Rafael Thundercat

https://www.instagram.com/p/DePQrboG8ww/?img_index=8&psln=MTZnazZ5MjFtMGV5ag==

This is your best insigth. I will share some things that are helping me. At least in the information arena because we know that one thing is read or listen the podcasts and another is to embody and do the daily practice till effects get manifested. Co-dependency was for me a word that many good friends told me to look for. And for me took time to understand what it actually mean and where it was rooted.

@Nemra yeah, maybe, but I also fucked up my IG algorithm by reposting,liking and commenting on the posts of the ongoing Brasil elections. One round and there was just politics all way down. But is for a good reason. Meta is influencing and blockimg important influencers on the Left so there is a big movement to teach people how to overcome the tricks Meta is playing and using the algorithm way of working to get more reach. There is no politics without social media.

Grof perspective on Psyche https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dee_PxiBMjF/?mdxt=MTJzNmNhY214czF3Ng==

What is the point of this collection?

https://www.instagram.com/p/DdbTGNPlJEt/?img_index=9&dlrf=anVlNTZxcTBuZnR4 Even the Women.

I had a chat with Claude on the topic of the last post on AI Delusion. AI Delusions https://share.google/TxWA0rkVvwsteDRU9 Weird, having a chat about AI delusion with the AI itself. Here is what I got: Claude: There's a strong core here, but also some weak points in the argument. What holds up: an apocalyptic or messianic belief combined with enormous incentives distorts judgment. When the goal is "infinitely good," any means starts to look cheap, and that logic has caused a lot of damage in history. It's also legitimate to fear that the promise of an "AI that solves everything" serves as a veneer for concentrating power, and that the real costs (jobs, energy, inequality) fall on people who have no say. Where I'd push back: "Most CEOs believe it" is a generalization. Some believe it sincerely, others exaggerate for marketing and fundraising. The two cases call for different responses, and the text treats everything as sincere delusion. "Zero evidence" is too strong. There is evidence of real progress; what doesn't exist is evidence that the extrapolation to a "digital God" will pan out. Uncertainty is not the same as absence of evidence. The suicide-bomber comparison and "would kill a million children" are rhetoric, not argument. They weaken the solid part of the text. "The problem is not AI" may be a false dichotomy: the technology can carry real risks and the ideology around it can be dangerous. I'm an AI made by one of those companies, so take my analysis knowing that. But I think the critique gets stronger if it targets incentives and power structures rather than psychological diagnosis. A question for you: what draws you more in this text, the analysis of incentives or the moral certainty that they're monsters? It's worth noticing which of the two is moving you. You: I think you analyzed the text more than I did. I don't take anything for granted. Claude: Fair, and thanks for the correction. I assumed an endorsement you hadn't declared: I read the text as if it were your position and responded to it, when you were only bringing it into the conversation. So the right question is a different one: what do you want to do with it? It could be testing whether the argument holds up, understanding why it resonates, or seeing what happens to reasoning when one premise (the belief in the "AI-God") is pushed to the extreme. Each of those paths calls for a different conversation. You: The only way would be to meet some of these CEOs and see what they say, to know whether they're really that deluded. Claude: Good idea, and you can do it without meeting them in person: many have already spoken at length in long interviews, essays, and congressional testimony. But what they say in public is filtered by incentives (fundraising, regulation, image), so listening to them alone doesn't settle the question of sincere belief. A few signals help separate conviction from marketing: Consistency across audiences: does what they tell investors, regulators, and casual conversation partners match? Behavior: do they act like people who believe in extreme risk or extreme gain? Where do they put money, time, and people? Stated uncertainty: people who use "maybe," "if," and "I estimate" tend to be better calibrated than people who speak only in certainties. Disagreement among them: if people in the same industry openly disagree, "most of them are like that" loses force. Want me to look up what some of them have said recently, so you can evaluate concrete material instead of the caricature? You: Sure Claude: The material I found shows a more varied picture than the text you brought suggests. Who speaks with certainty: Sam Altman says we may be only a couple of years away from early versions of true superintelligence. He also said that OpenAI will have an internal system it calls AGI by the end of 2026. But his track record matters: one compilation of his statements shows that in February 2026 he said "we basically have built AGI" and later backed off, calling the phrase a spiritual statement, not a literal one. That fits your doubt about conviction versus marketing. (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2) Dario Amodei, of Anthropic (the company that made me, so weigh that), argues that the next level of AI could debut in 2026 and be smarter than Nobel Prize winners. (khaleejtimes) Who speaks with doubt: Demis Hassabis, of Google DeepMind, is more cautious: he sees AGI on the horizon, maybe within the next five years. He has also said AI is overhyped in the short term but underappreciated in the medium to long term, and that parts of the industry probably are in a bubble. (223 superintelligence within years sam altman meta ai scientist disagrees +2) Sundar Pichai acknowledged elements of irrationality in the market, similar to the dot-com era's exuberance. (newatlas) Yann LeCun, who isn't a CEO but is a heavyweight voice, called the idea of manufacturing "geniuses" in a data center complete BS. (malaymail) What this says about the thesis: "most CEOs are deluded in the same way" doesn't hold up well. Some forecast extremely short timelines, and others warn of exaggeration, sometimes inside the same companies that profit from the narrative. That doesn't absolve anyone: the people with the most aggressive timelines are also the ones who most need capital. But "sincere conviction" and "marketing" seem to coexist in different proportions in each person. A question for you: after seeing this, what changed in your initial impression, and what stayed the same?

@Leo Gura, great you got into Babylon interest. Take a look the Book from David Graeber "Debt" it touch on the themes of Barter,Slavery,Guilt,Gold,Coinage,Sin, and overall the origin of the Idea of Debt or that one being Owns another being. Because well, the ideia that I can own another human being must be created even if was bit by bit or bite by bite if we go back to pre-history.

I am still watching. I will finish today. Why do you assume I support whatever? And what is your insight about this?

Gosh, this shit is so interconnected. By know there is hard to say one thing in the Geopolitical arena is isolated. For sure this all connects with Israel,Congo,Tech Companies, AI... Survival is so complex.

Historically we know what happens internally with a Nation that spend their way down into Wars. France Revolution for example. Was not the case that all the invesment of Foreign wars weakened it inside and the discontent from its citzens got to the point to the Bastille situation? I am reducing a bit here since there may be other factors but is not this one of many factors? How lond can one spend energy outwards till the inner system collapse? ( I am making a parallel with a person for exemple spend energy figth outside drama that end up draining the body capacity to have energy for itself

Sometimes there are topics that sound unrelated but I can make them relate. For example the Survival of the Christianity Institution may be due to this process that this guy talk about. Is a lot of talk but I could understand this since young age. Not with this level of explanatory power. But deep down I knew that there was something dark going on in the system,being it family dyamics,school system,companies,jobs etc.. We are born inside of a system that have a lot of contradictions. This guy put a finger upon it.

We are built upon psycophaty. Is a bitter pill swollow but once understod one dont get surprised with the world situatuon. We are in a survival loop.

We dont want to admit that as Civilization we are built upon Psycophaty

This is very clear in Ayahuasca trips. Because even if the trip may be strong and for some Dissasotiative, the thing is that one can see clearly how the fabric of this psyche is made of. Is like a net of a fisherman, and one see in fron of itself the unraveling work one will need to get free from this net. First time I saw that I said to myself " Holy Fuck, this will be more work than I thought it would be" because in my first time the intention was Sunyata rigth away. And for my disappointment I realized that would not be easy like that. Is the work of a lifetime.