Scholar

I don't find this line of argumentation very convincing. My people reading skills, which are inhumanely good, just tell me this guy could easily be full of shit or delusional. We are talking about the US government here, lol. The David Frevor case is far more convincing.

You can watch this video and once you have done so, you should realize that this is nothing compared to what awaits us in the next years and decades. I believe it will not take long before these issues will seem like childs-play, and we will wish that we could have forseen what was inevitable. There is a simple reason for this, that will also seem obvious once the issues become more glaring. The reason is that this is the first technology in the history of mankind that actually is not designed by human beings. This technology is designed by evolution itself. Human beings are not engineering these systems, they are engineering the environment which allows for evolution to take place. These systems simply exploit the intelligence inbued into the mathematical structure of the universe, the same intelligence which self-perpetuate and constructs life in all it's diversity and complexity. The same mechanism that lead to the development of all non-individuated consciousness systems is also allowing these technologies to emerge. This means everything, from viruses, to bacteria, to all plants, fungi and all biological systems. The only thing it excludes is individuated consciousness, depending on the actual parameters under which individuated consciousness is maintained. Human beings can now create technologies that are as intelligently constructed as biological structures. This is machine life, machine evolution and some day possibly machine individuated consciousness. This is the level of complexity we are talking about: Again: The inherent intelligence ingrained in the mathematical underpinning of the universe is the same intelligence that is used in machine learning. You can look at the types of technologies human beings, with their chimp minds, have created in the past, and how fast these technologies have progressed. You can see that we are not remotely mature enough to integrate these technologies in ways that allow us to use them responsibly as they progress. Now, this new mechanism, which is inherently what spawned and developed all life on earth, will create technologies far beyond what human chimp minds could have ever hoped to develop. There is a real chance that our species will not be able to adapt to this development. What you must understand is the following: The less likely you believe that chance to be, the more likely it is that humanity is fundamentally not suited to survive this type of technological evolution. You are showcasing the precise lack of wisdom that will make catastrophy inevitable. If you were wise, you would look at this technology and instantly realize this is more significant and dangerous than nuclear weapons, and that deep fakes are the very least of the challenges we are about to face. We, a species barely more evolved than chimps have just received piece of divine intelligence on a silver platter. And now watch what we will do with it, because this will be the measure of our species and whether we are worthy of continuing to contribute to the process of evolution. On the other hand, there is hope that the divine was intelligent enough to forsee this type of development, and that the universe was constructed in a way as to limit the intelligence of evolution in such a way that, once a self-aware species arises, it would not destroy itself once it unlocks these powers. However, usually such thoughts are more fueled by huberis than anything else.

Timestamped. You know, we all might have thought we were long past this point, but here we are. Spiral Dynamics is really something. Depending on how long you have known about this model and have integrated it, you will have probably noticed it unfolding in society like some sort of prophecy. And in a decade or in a century, we will look at societal progress and scratch our head how we could have been so blind: Of course evolutionary forces apply to society! There are dynamics that lead to certain human behaviour which then create new dynamics which once more create new behaviours! And yes, those dynamics have certain patterns, how could it be otherwise. You have probably noticed people like Andrew Tate growing in popularity over the past months. We kind of observed all of this starting with Jordan Peterson, which indicated a lack of healthy stage blue integration in society. Because these types of things are not being facilitated by society, and individuals who do try to facilitate it tend to not fit into the stage orange-green paradigms, we basically are observing a splintering of society, one which is regressive while the other is developing into an evolutionary dead-end due to lack of lower stage integration. A lot of this dynamic is fueled by social media algorithms maximizing engagement, which leads to maximization of fear and moral-outrage based dynamics. The result is a lot of unhappy people in society and no real way to get them on a better path, which makes stage orange attractive specifically because it is an individualist, self-centered type of approach which tracks with reality. With stage orange, everyone wants to be the top G, and everyone thinks they can be the top G, but of course, the vast majority of people by definition cannot ever be top Gs. The system is rigged, yet because everyone is so desperate to be the top G, the system is maintained. Because of certain dynamics playing out the way they did over the past decade, I believe we will see the most toxic side of stage orange yet. And what is the solution? Suffering, so much suffering that people will be open minded enough to move beyond their current identities. But that always is dangerous, as it equally opens people's minds to dangerous ideologies. The only solution to people like Andrew Tate society has conceived of is basically playing whack'a'mole, which of course shows you that we still live in the dark ages. We are like ignorant childen standed on an island, we have no clue what we are doing. You think Jordan Peterson is bad and cancel him, and then you get Andrew Tate. Where do you think this is going? Whatever you are doing, it is having the opposite of the intended effect. In a century, we might look at social media and realize "Of course this lead to world war 3... how could they not have realize that? It's so obvious, the signs were everywhere!". Humanity is still at a stage in which it is completely shaped by the forces of nature. We are as unaware of those dynamics as ants are. We are so ignorant, it takes us literal centuries to just to become aware of these things. We are just stupid, we are barely more intelligent than chimps. If you look at a savant genius, the only reason why that is special to us is because of how mindblowingly stupid the rest of us are. And even the geniuses are barely functional. I am saying this because I want people to realize that this particular evolutionary pathway is not at all guaranteed to be successful. God is perfectly willing to wipe humanity from the face of the planet in the blink of an eye if that is what the dynamics of evolution dictate. In fact, God is willing to wipe out the entire planet and all life on it for the sake of the greater movement of consciousness evolution. If all life on Earth has to go extinct so that the laws of nature can allow some other civilization on the other side of the universe to succeed, then so be it. I find it very likely that most civilizations in the universe wipe themselves out, until one out of thousand, or a million, will actually go beyond some critical hurdle of evolution. Maybe it takes trillions of universes with trillions of civilizations to get one that will get to a stage that is sustainable and wise. If you think that's absurd numbers to get to that point you have not studied evolution. And you think that's cruel, but it's not. That hurdle is just as necessary as the asteroid that wiped out most dinosaurs. Maybe, if we are lucky, the descendants of dolphins will claim the lands and some day recover the remnants of our civilization, with the hope that they will learn from our mistakes.

This is actually quite obvious. If you give a fool the truth, they will harm themselves and others, because lies and illusions are the only thing that keep them from acting that way. If you convince a person from 700 years ago that hell does not exist, with their level of development, they are likely to act more dysfunctionally than if you had just left the that illusion alone. Similarily it is with other types of illusions that persist today. Illusions that a fool would of course want to get rid of, because they are antithetical to truth. But what the fool does not realize is that the development and realization of truth is built on illusions. It takes billions of years of lies and illusions to get to this point, and it will take a lot more lies and illusions for civilization to develop the capacity to operate functionally without those illusions. You are taking away limitation that the current human beings require to live. This is by far the most dangerous aspect of this work. Lies are very dangerous, but deconstructing lies and illusions in a foolish manner leads to the holocaust. It does not lead to progress, because it requires actual development to make progress. Advanced spiritual teachers have always understood moral relativity, for example, but only foolish teachers would tell the fools that follow them that morality is relative. The wise teachers would instead create new moral laws for the fools to follow. The most appropriate laws for the fools to follow. And this is also how God does it. Your ego has been equipped with lies and illusions so that you may not kill yourself due to your own ignorance. Because that's exactly what will happen if those illusions are taken away from you.

Nothing wrong with being a monkey or rat.

Jordan Peterson is interested in these types of dynamics so I am not surprised he has observed this. This is also applied in eastern teaching traditions. Most people are not ready for the truth. Our civilization is not ready for the truth. Truth would destroy our civilization in a heart-beat.

I had pretty much this same realization around 10 years ago, I remember how I was arguing in a physics forum about whether true random events can take place, and somehow it lead me into a rabbit hole of contemplating whether or not the universe had to be infinite. I remember this was after I played Bioshock Infinite, which inspired me to think about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics. The way I was thinking about this then was the following: If only this universe exists, then there has to be something that limits reality such that only this universe can exist. If that is the case, then there must be a reason for why that limitation exists and so forth. This lead to an infinite regress of causes. And then I asked myself a simple question: Why would there even be anything that limits reality? How could that even possibly be the case? What could possibly restrict reality itself? Whatever that limitation would be, would be part of reality, so then, what would have caused that limitation to exist, and why was reality limited in such a way that it would only allow for that particular limitation to exist? I realized then that even if this universe was not a multiverse, there would have to exist infinite universes anyways, and also infinite multiverses. Not because physics says so, but because reality says so. Now, when I contemplate such questions, it's not merely a rational intellectual inquiry. When I ask these questions, it truly feels like I am in contact with the substance of existence and am investigating it directly. Like I am looking at reality. And at that point, there is just an intuitive grasp of the impossibility of absolute limitation. When I contemplate these things I get this unique kind of ecstasy. It's hard to describe but it's incredibly intense. Once I am in that state I can just sit and write through the whole night as if I was in a feverdream. Nothing else in life ever felt that intensely meaningful, it really creates emotions that I sometimes think some people never get to experience. It would always frustrate me that others would not see these things, like this is the nature of reality, this is everything, this is the most important thing, but people will simply not grasp it, they did not care at all. They seem to hardly be able to engage with these questions. When I engage with these questions, it feels like I am touching the actual substance of what I am contemplating. I literally start shaking from excitement. Now I feel like this is almost a shamanistic state that I enter, I can put music on and it's just insane. It's orgasm level of intensity, for hours. Tingles of excitement in the brain and whole body. I remember for weeks I would tell my parents this, like some maniac "Reality has to be infinite, don't you understand?! It has to be infinite, it literally cannot be any other way!". It wasn't some neat interesting tidbit of information for me, it was like I had unlocked the greatest mystery in existence. The question of infinity made me also question why anything existed at all, and what if there genuinely never existed anything at all. I could focus my attention on this to such a degree that I was truly dumbfounded that anything existed at all. We take it for so granted. When I realized the genuine possibility of nothing existing, nothing having ever existed and never going to exist, to such a degree that there would not ever even be anything aware of there nothing existing. There is a point where you just grasp Totality, absolutely everything. And then you imagine it gone, and you realize it's death, and it terrifies you. It causes a primal fear that I have never encountered other than when I have contemplated this deeply. Your mind has to be intensely focused and you have to be in a very specific and precise frame of mind to be able to genuinely grasp these things. But the fear was so intense that I would always stop the contemplation, I would even not want to contemplate it again for a long time to not have to feel that feeling. Of course, back then I didn't know anything about philosophy or spirituality. All I knew was I was interested in physics because I was interested in the nature of reality. I was never interested in the math though, only grasping what reality actually is. And strangely it never felt conceptual. It always felt like I was investigating existence itself, I just never had the words to describe it. Or rather, it is conceptual, but it is the Conceptual with a capital C. Of course, the answers can only be found in the mind. All roads lead to God, I suppose. It's just so funny how obvious it is if you just realize how impossible everything is. From colors, to evolution, to anything else in existence. If you can just see infinite in the mundane, you would know immediately. There would be no question at all. This is existence, this is reality, and it is infinite, you have to be blind not to see it.

Just imagine Yoda had a youtube channel and trying to convince the youngsters of how amazing the force was and spilling the deepest secrets that he himself just realized. That's basically Leo, and you can imagine Yoda not being very wise at that point.

The problem is Leo wants to be like, 4 things at once: Spiritual process vlogger Psychonaut Spiritual Teacher Self Improvement Guru And really, it's just not a good mixture. Leo started out as a self improvement guru and then documented his spiritual journey while at the same time teaching about everything he has learned. If you want society to put you to the cross and burn you alive, that's exactly what you would want to do to achieve that, lol. The psychonaut advance stuff he is on that he himself is struggling to integrate should not be taught to normies. And if he just released those videos without context, it woul be fine. But he is not doing that, he is a self-improvement guy who gets the normies into his videos trying to convince them of everything he says and then introducing to them the most advance concepts that are probably not appropriate for 99.99% of mankind, while kind of doing introductory spirituality and also doing advanced spirituality. And the most toxic thing is he is kind of trying to sell to the people who definitely should not be engaging in advanced spirituality the utmost importance of advance spirituality, which will leave the most vulnerable people trying to follow those things, obviously compromising their survival and most likely not leading to any good results even in terms of spiritual insights. The fact that he is so convincing and good at explaining things makes this situation just 10x worse. It's just a mess and society will lash out, and he should know better. These ideas are incredibly threatening to society and individuals, for good reason.

This is like spirituality for the casuals, lol.

We can look at the ego as a sort of scaffolding that, to see the truth one must deconstruct. The problem is that once deconstructed, many inexperienced people will focus on how amazing the truth is, and how all it takes is deconstructing the scaffolding. What they often miss is that it matters a lot how the scaffolding is actually deconstructed. Carelessly deconstructing it will lead to suffering and dysfunction. You cannot do this with brute force. An interesting aspect is that, most people, before they can start deconstructing the scaffolding of their ego, must first focus on improving and building upon the present scaffolding, in a way so that eventually you can safely deconstruct the scaffolding without it all falling ontop of you. Most people, if they watch Leo's advanced videos, will probably experience more delusion and negative impacts in their life, precisely because Leo is so good at deconstructing things. Even someone who is not ready might find himself with parts of his scaffolding missing after watching Leo's content for long enough. The fact that Leo is so compelling makes his videos all the more dangerous to underdeveloped individuals, which in todays society are most people. When people have egoic reactions against Leo's content, that's actually a good and healthy reaction. Their egos are not developed enough and protect themselves from the type of deconstruction Leo is engaging it, and I suspect this is an actual mechanism that evolved. Leo often talks about how we have to outtrick that mechanism, and he constantly attempts to do so in his videos. This is exactly what a foolish teacher would do, in my opinion. Leo lacks perspective because he is an exceptionally grounded person, and he assumes that other people are as grounded as him. This however is not the case, most people who watch his content are not nearly as stable in that regard as him. I believe this is also why certain egoic structures Leo has are very persistent, and why he is still acting so selfishly. He has a very robust ego-structure.

I would ask you to picture what horrors over 98% of progressives do today to individuals of other species, but I don't need to: Morally evolved individuals might recoil in horror at your silence on the greatest holocaust in the history of mankind. The fact that you would not be protesting this with the greatest moral urgency until an end was put to it. That you would just watch in silence as trillions of individuals have to suffer intolerable torture for the ignorance of mankind, for your own ignorance. Hopefully they will be wise enough to realize that they cannot judge you for your ignorance, because that would mean they would become blind to their own evil and selfishness, just as you have become blind to it.

You should notice how, when I criticized your supposed ingroup, the first thing you did was point out the evil of your opposed outgroup, as if I was playing a game of comparing these two groups. I was giving an objective description of the dynamics underlying what I believe are current social motions. You interpreted as me trying to make out progressives as worse than conservatives, which really is a projection of your own paradigm. The crybullies of today were the executioners of yesterday. The dynamics underlying current progressive culture are not the same as the dynamics which spawn this progressive motion. An example of actual progressives today are radical vegans who compare and equivocate the holocaust of the jews and the slavery of black people to the holocaust and slavery of the animals. They are tremendously unpopular and offensive to current culture. That's how you know they are genuinely progressive. That's the motion, the genuine spirit of progressivism. Which, to be precise, is not to be confused with stages of spiral dynamics. You will most likely notice in yourself the great resistance to this idea, and if you were wise, you would realize that you are the conservative. And that really, who and who is not conservative is completely relative.

It was not a substantive response at all.

That's not a very mature response. I recommend contemplating what caused this knee jerk reaction, and how what I described relates to the dynamics at play in your own consciousness.

I think it's a kind of systemic issue resulting from the current manifestation of progressive ideology. I think a lot of people misdiagnose the core of the issue here. It is not that most progressives necessarily support the more extreme ideas on the left, rather if you are part of the progressive majority, you are not capable of ever criticizing any progressive ideas, in fear of being identified as a bigot. In my eyes this dynamic stems from the way current progressive culture is enforced, which is by means of social ostracization and shaming, rather than through the expansion of empathy and reason. As a side note: That particular change in enforcement mechanisms I believe stems from the emergent dynamics of attention-maximizing social media algorithms. Authentic progress in the long term cannot be sustained through social ostracization and shaming. There is a simple reason for this: With social ostracization and shaming, ideological adherence is enforced by means of fear, rather than authentic change, expansion of consciousness and understanding. Social ostracization and shaming leads to lack of reasoning capacities, due to a self-preservation dynamic. If I am a progressive, and I question the progressive agenda, I run risk of being ostracized, of suddenly being defined as an outside. This fear will prevent me from truly engaging with any of these topics rationally, because rationality is dangerous. Why is rationality dangerous? Being the process of reasoning requires you to make mistakes, to come to false conclusions. The current form of progressivism does not allow for that type of false conclusion to occur without the reasoner running risk of being framed as an outsider (transphobe, nazi, bigot etc.). When the ignorant become evil, then ignorance becomes evil. And because reasoning will always reveal ignorance, reasoning is shut off, replaced by mindless adherence to the ideology. This is a stage a blue dynamic, a fear/shame based system, and naturally has the same limitations. It is susceptible to infighting and fragmentation, because different conclusion lead to mutual social ostracization and othering. But more importantly, new adherers of the ideology tend to not have achieved the growth necessary to come to those conclusions themselves (through an expansion of empathy, understanding and consciousness), but rather have been indoctrinated into. Because progressive ideology is enforced through group identities, meaning forced adherence to group norms through the threat of ostracization, an interesting runaway effect occurs. In contrast to say islamic ideology, which is designed to remain constant over time, progressive ideology fundamentally seeks expansion and change. In it's current form, it seeks to identify all bigotry and remove it from the world. The idea is: Bigotry is everywhere, we are susceptible to be unaware of our own bigotry, and anyone who is a bigot, even due to lack of awareness, is evil. This simple ideological structure means any new progressive idea cannot be challenged by individuals identifying with the group, in fear of being bigotted in an unexpected way and therefore not being any different from the people who the group condemns as evil and regressive This leads to individuals not actually being able to criticize the more extreme ideas on fear of ostracization and shaming, in addition to people no longer being aware of why they hold certain ideological positions, because they are not given enough time to authentically explore them, which inevitably leads to mistakes, which by current progressive ideology would result in your being designated an outsider/evil. Progressives have an existential fear rooted in their identity, which is shaped by their ingroup: "Oh my god, what if I say something bigotted?" If you negate a progressive idea, you very well might be revealed as a bigot. And this does not even need to be enforced through the group. Because each individual, as a cultural norm of the group, is engaging in the constant shaming and evil-making of the even the most mundane ignorance of others, the stakes are inherently existential. If you ever turn out to be bigotted, the hatred and disgust you have for so long pointed outwardly towards others, will suddenly be turned inward. This is a hallmark of stage blue dynamics, which are dominant in current progressive culture. Of course, in the long term this type of system is unsustainable, because individuals fundamentally do not know why they believe in the things they do, making the system fall apart when cultural enforcement ceases, causing a certain level of regression. To the individual, this will be experienced as freeing, not because progressive ideals are all wrong, but because the means by which they were upheld in that individual mind were through shackles, through fear and shame, rather than through understanding, empathy and consciousness. To the conservative, what is worrisome is not the actual stance of the majority of progressives, but rather the fact that the majority of progressives is incapable of silencing or disagreeing with the more extreme permutations of their ideology. Fundamentally, when you point your fingers at the evil of others, you will make yourself blind to your own evil, because you will not be able to tolerate your own judgement.

It's kind of funny how people are basically taught to be ChatGPTs.

For you lazy people who won't do your own research on the whole AI thing: The ideologies that are forming around AI are genuinely delusional, and I see it being parroted here on this forum. We are not seeing an AI revolution, this is the imitation of intuitive prediction models, which is quite literally the opposite of conscious understanding. I would bet a lot of money that conscious understanding requires individuated consciousness, and this will require solutions on the fundamental way the hardware of computers are constructed. If you were to simulate every single atoms in the brain perfectly with a computer, you would not arrive at consicousness, nor would you arrive at human like behaviour. Individuated consciousness is an emergent phenomena or distinction in existence which is drawn through a particular arrangement of dualities, which is simply not present in computers. You don't create intelligent and then consciousness emerges. You create consciousness and intelligence emerges. This is basically stage orange run amok. You guys should feel ashamed for falling for it.

This has nothing to do with humans. We know how the technology works, it is intuitive pattern recognition. That's a component of brain function, but has little to do with individuated consciousness. You are falling for the hype without any critical thought, you should listen to some actual experts on MLA. But hey:

The irony is that this very attitude is part of the stupidity and ignorance of humanity. AI is not is consciousness, it is quite the opposite of consciousness. It is pure unconsciousness. Whatever your brain can do that is not grounded in individuated consciousness, the AI will likely learn to be able to do. Confusing this for consciousness or intelligence just shows how surface level our societies understanding of in these regards. These tools are just power amplifiers. They do not make human beings wiser, in fact they threaten to make us less conscious, more ignorant. Knowledge is not consciousness. Whatever the state of humanity's wisdom is today, you can expect that to amplify in the next decades. I will repost this here again: Take the long way by paulweinfield When people talk about Al, I often think of Chuang Tzu's story of the Great P'eng Bird, who could fly thousands of miles with a single flap of his wings, but flew too fast to notice anything about the world below. A little quail, on the other hand, who could hop just a few feet, truly understood the distance he was traveling. So it is with technology. An amateur typing keywords into ChatGPT doesn’t create a painting. Paintings come from painting, from taking the long journey of acquiring skills and mastering materials. To think you can bypass the journey is like trying to experience a piece of music by skipping to the last bar, or experiencing Paris by leaving it as quickly as possible. Don't take travel tips from people who hate leaving home. There are no shortcuts. Our society peddles the illusion that, with the right hacks, you can “do more,” but no one in the history of the world has ever done more, because no one has ever found more than twenty-four hours of experience in a day. You can speed up, but you'll just see less. You can give yourself a diploma for a program you didn’t attend, but that doesn’t mean you learned anything. ... The question isn't whether robots will one day be conscious, but whether, in that future, humans will be. Consciousness isn't something guaranteed. In fact, we lose it a little each time we delegate the work of paying attention. You have to resist this. Climb the steps to your apartment carefully, one by one. Dry the dishes carefully, one by one. This is all the living there ever has been, or will be. AI will not give you better entertainment, much like social media algorhythms do not give you better entertainment. Rather, they exploit human psychology to maintain your attention. Why would they give you an enjoyable experience, if fear, anxiety and moral outrage will make you engage with their platforms far more? You think you will compete with AI, with your silly little songs? AI will learn to create songs beyond anything you could do, simply because it will have hundreds of millions of individuals telling informing it of the precise data-points that they find most engaging. By engaging with the AI, the AI will instantly be able to modify itself and create something that will create more engagement. You can see the first signs of this with midjourney. The users who generate the images inform the AI of what appealling images are, by choosing the most appealling options in the process of creation. This system, once fully actualized, will be able to adjust to social trends, and probably guide social aesthetic trends, instantly, beyond what you could ever do. It's astounding how myopic people are in regards to this topic. It's not the AI who is going to help you to create you art, unless you will just create it to show to your own family. You are going to be the one shaping the AI, you are going to be the one who is giving the AI what it needs to capture the attention of the public. And I want to note something. You are making claims about AI being unbiased. This is actually the opposite of what is true. AI is pure bias. It cannot do anything but bias. That's the entire technology, it's learning to bias itself. That's what pattern recognition is. When you say it's unbiased, it just means it adopted a pattern that you believe to be unbiased. It appears to be unbiased, without actually being unbiased. The AI is not an entity which can self-reflect and adopt a neutral position. It is taught the appearance of neutrality, while actually having just being fed certain data and being biased towards that data. When someone wants to make it appear unbiased, they have to sit down and make the AI unbiased, which requires bias in and of itself! Who decides what's unbiased? In this case, google.

All art is derivative. The AI just has to take whatever it knows is good about your art and extract it, create an instant derivative version of it that takes the essence while making it appear to be a new work of art. Guess who will own the most sophisticated AI systems? Guess who also has control over the vast majority of public access to art?

He makes a very interesting case. I'm curious what your thoughts are, but please watch the video before you respond because if you don't, your arguments might have already been addressed in it.

This is way too theoretical. You can twist all insights away with logic applied in the way you are doing here, trust me I am an expert at that. Like I said, to you infinity is just a word. It truly is meaningless. When you talk about infinity, you mean "everything". But that concept collapses in on itself pretty quickly. Infinity as I speak of it is expansion. There is no "everything" to it, that really does not describe things well at all. The problem here is not that I am separating things, which is by the way the only possible way of understanding, in fact it is the nature of understanding. No, the problem is that you have deluded yourself that what you are doing right not somehow escapes that process of egoic separation. You are doing it as we speak, when you speak of Egoless Infinity vs Egoic Seperation, which is a duality. You cannot ever say or communicate, or thing, or do, or conceive, or image, anything whatsoever without relative duality, or the process of infinity as I described above. Some nonsense is better suited for the human mind than other nonsense. That's just how it is, you can blame God for it. You can deny the gravity as much as you want, and call it imagination, that will not change it's instantiation. Because the Divine doesn't give a damn about your nonsense. In the end you must submit to it.

There is an important distinction to be made between two different aspects of Existence that can seem similar or confused to be the same thing. Totality and Infinity. Totality and Infinity are one of the most fundamental dualities that emerge. Infinity cannot ever be completed, by it's very nature, it's very ontology. People conceptualize Infinity as a thing which has no end, but this is misguided. Infinity is not a thing which has no end, or which ever expands, rather the nature of Infinity, it's very ontology, is expansion. Infinity is not a very large, never ending thing. Infinity is the process of expansion. It is in essence that which gives rise to relativity, because the process of distinction between, for example, the lesser and the greater, is in essence the trajectory of expansion between the lesser and the greater. With Infinity, you can always go "deeper", "more fundamental", "more essentail", "more truthful". This is why people like Leo so often think they reached Totality or Essence, when on the next trip they realize "oh my God, this is even deeper!". There is no end to this, because that is the essence of Infinity. If there was an end to it, you would not be exploring and experiencing Infinity. In contrast to that there is Totality. Totality has no depth to it. Totality is always complete, it cannot be expanded upon. It is not merely eternal, it is eternity itself. There is no more Truthful or Fundamental Totality, Totality is Total. You can look at everything, in essence, as Totality or Infinity. Infinity is Relativity itself, and Totality is Absolute, Universal. The Infinite is an aspect of Totality. If you cannot see Reality's Universal, Absolute and Eternal Essence, and you deem it is Absolutely Relative, that just means you have totally fallen for Infinity.

Pretty much. How that is fair use is beyond me. The biggest problem however is the cessation of the process of sublation. This is what will harm humanity immeasurably. AI will just make everything beautiful and appealling to the ultimate degree. But the problem is, when everything is beautiful and appealling to the ultimate degree, nothing is. If everything is made of gold, gold completely looses it's value, and therefore meaning. And where does it end? They will do the same with music, books, movies, games if they can. It's kind of sad, because there are genuinely people who think this will give them the tools to somehow share their creativity. But nobody gives a damn. Why would I care about Leo's silly AI art? Anyone can create that shit in seconds, AI can probably automate itself to create infinite variations of that. And why would I care? I can go to midjourney myself and type in what I want to see. Nothing has changed. Generating AI images is the same as just picking images from pinterest to signal your aesthetic appeal. That's what art is being reduced to. There is no necessary engagment in the essence of visual dualities, and achieving mastery of this field has been rendered obsolete. An entire aspect of human nature replaced and rendered meaningless. Now you say all the AI stuff is impressive. But really, it stops being impressive once you use it for a day or two. For some it might take a week, a month, a year. Then it's the norm. And sure, now it can animate a little better. But then, that will get quickly normal too. And you just continue until you have removed all sources of human purpose and mastery.