Carl-Richard

I've never thought about this. "So you think pop music and rock does not hold the same standards as classical music? Well, guess what? The classical music you revere so much is pop music." Quick and succint as usual. People thought this guy had 170 IQ (not that it would be accurate or anything). "Genius is seeing things nobody else sees".

There is therapy, but that also has limited efficiency for that kind of problem.

You guys have just gone with the assumption he has presented that he is not creative. He has not gone into any detail on what he means. Somebody who is catastrophizing like this always need to be asked to investigate their assumptions before you start validating them.

If the psychosis description doesn't seem accurate, remember I said "psychotic tendencies and other concerning behavior". You decided to focus in on psychotic tendencies in particular (a common thing you've done in this thread, focusing in on parts of an argument). That's probably partly why my mind went there. I would concede that if you want to be very strict about definitions of things like "delusional thinking", then the Leo gun scenario need not necessarily be "psychotic" (the exact details around that situation might have involved things that one could likely classify as not "delusional" in the strictest sense, but if you ask any psychiatrist, it's still concerning behavior especially in its seeming abruptness and discontinuity with prior behavior). A more fitting description would be (all assumptions considered) "sudden ungrounded and concerning behavior brought on by psychedelic intoxication". So if not a "psychotic break", perhaps a "concerning and conflicting psychic break". Nevertheless, your attempt at appealing to gradations ("everybody has been suicidal before') doesn't work here because it undermines all traits that can be classified as psychotic. Everybody has had delusional thoughts, everybody has had hallucinatory experiences. And we're not talking about simply threshold experiences. We're talking about serious cases of those experiences. We're not talking about having simply had a thought with the content containing suicide, like anybody probably has had. We're talking about being in a place where you were "so close" to shooting yourself with a gun.

I have a business question (or several) I would like some input on. Say "yes" and I'll dump it either in here or in PM maybe depending on if several people answer. Or I'll write it out in full in this post soon.

@integral Get off the cocAIne.

@zurew "Actually, people writing a 'defamation piece' is a good thing". 😭 That's some slimy ass narrative control ("mind control"?) right there.

When reading Article 5, it was unclear to me whether I should interpret that last part as "potentially leading to" rather than "necessarily leading to". Here is the wording from the Article 5:

Oh god, leave the fucking place.

Does the AI consider that even if you remove social media scraping but keep the text field function, you can paste text from an online profile of a non-consenting person and thus perform a non-consenting profiling of that person? Thanks for running it by the way.

ChatGPT (Plus membership) Always longer answers.

Especially with the advent of the "cult" of best-selling books, which is less about academic rigor and more about what is most intriguing and disturbing, which is what the anti-cult movement where Leo gets his definition from plays on. Of course cults are associated with "mind control" and "brainwashing" and "sexual/financial exploitation" in this context. That's what sells. Less people want to hear about cults that believe in slightly wacky things, more about evil boogeymen, mass murderers, rapists, psychopathic manipulators.

Yes but it doesn't give definitive answers, and to the extent that it does, I don't trust it (because I've asked it similar questions before and it seemly didn't even know about the EU AI Act, which is maybe understandable since it's new).

We're honestly discussing what a cult is and when people want to steer the discussion towards talking about negatives, that's what happens. That's a function of Leo insisting on defining cult as something negative and his minions constantly begging for any clue that could satisfy that definition. Had this been my forum or had I been having this discussion in one of my earlier university classes, we would probably talk about how weird your beliefs really would have to be to be considered a cult, not the level of "brainwashing" or "mind control" is supposedly required (although that could be a side discussion about those kinds of cults). My professor opened the discussion of cults saying "cults are not necessarily something bad, that's a common misconception" (paraphrasing). Leo has chosen a different route and that is reflected in his discussions. When he wants to project the notion of cult as something negative and something external to him, don't be surprised that when people disagree, that projection lands squarely back at himself.

Notice that a lack of argument is not a virtue. We've seen this false dichotomy before too. I believe lots of things are a cult and I would be happy to be a part of probably many of them. Though I would prefer if the larger society was also on board.

Ghis-laine Max-well 👏 Yaas. Shoulds, more shoulds. Yaas. "But he is not all bad". Yaas. I think we've uncovered the script.

What kind of question is this? There is a difference between pointing out an example and excluding all other possible examples. That's a bit of something you call "epistemology". Let's assume Leo was not suicidal before being seemingly under the influence (which would be a reasonable assumption considering his overall state of mind on the forum and in videos). Then while seemingly under the influence, he suddenly started seriously entertaining suicide. If he did not seriously entertain suicide in his sober state of mind, would it be fair to say he started entertaining some beliefs that were not grounded in his usual wants and desires and thus they were in a sense delusional and not grounded in the usual state of affairs and thus psychotic? "He was not in a right state of mind, he didn't really want to take his life, it was the drugs that made him do it". What does one call that? A drug-induced psychotic episode? Or do you have a different term for that? Suggested* Again, all it takes is one thought, just like a suicidal thought. And as we've seen, that thought could seemingly come out of nowhere given the right conditions. Yet Leo constantly accuses people of "not understanding" and that is not a grounds for banning himself. A standard for thee but not for me. I personally got more value from Nahm's posts than anybody on the forum. Communicating something like non-duality need not always be linear or overly concrete or devoid of poetry (as long as you're consistent with it), it might in fact give a false impression that you can get it by simply reading it. On the other hand, the worst thing you can do is to purport to use clear language and then present logical fallacies (like in solipsism). Signal mixing and double-binds is the worst thing and Leo does that often ("don't trust me, think for yourself" -> "I'm the #1 authority"; "epistemology, be aware of self-deception, self-bias" -> "I'm the most awake person in the universe"). When it happens that often, it starts looking more like a tool for coercion and control (whether conscious or unconscious) rather than an accurate presentation of one's values. More shoulds, more false dichotomies. He can have valueable things to teach and still have things he can improve.

He went for nose surgery. He's cooked. "Michael Jacksonmaxxing 💩"

Aww hell nawww.

I wouldn't call them emotions but rather "effort". Hitting a high note like you said (also attacking the whammy bar, harder to see).

No lol. I'm the tan dude 😎. Why you digging up videos from high school though? >.<

I have coded a website where you can test your personality using AI (I have not made it public yet). You can choose between entering a social media profile or forum name / URL as a data source or typing or pasting your own text which the AI will use as a data source for determining your personality (and there are multiple test types you can choose from). You can then save the test results to a profile where you can view statistics like average test scores or test scores over time. You can then use saved tests as a data source for a meta-analysis test, where the AI can take multiple tests (across multiple test types) and deduce an overall pattern and new personality categories. I've always intuited that there could be problems with this with respect to data processing laws, but I was still curious to see what it would look like even if I couldn't make it public for those reasons. But after learning about especially the EU AI Act that was passed in 2025, it looks like (to my cursory look) it's actually impossible to use AI in any fashion to deduce personality traits based on any form of personal data. Additionally, GDPR laws regarding profiling (again, according to my cursory look) would put the function of selecting existing data in jeopardy if that data is about someone who did not provide consent (which is highly doable in the current configuration). So then the question is how much of the current functions do I have to strip before I can make it public (i.e. before it's GDPR and EU AI Act compliant)? Here are some suggested steps I would like feedback on: Removing the social media / forum / web search function for acquiring data, keeping the typing or pasting your own text function -> Adds a layer of protection against profiling people who have not provided consent. Making the typing or pasting function "type-only", such that you cannot paste text that you did not write yourself -> Adds yet another layer of protection against profiling people who have not provided consent. Removing all AI functionalities on the website, replacing AI testing with multiple-choice tests, releasing new tests every week to allow for refining test results over time -> Seems to address EU AI Act issue of no AI for personality analyses and further reduces possibility of non-consentual profiling. Can still use AI to generate new tests, as analysis of test results is done through non-AI site software. Adding back in meta-analyses; if the current interpretation of the EU AI Act does not apply, performing AI-powered meta-analyses on aggregated multiple-choice tests does not meaningfully impact non-consenting individuals and would thus be GDPR compliant with respect to that profiling law. So I'm wondering whether I'm interpreting the laws correctly and whether I have identified a possible solution. If I wrote nothing comprehensible it's because I have caught some kind of COVID virus👍👌

Or

My boy Bernardo Kastrup, I just realized he is an ex-director of ASML, the largest company in Europe. And now he is about to land a 100m dollar fund for his new AI company Euclyd. Boy's brain is out of this world. 1:47:55 And how does he get that funding? Well, currently the leading chip manufacturer for AI is NVIDIA, and they make graphics cards designed for gaming. They were not designed with AI in mind, so they are very inefficient according to these startups that want to corner that market. Bernardo postulates their chips can reduce electricity usage by ~100x compared to NVIDIAs chips. Interesting times ahead not just for AI but for idealism and non-duality considering the seats of power and influence some of these people inhabit.

Psychosis stamp of approval.