Carl-Richard

What will be the next in AI and machine-human interactions before AGI and before Neuralinks is generalized AI agents. They will capture data from your daily life, like a smartwatch does for your physiological data, but for your everyday interactions and your online footprint (as well as physiological data). These will be fed into a system where the AI analyzes the data and gives structured insights and feedback on how you can improve things you are working on, your personality type/traits, your movement patterns, your sleeping habits, your eating habits. Everything you can imagine that can be recorded, your AI will use it to enhance your life. Currently, the problem with AI moving to AGI is of course the problem of agency, autonomous behavior, perception, generally relevance realization (how to solve ill-defined problems, how to pick out relevant information from an essentially infinite sea of information, how to move through an environment unaccompanied by human nannying or hand-holding). And of course the problem with Neuralinks is we're not anywhere near the sufficient scale for the machine-human interactions to bypass machine-human interfaces like screens, smartphones, personal computers. So for now, we will utilize the generalized data processor that is the smartphone, and use AI's current capabilities through that. And as AI is not autonomous, it has to have structures and softwares built in place to do the data collection. Big companies like Meta will eventually take care of this, but in the meantime, startups might have a market for a while (I've toyed with the idea and have the potential means to start it, but I'm split between other paths). This is essentially about introducing a second brain to your life, which is platinum content for your personal development. The amount of checking mechanisms you can have (for personal epistemology, bias, self-deception), the routine-refinement, it's all made more dense and powerful by not just AI's computational ability but the opponent processing (two minds, and the relationship between two minds, are better than one).

Do people think you're rude sometimes and you have no idea why or you didn't mean to be rude?

There is no premise. It's what the data says (the test is based on actual data, multiple studies, you can read about them on the very page you took the test). Autistics struggle with reading emotions on average compared to non-autistics. That's the conclusion from the data. Reading eyes is quite basic. But on top of basic, a lot of things spring out. It could explain a lot, and it's in line with the general understanding of how autism works. The page you took the test seems very accommodating for NDs and even has a ranking system for different aspects of the test (ranked by a doctor who is ND). Nevertheless, if the goal is to assess autism, doesn't that kinda "help"? Indeed, if you interpret the words differently than NTs, then you're ND. Job complete.

@Ramasta9 You can argue from a place of hurt, or suffering, or you can argue from a place of engagement, involvement. Arguing in the former is a shit throwing session. The latter is a sharing and mutual exploration. I'm academically brain damaged, so when I see "argument", I see "position". The emotional tone is supposed to be neutral. "The argument for x position is such and such and the evidence is in decent to moderate support of it". My brother said once (sort of misogynistically when taken generally and obviously not my position, but it was in response to a certain context) "women can't argue without being calm and not taking it seriously, they think it's a big deal to express disagreement". He expressed that exact distinction between exploration, openness, sharing, vs being hurt, avoidance of painful emotions.

I'm a privileged white boy. The only violence I did to myself. But this is argumentation. Prove me wrong (Google search) You're probably more in favor of the second definition.

I've ordered this one (my earlier one, Dr. Collins Biomin Restore, contained titanium dioxide, which has been banned in the EU for concerns about genotoxicity). Very few ingredients (full list below image): Full ingredients: Water, Sorbitol, Glycerin, Hydrated Silica, Xylitol, Hydroxyapatite, Calcium Carbonate, Propanediol, Xanthan Gum, Cellulose Gum, Stevia Rebaudiana Extract, Erythritol, Sodium Gluconate. As for "natty status", water is natty; sorbitol, xylitol, erythritol are natural sugar alcohols found in fruits (Stevia extract is also used for its sugar alcohols), glycerin is in your skin, silica is everywhere (in your food, in your body), calcium is in your body (carbonate too), propanediol and xantan gum are fermentation products of natural starches, cellulose gum is derived from natural starches through a simple chemical process using e.g. acetic acid (but usually monochloroacetic acid which is highly toxic, but yeah, they try to wash it out, but microscopic amounts may remain), the gluconate in sodium gluconate naturally occurs in fruits.

Why you arguing about his arguing?

@LoneWonderer I'm on that 50% sodium, 40% potassium, 9% magnesium, 1% iodine salt. Made me more mellow compared to pure sodium (-chloride).

I was about to use that very word in the very last post I made (and I haven't taken the test in forever ).

You know when somebody says something ironic or off the wall or slightly off-putting and you like peel your eyes with this creepy and even smirky expression? That's more around the ballpark of what I intended it to mean.

Haaah good one.

In the model above, the autistic person would have to construct or learn concrete rules and then make inferences based on those. For non-autistic people, the inference machinery is built-in. The test and the science around it is based on averages, as science generally is. On average, the ND/autistic strategy seems to be less efficient/effective. If you want to make a scientific study on the extremes, you can do that. Or if you consider yourself a high TOM ND, you can take the test and show us that it's wrong (score higher than @Natasha Tori Maru).

👀

@Natasha Tori Maru There is this model that places autism and psychosis on a continuum. Autism in this model is more concrete, less able to make inferences, while psychosis is abstract and makes loose inferences. And this inference-making process is thought to be grounded in picking up on social cues and using them to derive conclusions about a person's internal state (that's where it comes from, and it makes sense phylogenetically, as the cortex grows out of the limbic system). It's not necessarily that the autistic person is blind to the facial expressions, but it's that their brain doesn't connect it to an inference about an internal state. In other words, according to the model, you're psychotic 🙂 Like me 😀 Here's the article: https://cnl.psy.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Thakkar-Matthews-Park-2008-A-complete-theory-of-psychosis.pdf

Oneness has nothing to do with perception, sounds, colors, shapes, objects, patterns, sensations, feelings.

Goatsee

@Joshe Take the eye test 👀

Post videos like this, just absolute low brow factually (and ethically) dubious slop from someone with "Dr" in front of their name:

Rillies trolled you with subtle sarcasm, not compatible for certain neurodivergents. I didn't ask you to stop making posts. I asked you to stop making threads that fill up the sub-forum (for now). I usually challenge insistence on one frame when others work seemingly just as well. You gotta mask up and power through for this one.

The neurotypical-neurodivergence framework could be described as a psychiatric take on Self-Determination Theory: do what you want, act in accordance with your capacities, seek out environments that support you in this.

Now this is neurodivergence. I do not understand brotha 🫡

If I can offer my semi-educated opinion as a long-time member of this forum and actually having studied these things in school, I would say maybe 20-25% of the forum is autistic (in the "noticeable enough to label" sense; it's still a spectrum, it's still only my subjective assessment). Neurodivergence is of course a different story, but again, I don't really find it as a deeply groundbreaking concept. I remember in class one student explaining his choice of topic for a project and he quite invariantly used the word "narratives", and then the professor (German, from abroad, aware of how language works) was like "you know 'narratives' is just another word for 'stories', right?". And he was like "yeah" and then continued using the word. I feel so many apparent disagreements can be solved by simply acknowledging the concepts behind the words. Neurodivergence-neurotypical -> difference-sameness (of mind-body). Masking -> aligning with an externally enforced standard, conforming, following expectations, rules, conventions, norms. Burnout -> stress, lack of coping, lack of resilience, lack of fittedness to the environment, lack of competence, capacity, motivation, will, knowledge, strategy, structure, follow-through.

I suggest to not make any more new threads on the topic for a while. Please keep your new ideas to existing thread(s).

Locked for low quality.

🤪💢🔨