine on some well fare system. Anyone can live 50 years in America and hardly do a thing. We grow the mind because we can prepare it for more than it’d ever need to and it serves us in what we do. The body is the same. Climbers rope is the same. Computers. Cars towing ability. AC. Ect. All of them perform best in environments where they are ‘rated’ above the factors of which they endure. Nobody wants to climb a mountain on rope rated for 150lbs. A car pulling a camper on the edge of its capacity sucks. Computers, maxing out the settings they’re actually even rated for- overheat. It always works out better to get the pc that can handle more than what you’re running. Am I missing something here? I could list more and more on why weight lifting specifically is good. Nobody is advocating for anything extreme here.

@Leo Gura I’m a little confused, as I know the framing has changed over the years. So, are you claiming to have figured out and/or transcended God? Or is it that you’ve figured enough about everything else to know you never will figure out or transcend God or that it’s not even possible?

@Leo Gura (Good or Bad) What does mean to you now? How has it changed you, what has it brought you, etc.? Obviously, you don’t just say it. And I am curious if there any examples or routine thoughts or habits that’ve evolved recently in consequence. Maybe it won’t make sense to me. Still, I want your thoughts as they were your own.

@Leo Gura A few countries heavily rely on distilled water. They get it from the ocean and remineralize it. It can be safe. I suppose it’s a matter of if the additional cleanliness is worth the cost of minerals overtime.

@Leo Gura Low bar.

A little snippy, myself maybe. I could’ve left it as grokking is not intelligence. These are different words in my mind. I think when we rank intelligence we are first ranking what’s worth intelligence and it is a relativistic mess. This is why I try to be as specific as possible whenever comparing intelligences and often times it just isn’t compatible for me. And I think that perhaps I do not mean to say that intelligence is relativistic. I think it’s possible for intelligence to be consistent and have other things react differently to it. Sort of relativistic, but where the intelligence remains unchanged.

@Inliytened1 Grokking is not intelligence. Grokking is not the thing grokked. Intelligence may not be intelligent, etc. The topic at hand is about not conflating.

I also disagree about there is not a human intelligence or animal intelligence. If something is worth distinguishing it has its own bounds, rules, etc. It’s its own game. If I had to be a dolphin right now I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t be someone’s dog right now either. It’d be a lot to learn. Even a dog has to learn how to be a dog. But I’m much smarter than a dog? No, my intelligence, understanding, knowledge, etc. is just different.

@Inliytened1 It seems we don’t actually know if the animals are leveraging it or not. Grokking can be explained and it is interdependent from intelligence, understanding and knowledge. We should be careful conflating any of these. They’re all relative.

@Inliytened1 How do you know?

@Inliytened1 This is a sort of intelligence. That I don’t deny. But nothing is ‘intelligent.’ Like I said earlier, “You can only be intelligent in relation to something.” There must be a medium. Human intelligence is its own unique field that cannot be linearly surpassed. Just like how you can be amazed at wildlife documentary, and how animals will intelligently interact with their environment. If it wasn’t actually intelligent, and if it was something that we could just learn or do as humans it wouldn’t blow our mind and we wouldn’t teach it or show videos of it, etc. An alligators intelligence is only for alligators. There may be relation across fields, but again nothing is ‘intelligent.’

@Inliytened1 The reason why this doesn’t really sit well with me is because 1. Have you considered how much would have to happen for me and AI to be indistinguishable? Forget non-duality, etc. I’ll be able to pee on that robot and unless we make it be able to pee on me or make it able to make itself pee on me, it won’t. We’re not going to be indistinguishable just by random or something. 2. If we do make them indistinguishable or they make them selves- so be it. The thing about being indistinguishable is it won’t matter by principle. But this doesn’t just mean turning robots into humans. It means turning humans into robots too. But, for the sake of this conversation, sure, yes at that point they would be intelligent. For each additional ability an AI gets we could say they have become intelligent within that realm. The real question is how’re they getting their abilities.

@Leo Gura On what grounds? Lingually, sure. Pictures - pretty much yeah. Videos, almost. Sounds - pretty much yeah. Bias - ok. What else? Seems like you’re missing a lot here.

@Inliytened1 The AI’s current mediums are limited to words, sounds and videos. So for those things, we can call it intelligent. Conversely, I could ask it how to cook something. And it would be knowledgeable on such matters. But it could not do the cooking. So if I were to call it a cook, it’d be a dumb one. Hook it up to a robot and let it apply what it could tell me about cooking and cook something- and I could consider it a sophisticated chef, reasonably. You can only be intelligent in relation to something. So there’s no such thing as intelligence, really. These AI understand nothing and nobody is worried if that they do. We’re worried it starts cooking.

I brought this up a bit ago. I claimed AI was Knowledgeable and Informative not Intelligent or Able-for now. Knowledge = Information Intelligence = Ability If you have naturally high intelligence/ability you can sift knowledge/information easier. And if you have lots of knowledge/information you can become intelligent/able more easily. This explains the conflation. To get intelligence (abilities) from knowledge requires testing and application. To get knowledge/information from your intelligence/abilities is called introspection.