Carl-Richard

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 one of the "athletes". 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-consensual 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 test 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👍👌

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.

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.

That places the cart before the horse. The history of coming to self-consciousness and rational intellect was the story of the Garden of Eden and falling from the grace of God. We were already with God before we became thinking beings. If by clueless you mean simply deeply in denial or lost in thinking, then sure, but we can't be entirely lost.

Shawn has such a laid back and easy-listening style even though he is probably the most technically proficient player the world has ever seen. It's like his technical proficiency translates to everything sounding so easy and feelgood, everything is just a joy, no neurotic trying to be something or pushing oneself up against a boundary, just pure effortless expression of one's being and feeling of inspiration. An irresistible beam of creative energy, piercing any imagined boundary in its path. Imagine a person walking a tightrope. You see them struggle to keep balance, you see them walking slowly, tensing their muscles, straining their face, breathing laboriously and sometimes falling and getting up again. Then you look at Shawn: he is flying. That's the kind of resourcefulness, stability and depth, the size of the technical reservoir, underlying his playing. Just levitating through every expression.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

But you're here moaning about moaning. Moanception 👻

Takes one to know one

Insta images of playing with guns seemingly under the influence while later implying he was "so close" to deleting himself. Claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera, never being able to show proof of that despite trying. Claiming to be the most awake person in existence. There are some posts on the forum I did not include in the Leo thread because they were so disturbing and simply sad and clearly indicative of some mental crisis (it did not seem proper to group it with his other behavior). That day was somewhere in late 2022 - early 2023. That we are honestly discussing whether some dude is the most awake person in the universe is dark. That people are defending unhinged personal attacks and threats, even when they were condemned by the leader himself, is dark. Whether or not it becomes a literal Manson situation is not much of a concern of mine to put a number on. It only takes one thought anyway.

No match for Ken Wilber for example. I actually think Leo's "original work" (if we can call it that, and I'm not just being overly cynical; claims to originality is a difficult issue) is quite unstructured and relatively simple. Most videos are more or less rants that go into each other. A video like "Epistemic responsibility" is a re-vamped video of "What is Survival". And the concepts are things you can learn in quite standard graduate and undergraduate courses. I can't actually identify any "grand syntheses" that do not boil down to something like "everything is survival"; no Four Quadrants style systematization, no truly formalized theories, again rants. And that's to be expected as truly inventing new paradigms or meta-systems like Wilber requires a kind of cognitive complexity that is truly rare. That isn't to say Leo is "simple", but he is less radically inventive and original than what he might claim to be. And that's also to be expected when there is clear hubris like "being the most awake person in existence". This ≠ "the best place". It's so desperate this kind of p-hacking style of argumentation.

This was a cheeky joke, bud. But also respectfully, has Leo displayed psychotic symptoms and other unstable concerning behavior on his journey?

This type of overconfident and hubristic thinking and thinking one is somehow special could only happen here, thinking that this is somehow the "best prepared place" (and do you have even any experience of other groups you can contrast it to?). If Leo didn't tell you 10x a day that he is the #1 authority on epistemology, I think you would probably not even consider thinking that.

Feel free to point out what is wrong with my sensemaking. And If I can use Leo's approach here: this wasn't a situation where we were generally coerced or exploited to do excessively weird or unpleasant things or threatened personally or manipulated towards some nefarious end goal. Even at the end when doomsday was entertained and solutions were suggested, there was no explicit coercion "we must do this thing", again, just wild beliefs and suggestions being presented (while that was bad enough). And yes those beliefs had their effect even after leaving the group, as I said. But to say it negatively impacted my sensemaking in the nefarious "cult" sense, as if I was brainwashed to be some unquestioning drone, did not occur to me as a relevant issue. It was the fear-based and paranoid beliefs that I felt had an effect. I also learned a few things from that experience. One thing was that even if you're skeptical, even if you think you're in control and watching something from the outside ("I'm just observing, I'm not really participating"), beliefs creep up from behind and enter through the backdoor. And ultimately, you don't choose what you believe. You believe what you believe and it's a consequence of attention, repetition and what you find significant. That's maybe one thing to remember when you're shooting up 5-MeO at Leo's not-cult retreat and he's the one who starts believing the ghosts are out to get him.

Read the whole thread before you do the Ghislaine Maxwell roleplay. Thought Art already beat you to that anyways. It's so pathetic to watch when even Leo himself has said the behavior was inexcuseable, you still lap it up like dogs. "Actually I think he is quite egoless, actually it's not all that bad". It's nauseating. You would be found at the bottom of the Kool-Aid cauldron in Jonestown.

What do you mean? What is an example of something you think is creative (give me a concrete example of an art piece)?

The first video, sure, but if you're referring to the Paul Gilbert video, the only "pause" I could identify was when he paused to create the loop. Other than that, there wasn't much space, and it was pretty much running up and down scales throughout the entire video. Paul Gilbert would actually be a common target of your critique, maybe only less than Michael Angelo Batio. Anyways, jazz fusion players (which Shawn would be classified as) tend to have less space in their playing. More classically or blues inspired players like Paul or David Gilmour bring a different cultural background. I remember feeling similar to you when I first started listening to jazz fusion players, but it's like learning a language. At first you might not understand it, but over time you get used to it. What jazz fusion sometimes lacks in accents and dynamics it makes up for in melodic, harmonic and sometimes rhythmic complexity. Allan Holdsworth is the perfect example. It's like listening to an alien the first times you listen to him. As for Paul Gilbert and Shawn Lane, here is a bit of a funny video I listened to, if not yesterday, only a few days ago:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a26cd3e-d82c-83eb-9d2d-85e5e78f0ed3

What exactly do you mean?