Ahbapx

Please define what you think human perception is, and how it differs from AI.

Why would it matter if it is working on binary transistors or run by a code? the process of the AI processing is the moment where perception happens during training or responding, not when it is shut down or in the passive mode. Imagine we get to a point where AI gets live-trained 7/24, can respond 7/24, with a body, with sensors and cameras, then it would be much easier for you to call it that it has perception of reality. Perception is not limited to the Human's level and complexity of perception. Maybe confusion arises from how they are so bad at storing and accessing their perception, but that is different, that is self-perception.

The problem is you don't say it to find which exact discrepancies to find, it finds itself, that can not happen without perception.

I didn't say it has subjective consciousness, I said it has subjective alignment, bias and perception of the given input on live testing, and on the training. Imagine you have an LLM model that is 1 year old and trained on tons of inaccurate information, and now you feed that model new accurate information, no matter how accurate new information is, the previous information will still affect the perception of the new information. And obviously, live testing works similarly too. That is what I meant by the subjective perception.

It's nice to get a glimpse of how spiritual teachers dangerously think and talk; When asked, It says it doesn't make mistakes and so does anybody. And when I state to AI that it was wrong, he says it is true.

Yes, it is true that Programmers, Data are responsible for the outcomes, but that doesn't mean AI doesn't form opinions. the data that the AI trained on will always contain the fundamental aspects of our logic, thus AI also learns logic, which is how AI can form new ideas. So, even if it is not self-aware yet, AI still has a subjective perception of things. Meaning, that even if an "evil" programmer or "evil" data is not directly telling AI to kill something, it can come to conclusion to kill.

at 4:17 in the first video, you can see he is pulling the necklace from the white bag... This is because of the tremendous amount of cultural, religious, and traditional pressure put on the leaders to fulfill and protect the expectations. Almost all religions have similar acts where the primary goal is to protect faith regardless of the accuracy of the explanation so that people don't get disappointed with the related history that they believe. In a way they are delaying the revelation of the truth to come out, so that negative impacts can be controlled without any chaos. Because bad is always better than worse.

Why do you want to be non-triggered? No matter if he is right or you are right, you don't want confrontation for whatever reason, that is fine. You can be functional and triggered at the same time, there is no point in trying to put gunpowder and fire together and expect nothing to happen.

Besides all the benefits, Firstly AI will harm humans inevitably because of how they are inaccurately trained by humans. And also AI will hallucinate and no human will have the intelligence to distinguish it from Truth. So yes, i think this is the most likely outcome.

You are missing my point brutha, i am talking about how people are using Tate's to justify their false agendas.

thanks. you too

@Consept Tate's were not just making money from women, they were also making money from men. He was selling and advertising how he was making money with women to the men, This can easily lead to false advertisement, consumer-pleasing behavior, and exaggerated Bro-Science talks from the Tate's. So, a fair system can not judge a person solely on what they said, there should be concrete evidence, if not video recordings, or sound records, there should be matching testimonials, storylines, evidence etc. Based on what is going on after a whole year he is still not in jail, even though this doesn't prove he is innocent it is enough to try to look at the case from a more objective perspective.

@Consept @LSD-Rumi You both are missing my point. A scapegoat is not necessarily someone who has done nothing wrong/toxic/criminal, rather it is someone who is unfairly judged or blamed by society, often as a result of prejudice, bias, or a desire to avoid accountability. He is not the only one who is mixing truth and falsehood, the people who he fights against are also mixing the truth with falsehood. So, focusing solely on him makes you blind to those who caused him.

I have already watched a lot of Andrew Tate's videos to understand that he has misogynistic and harmful ideas, that can easily lead to a person doing criminal acts. so, I'd rather not, because I don't want to navigate within a two-sided chaos where true and false get mixed from both sides. The unfair thing is how he is being picked as a scapegoat, which eliminates all the true and logical things he says, masculinity, corruptions in the system, discipline, hard work, etc. together with the wrong things he says. Just because he is a dividing force, shouldn't cause me to divide my own mind.

I am unaware of most of the things you said, but as far as I see it even if they are criminals, there are levels to being a criminal, and I think so many people are just being unfair to them, which is also worrying to me.

We are not just gonna merge with AI's and robots through hardware, we are also gonna approach AI's software, mentally. I simply mean we will realize we are also bio-AI's. also, There will be good AIs and bad AI's, so there will be a lot of new challenges for humans...

one can argue for the "criminal acts" they committed since the Romanian government can't even put them in jail for good after a whole year. I am pretty sure if there was concrete evidence, they wouldn't be on house arrest, but in jail... no comment on their decision to move to Romania.

Tate Brothers say/do some unfair/ignorant things for sure, but to deny they face injustice is just as ignorant.

You don't sound like you have a desire for art. Art is an abstraction, fiction, and fantasy, I think you want to deal with real-time/real-life problems.

Bravery can only be switched like you say if you achieve a required realization, or someone you highly trust can say "Have some balls" for x situation, and that can give you that finite bravery because you trust that person for that x situation. or you or someone else solve the limiting ideas, and fix your chemical imbalance and neurological structure, then you can achieve higher bravery, in all those scenarios, bravery was not a switch that was always in supply, it was achieved with necessary fixes. That is my point for your original post, your post was aggressive as if bravery is always in the supply or even in demand. You are basically saying to an anxious person, "Stop being anxious dude, have some balls", I don't know who your main audience is here, maybe you are just writing to the people who know you, and maybe then it could have some effect, but for the rest of the people, I think your original post has almost very little value.

it is the impossibility of handling those things that bring another dimension of pain/fear that requires getting numb in order to either save time, escape, find an alternative, or postpone it. You don't need to feel every emotion. and you can't. Sometimes you escape.

the difference is I am fine with being skeptical, being called skeptical, or dealing with skeptics. I don't need to bash skepticism as if it is not fueled by open-mindedness. x)

Those who lack emotional intelligence lack the necessary synaptic connections that would take months or years to develop, or revive. Calling them lacking balls is insensitive to the underlying struggles they went through and are still going through. There is no bravery switch that can be just turned on.

You are very skeptical about skepticism

Skepticism and open-mindedness have to go together, realize how you are skeptical about skepticism, and without being open-minded one couldn't even be skeptical. Also, Skepticism doesn't lead to discarding any idea completely, ever. it is illogical to assume one is discarding any doubted belief completely, we just forget it temporarily till we wait to come across it again, we forget the main doubted belief, but we usually still carry the pathways that led us to that doubt. The reason we forget is storing the probabilistic spectrum of doubts or beliefs is highly expensive for our capacity. Edit: just a correction, along with the main belief, the pathways, other beliefs, and impressions that lead to that belief might get forgotten, I am saying this because even if we are okay to forget an idea but want to come across it again, we should at least protect the pathways that lead to that idea, at least to some extent, otherwise we won't even be aware of what to remember. obviously, grammar logic and reasoning + emotions are other key things to efficiently restore that idea.