UnbornTao

Anyone can be now! "Code a coffee ordering app now, make no mistakes."

@Joseph Maynor Give the Blowfish template a try: https://github.com/nunocoracao/blowfish. It's fun; needs Hugo, though.

Study some of J. Krishnamurti's work.

Some of the robots I've seen can barely stand upright for more than a few minutes. Others are more impressive. Isn't this more of a hopeful dream or future possibility than a present reality? Again, not saying there can't be some truth to those claims.

We never got closure on who Google is, but solid video.

Yeah. Not making a choice is still a choice.

Just a joke. I agree with your take - for the most part.

I edited my response above to clarify my stance. It's very useful tech, but you need to assess the situation soberly. Without the hype, what is the tech actually doing? What can it do? I personally use it. I used GPT a while ago to create a JavaScript script to separate a bunch of content from a book into chapters, set up my Linux system with Nvidia drivers, troubleshoot technical problems, and other shenanigans. I like it, and I understand that this is just LLMs. But take a look at Windows, as a concrete example. Most of the AI implementation is poorly executed and, oftentimes, just unnecessary. Microsoft desperately wants to profit from its investment, pushing the tech down people's throats. At some point, you'll want to get an appliance, and you'll find it labeled 'AI Toaster'.

Smartphones will be able to do your laundry, cure cancer, and cook you an omelette - all at the same time! Eliminate the excessive hype, and that’d be fine by me. As said, the tech is very useful and has a lot of potential, but it's not a panacea or miracle cure, despite what some people seem to claim.

@Leo Gura It doesn't seem to bother you that much when people here share your terminology and are obviously just spouting beliefs - if or when those beliefs agree with you.

I was well aware of that. But please, stop it with that excuse already. It's not even accurate. And engage with the argument, if you don't want people to think they're expected to believe you.

A religion is already an acknowledgment of failure. It asks for faith. And it is taken as the truth.

If you say so. I'd add that's not a function of seeing or smelling. We already make tons of assessments in this domain every day. What are they based on? The main criterion is: do they work for our purposes? We trust a trained surgeon, not a random person on the street (unless he's a surgeon), when it comes to surgery and medicine. Why? Then again, the issue here is that in spiritual or philosophical pursuits, this stance is all the more difficult to discern. "Who can say what's true? Everyone's got their truth." It can turn into an unsubstantial impartiality pretty rapidly. Basic rigor and common sense is desperately needed.

https://nutritionfacts.org/recipe/black-bean-stew-with-purple-sweet-potatoes/

I guess that's true. But humans aren't hyped enough.

To me, they're like a smarter, improved version of a search engine at the end of the day. I'm speaking from ignorance here, while acknowledging the potential amazing value this technology could have. But the hype is just too much. LLMs can't even get basic information right sometimes.

Will this tendency be a net positive for Microsoft and Windows in the long term? Remains to be seen! No.

Depends on what we're talking about and what we mean by trust. But yes, that's pretty much a given in survival land - the notion that our experience is already 'true' or accurate (despite philosophizing that it might not). And your perceptive organs are yours alone, if that's in the ballpark of what you meant by your second question. Are you asking whether I'm free from influence by the external world, or something along those lines? Unaltered and untampered? Good luck with that. They're designed for you. You are a bias, so to speak. If you want to claim that this basic mechanism takes away from unbiased observation or plain common sense, I'd say that's a false equivalence. It doesn't seem to occur to people to ask the most common-sense questions or maintain basic accountability. You should ask Leo whether he trusts his drug-induced states and the claims he can't back up with the proof he said he'd provide. But I think I get where you were coming from with the question - setting up traps, eh?

Can you clarify and elaborate on it? What does this relate to?

Cojones.

Definitely. I like to think of it as truly listening to them and genuinely making an effort to meet them where they are - even though we're likely to fail. But this is what the work is about. We also have to guard against the tendency to claim understanding too soon. It's easy to think we have listened when, in fact, we haven't yet experienced what they're saying - or not to the degree they are conveying it. As for your own insights, if they are real, I don't see a need to be brave with them. You just need to make sure they are real insights, and not merely a conclusion, a belief, a good idea, or something else. If they're real, they're real because that is what is so, and not because anyone - even you - claims that they are. It's a crucial difference in criteria that's easily missed.

One clear trap - in my view - that is adjacent to the 'I'm doing it my way' sentiment, although essential in principle, is being so self-deceived and ignorant as to think one has surpassed some of the masters. Your observational skills need development. In many ways that's a recipe for unconscious deception. It's you wanting to get your way under a spiritual umbrella. Objective feedback.

Getting there!

Or, just as an exercise, practice being happy now. Be happy. Try that.