something_else

Bingo

But the point is, a good boss makes you want to follow them independent of the fact that they pay your salary. I get where you’re coming from, but your goal is to be a guy she wants to follow, not someone who she feels is trying too hard to make her follow him. Obsessing over control is a bad habit to get into, it comes across very needy and insecure. Confident/secure men don’t really care that much if they are in control or not, which counter-intuitively makes them come across as more in control. And most healthy relationships are pretty give and take I think. Sometimes she is in control, sometimes you are. The ideal is that both parties contribute to the plans of the relationship. If a girl suggests going somewhere, don’t just reject her and tell her no because women aren’t allowed to make plans. Get excited by it and start planning it out, contribute more to her idea. “Oh yea that sounds fun! Let’s do it and then afterwards we can go to place nearby I love called XYZ”.

@Olaf This is not being a leader, this is being manipulative, and borderline controlling. Being a leader doesn’t mean telling someone all of their ideas are wrong. Imagine your boss at work did this to you, how would you feel? Would you want him as your leader/boss? No, you’d fucking hate your life and you’d hate him Being a leader (in all contexts, not just dating) is about including all perspectives, making people feel heard, being competent, making people feel safe and secure, bringing out the best in others, allowing them to shine, reducing their mental load, decision making, confidence etc. This mindset of “I am a leader therefore we always do things MY way, and it’s my way or the highway” is precisely how you make people not want to follow you. It is the stereotypical cringy alpha male mindset who feels he has to try hard to assert his dominance.

Why don’t you just skip a few steps and start posting Andrew Tate content 😂 You sound like an abusive boyfriend. I don’t think you are, but that is the path you are on with this mindset

They mostly leave human cells alone. They fuck with your gut biome a bit, but that's it. The risk/reward ratio is worth it because the alternative is death or severe infection. The same cannot be said for dry fasting. Again, it's targeted at the cancer and your body is just collateral. In this case the risk/reward ratio is worth it because, again, the alternative is death. Yea, but it's better to just not become a drug addict in the first place and then you don't need to experience rock bottom to redeem yourself. Most of the drug addicts who reach rock bottom end up dead. Recovery from that point is not a certainty, it's an exception. This is breaking your body in a way it's designed to be broken. Your body is designed to build muscles to increase strength when necessary. Your body is not designed to recover stronger from dry fasting. Again, if it were, then sub-saharan Africa would contain some of the healthiest people in the world, yet it doesn't. All of these are examples of false equivalence.

The concern is less about them fully replacing white collar jobs, it's more a concern that the number available could reduce substantially. In software engineering for example, our team of 6 devs is now shipping new features at a rate that would have taken a team of 20 people a couple of years ago. Before AI, Our CEO/COO said their goal was to grow the dev team from 8 people to 15 people in the next few years. Now that goal has been completely dropped. Two of our devs who were contractors didn't get their contracts renewed because we don't need them any more. 6 devs with AI agents is enough to accomplish basically anything we'd reasonably need to for our product. So that's essentially 9 white collar jobs that would have existed which now will not, directly as a result of AI. I don't necessarily agree with this. Humans are not 99% reliable. Most humans make a ton of mistakes. And regarding the Agents Last Exam benchmark, 10.5% pass rate is specifically for the hardest test. The pass rate on that same exam for a single extremely smart human with vastly wide range of experience is probably <1%. The vast majority of humans on the planet would get a straight 0. This contains the hardest professional workflows that took a specialist human professional (or a team of them) days to weeks worth of effort to accomplish. And there are 38 of these tasks. If you look at the best scores overall across all 3 exams (near-term/easy, full-spectrum/medium, and last-exam/hardest), the best agent pass rate is around 30% now. The estimated pass rate for a single generalist human across all three exams is probably 5%. Again, these AI agents are being tested on 150 workflows that each took a team of specialist experts days to weeks to complete. Now, a single general-purpose system can fully complete approximately 30% of 152 diverse professional workflows, achieve roughly 50% partial credit, and attempt the entire suite in 66 hours for $235 of inference cost (Codex w/ 5.6-luna) What would it cost you to get this accomplished by humans? Let's assume: one specialist for each task is enough (likely an understatement already) it takes each one 3 to 5 days, they charge $100/h That gives us an estimated cost of 3,600 to 6,000 human hours and a monetary cost of $360,000 - $600,000. Even if we multiply those numbers by 0.3 to make it a fairer comparison (as Codex got a 30% pass rate), it's still an eyewatering amount of money and time in comparison to AI agents.

I'm sorry, but I think there are several issues in your thinking. Most of all, you're introducing a lot of other points separate from your main argument which was that "local LLMs are not AI, and AI is only happening when training the model" so I'm going to focus on that point in my response here. AI is defined as: "the capability of computational systems to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making". If you run a 120B parameter model locally and attach it to a good agent harness, it meets this criteria. Also notice that there is no mention of 'data' or 'training' being a requirement for something to be AI like you are suggesting. In fact, I would argue your thinking is exactly backwards. The training process for an AI is mostly defined and programmed by humans, while the output of an LLM is produced independently of humans, which more closely matches the definition of AI. Most locally run models are medium sized. Small language model defines anything under 10B parameters. Medium is 10B-100B, large is 100B+. It is possible (although it requires workstation level hardware) to run a 120B parameter model locally. Medium language models are very achievable to run locally, and still meet much of the above criteria for AI, just to less of a degree than a large language model. The agent harness is actually the magic sauce that makes modern AI agents so capable, less so than model size. You can't ask Fable to do this either. This has little bearing on whether something qualifies as AI. Ehm, no not really. LLMs aren't really trained for specific tasks, even the small ones. That's kind of the whole point. The initial LLM is trained on very broad corpus of text, then fine-tuned using a combination of question-answer pairs to optimise it for answering questions, and preference optimisation to ensure it answers questions in a way actual humans find useful. The end result is something with a fairly broad range of knowledge that knows how to talk to humans, even if the model is small. Yes, if you need a model for aerospace engineering you may include lots of aerospace engineering content in that fine-tuning phase, but you're still building on an LLM that was initially trained on a very broad corpus of text which makes it much more general purpose than a calculator. On top of this, the model runs in an agent harness, this allows it to decide whether it needs more data to make a decision. If it thinks it does then it can go and fetch that. So if you ask it about the anatomy of a cow it will search online for information on that and store that in its context, allowing it to answer detailed questions about cow anatomy pretty effectively even though it was fine-tuned as an aerospace engineering model.

Ah ok, my bad If someone has an anxious attachment style it probably isn’t a great idea. But I’m arguing for what I think is one of the healthier relationship dynamics, which assumes both people are fairly secure in attachment style.

Responding to @Valach too If a girl knows that you’re attractive to other women and yet you make it clear you chose her, and you love her, then there is nothing unhealthy about that. Unless you’re putting on an act and you’re planning to cheat on her. The “attractive to other women” part just puts you in a position where you can express that love very directly without any risk of it coming across as needy. It’s not social proof. I’m not saying you should actively hit on other women while you’re in a long term relationship to prove to your girlfriend that you’re attractive to women. The example I gave is social proof, to be fair. But that’s not the core point I’m making. The core point is about overall attractiveness, one component of which is social proof.

Ehm, no, sorry that's just not accurate. The trained models are general purpose enough that they can be used for novel tasks, especially inside an agent harness like Claude Code or Codex. They are still AI.

These reddit posts definitely encapsulate the healthier values from redpill and the manosphere quite well. If you can take this kind of advice and drop the rest of the baggage that comes from the space, that's the ideal. The issues arise when people build an identity around the manosphere or some subculture of it.

They have lots of casual sex and can be attractive, but they have extremely dysfunctional long term relationships. I assume that's not your goal. If you want a healthy long term relationship then don't look at dysfunctional relationships and try to model them. Look at healthy relationships between two secure people. If you express love in a secure and confident way it will drive a woman crazy for you. She wants to feel like you had a ton of options, but you chose her over all of them. If she feels like that you can be as loving as you like and it won't come across as needy because she knows you don't need her. You specifically chose her. Imagine the dynamic where you're at a club and a woman sees 5 or 6 different girls approach you, dancing with you etc. over the course of the night. But after all of that you go up to her. She's going to feel incredibly special. That's the feeling you want to cultivate in a long term relationship. "Yes, I could have plenty of other girls, but there's something special about you that I want, and that's why I love you so much"

For initial attraction and having lots of casual sex this works quite well. For a healthy long term relationship less so. You don’t want your girlfriend or wife walking on eggshells worrying you’re going to leave her, especially if she is the kind of women who is not short of options. Because at some point she’ll encounter someone better who gives her the affection she craves. She should (and deserves to) feel loved.

Ah I see what you mean. Yea obviously action is required to get out of that situation, but part of the reason people end up stuck in this situation in the first place is an inability to properly process your emotional state. Instead of facing up to the fact that you need to GTFO and make some changes you choose to believe that your partner isn’t that bad, distract yourself with substances, porn, social media etc. In order to start making change you need to accept this situation as it is, process it, and then take action.

Can you give an example?

I guess that’s fair enough, can you expand a bit more on that? How would you define frame?

I mean I wish you luck. Out of curiosity, what will you lose if you’re wrong?

4 times is not time and time again, the 5th cycle may exist under a completely different market scenario which does not produce the same reliable pattern. That's a fair goal, but in order to stand any chance of making 50%, 100% or more returns through only investing, you must accept a massive risk. You basically have to go all in, and if that's within your risk tolerance then fair enough I guess. The market doesn't care about what you need or what you believe, though. That may actually be an argument to take on less risk. It's pretty easy to get from 70% to 100% of your goal using less risky investments. If getting to 100% quickly requires risking the 70% of your goal you've already achieved, that really is just gambling.

I don't disagree, I'm more just curious, what do you feel like you got in terms of value from the manosphere?

It doesn't need to be able to do these things to have a significant impact on the world, though. The vast majority of the jobs in the world don't require much creativity. You're comparing AI to the absolute peak of humanity, which of course it cannot compete with. If it could it would be ASI. But when comparing with the average human it's very capable in many fields.

I mean kind of, yea. It depends on the degree of unpredictability and the risk to reward ratio. IMO crypto blurs the line between investment and gambling. In general I'd label anything that promises the possibility of a big win in a short timespan with a high degree of uncertainty/luck as at least gambling adjacent. This is the mechanism that creates gambling addicts. Most altcoins and all memecoins are so unpredictable that they are just straight up gambling. BTC is better, but there is still an incredible amount of uncertainty. I am quite sceptical of this. As the saying goes "past performance is not indicative of future results". There have been 3 cycles of four years, but that fact alone does not mean there is going to be a fourth. 3 is not a lot of datapoints either. We are also at an incredibly uncertain point in the world with an unstable president of the US and the looming impact of AI. And there's a dynamic whereby the more people that believe the fourth cycle is going to be a money making opportunity, the less of a money making opportunity it becomes. All of these, among many other factors, compound the uncertainty. I believe in Bitcoin as a concept, but I would not personally rely on that belief as evidence that the price of Bitcoin is going to keep going up, or follow predictable patterns.

It isn’t pre/trans fallacy. I’m arguing that manosphere content is detrimental even if you’re just starting out. It isn’t a phase to go through, it’s deadweight to be dropped. Inceldom as an identity has skyrocketed in popularity because of increased social isolation and because of the manosphere. These two things form a death spiral together. The more isolated you become the more time you spend online, the more time you spend online the more likely you are to get sucked into manosphere content, the more manosphere content you watch the more you’re told that you’re not good enough and that you’re all alone as a man. Rinse and repeat. Again, this is not accidental. This is a carefully crafted marketing funnel in action. The way out is not more manosphere content, it’s to break the cycle. Drop all of that shit, make some deep friendships and build a fun social life.

I'm going to be honest, this still just sounds like gambling psychology to me. Especially this part: You never know when the cycle will be, what the highs will be or what the lows will be. None of these things are very predictable, which makes it much more akin to gambling than investing. It's very analogous to the "just one more roll" mindset that you see from a gambler. Also this confuses me: You got in very early, if you'd sold nothing that bitcoin would be worth a fortune now, right? How did you lose 90% by not selling?

You can't just redefine terms to suit your own biases. What makes you think this is the case? I'm not naturally sociable either, and pickup/redpill theory actually made my social skills worse when I was into that many years ago. The intellectualism within the manosphere kills your vibes stone dead. Do you think the majority of the guys actually getting laid left right and centre give a shit about any of this? Or the guys who are in healthy loving relationships? No, they just focus on their own lives and doing what brings them joy, which is why they give off good vibes and reap the rewards of it. Obsessing over manosphere content online is subtle admission to yourself that you are low value, and that will always leak out in your interactions. It's fundamentally built into the framework with ideas like "men have no inherent value". That shit is toxic for your mind. It's all carefully crafted by influencers in that space to make you feel insecure so that they can present themselves as the solution, for a fee you understand. It's all a grift. In recent years I've largely always framed this area of self development as building social skills, and learning to express who I am as a person confidently. Call it bluepilled, but this has worked much better for me both in terms of results and my own mental wellbeing.

I relate to this as well, I've always struggled with execution. I figure out the plan and steps to accomplish what I want, and my brain seems to decide that's "enough" and that the actual execution doesn't matter beyond that. And ADHD diagnosis and meds have helped a lot in this regard