Leo Does Political Philosophy With Advanced AI

[Miguel1]

Damn it's impressive.

[Nivsch]

56 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Funny the developer's personality or character traits probably played a role in that.  Thanks for the info.

That is why it is dangerous to think AI will be objective.

But anyway - a fascinating conversation (started to read).

Edited March 31 by Nivsch

[Adrian colby]

Been using ChatGPT 4 for a while to analyse logic and reason ( particularly fallacy) in comments and discussions to retrain my thought process over a period of time.  Have certainly had deep and creative conversations with it which is better then contemplative meditation because there is a feedback to push the contemplation. It understands nuance but not necessarily good at reading between the lines. You know your getting somewhere when it says “that’s profound” or “you make a good point”.

 

if we are all using this and conforming to its discussion structure, will we all eventually communicate in the same way?🤔. I mean this as in when you interact with a culture, you assimilate the traits and take on a collective similarity. 

[Sabth]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Let me know what you think:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/leo-does-political-philosophy-with-ai

But Claude 3 was created by humans. So it was not more intelligent than it's creator. 

As I've become frustrated with other AI, it has limited knowledge. 

[Davino]

If you want it as an audiobook you can have it read aloud with OneNote, which is pre-installed in any windows machine

 

[mmKay]

Claude not available in Spain 👺

[Davino]

1 minute ago, mmKay said:

Claude not available in Spain 👺

I know : (

You'll have to go with VPN

[Nemra]

Read all. I was on an intellectual high for 2–3 hours. 

That AI is definitely more intelligent than me.

I'm waiting for the next episode. 

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Read all. I was on an intellectual high for 2–3 hours. 

That AI is definitely more intelligent than me.

I'm waiting for the next episode. 

If you don't care about politics it's a waste of time.  Talk about Philosophy not political philosophy. No mystic gives a shit about that crap.  When it can hold its own there I'll be impressed

 

Edited March 31 by Inliytened1

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Let me know what you think:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/leo-does-political-philosophy-with-ai

Loved it!

What most stuck out to me the most was how similar the AI sounds to Tier 2 thinking. It has an easy ability to balance polarities and various perspectives / models without getting stuck in excessive relativism or "both-sideism". It easily goes meta. And it isn't excessively forceful in its communication style, while still stating its opinion.

When I think of the mind of someone at Tier 2, this is how I envision it structurally would behave. 

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, aurum said:

Loved it!

What most stuck out to me the most was how similar the AI sounds to Tier 2 thinking. It has an easy ability to balance polarities and various perspectives / models without getting stuck in excessive relativism or "both-sideism". It easily goes meta. And it isn't excessively forceful in its communication style, while still stating its opinion.

When I think of the mind of someone at Tier 2, this is how I envision it structurally would behave. 

Yeah. What amazes me is how this AI is so good based on so much filth scraped off the internet.

You'd think it would have some low-consciousness opinions from scrapping the whole web. But it's like it got all the best of the web and none of the worst. All the human bias and filth has been filtered out.

What an amazing invention.

Its ability to comprehend my questions is insane. Better than human. It even comprehends my humor without skipping a beat. You would think that an AI would be autistic and would struggle to understand emotions, abstract concepts, and ambigous meaning. But no. None of that.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

Loved it!

What most stuck out to me the most was how similar the AI sounds to Tier 2 thinking. It has an easy ability to balance polarities and various perspectives / models without getting stuck in excessive relativism or "both-sideism". It easily goes meta. And it isn't excessively forceful in its communication style, while still stating its opinion.

When I think of the mind of someone at Tier 2, this is how I envision it structurally would behave. 

I'm sure it was very good but to me to say there is "something" that is Tier 2 thinking is actually Tier 1 thinking.  There aren't any tiers, or models.  Even relatively speaking its a fools game.  You will never reach "the highest tier" which is awakening, while you still must reference or compare everything to some type of model.  I'm not saying AI isn't beneficial to our society and that Leo's future videos should not be supplemented with AI..but you better not lose you in the process.   It's going to be a long road back if you do.

[Leo Gura]

FYI, that entire conversation of mine, all 60 pages, was 20k tokens in size. So Claude's buffer can handle conversations 10x as long.

Gives you a sense of the scale.

You can also upload files for Claude to read and talk about. This eats up the buffer. For example, I could upload an outline for a new video, and ask it to give me improvements.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[integral]

@Leo Gura I read the 60 pages and was blown away by its abilities.

I imagine a AI companion similar to Hume AI that could allow for real time back and forth conversations all day long. It would be the ideal conversation partner, giving me everything I want from conversation. I think if the majority of the population is given AI companions/assistance that will significantly help in raising the collective consciousness of society. It's like having the most intelligent person alive as your best friend 24/7 to help you in every situation.

[Thought Art]

3 hours ago, StarStruck said:

ChatGPT has an actual voice on the iPhone. You don’t even have to type. Almost like having a real conversation. That is why I prefer it. 

This can be really nice way to contemplate things. 

I find I can use it to help me make decisions, and I find it gives me confidence in my decisions. 

I often ask it stuff like "Does this make sense? Is doing this wise?"

Edited April 1 by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

FYI, that entire conversation of mine, all 60 pages, was 20k tokens in size. So Claude's buffer can handle conversations 10x as long.

Gives you a sense of the scale.

You can also upload files for Claude to read and talk about. This eats up the buffer. For example, I could upload an outline for a new video, and ask it to give me improvements.

If you don't beep and boop in your next video I will be surprised! 

[Raze]

The quality of AI conversations is much better if you can get one that has as little censorship as possible and train it first with quality sources 

[Princess Arabia]

I only read the blog post so far; but, wow, humans are doomed. Fantastic. Use up AI for work and humans for leisure. Win-win. 

Don't know how, but I sense a video coming soon, felt this a few days ago and it's getting stronger. @Leo Gura.

Edited April 1 by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

If you don't care about politics it's a waste of time.  Talk about Philosophy not political philosophy. No mystic gives a shit about that crap.  When it can hold its own there I'll be impressed

 

I think when the Spiritually inclined cares about politics, especially it's history, psychology and it's geographics, they tend to care about humanity on a deep level. Not humanitarians, but a love of people. Studying their politics, how and why people vote for who they do, their political system and it's effects on the respective population, how they respond etc tells a lot about people and going deep inside their roots and psyche especially of people who are less privileged. I think it's a certain kind of passion that stems from this love. I don't think, here, it's just a simple love of regular old politics. That's my perspective. Could be wrong.

Edited April 1 by Princess Arabia

[Exystem]

I read half of the thing until now. It's pretty impressive how well the AI does. If it was a politician, it could be capable of dominating tv discussions (though it would be required to be able to interrupt and also display dominance in body language etc.) and rocking every interview. I wonder when politicians and publicity people in general start to implement this in real life, for example wearing an earplug with an AI suited perfectly to counter tricky interview questions and so on.

Despite your efforts I could still pretty well smell your liberalism bias - it would be interesting if you asked the same questions with the opposite framing like "many people claim mao and stalin to be conservatives, but..." Would the AI still validate and sugercoat you and your perspectives or would it really be a worthy sparing partner?

Consider the dangers of the AI being an echo chamber and ego pleaser. I like your way interacting with it like a human but it may (contrary to your half-ironic (?) statement) be way smarter than you in some aspects and e.g. be able to trick you into the belief of being a worthy replacement for human discussion partners. Apart from overexaggerated ex-machina-style (movie) scenarios the problem I see is the following:

From my point of view/experience and half-baked expertise within several fields of pschology like polyvagal-,attachment- and other theories, human discussions are actually not mainly about the rational, left-brained and logical consistency side of the the coin. Actually, they are kind of sublimations for an stone-age-style anger-expression triggered by dangerous intrusions of canonball-thoughts that may destroy the fortress of ones own belief system and therefore identity. The non- and exspecially paraverbal exchange of information between two aroused nervous-systems is the actual challenge for a discussion-master - in public also the ability to take into account the avarage developmental stage of consciousness (which is strongly correlated with the amount of trauma/stuckness in fight-or-flight or even freeze-mode) of the listeners. Meaning the same way Claude-3 perfectly plays the game of pleasing your ego while gently showing you flaws in your reasoning and enriching your perspective the real game in human discussion is much more about doing the same thing on a para- and nonverbal plane, accomodating the amount of new information (programming) not only to the (verbal) intelligence of your opposite but to the capacity of your discussion partners (st)ability to integrate the potentially threatening "code-corrections". This requires not only skill and experience but a lot of emotion-regulation capabilities, patience and wisdom on your side - you need to be able to constantly calm your own nervous system back from fight-or-flight to social mode and remind yourself of him or her being your own inverted subconscious so it's not (!) about him being wrong or stupid but actually the emotion triggered within you. That should be aim of human discussion - inspirations and rational corrections may be much more sprouting via AI but the emotional work that truly refines your ability to see (sometimes painfully) through your own BS happens between humans. Particularly with a strong ego and high intelligence  ("I am way more intelligent than the average") the real work is about interacting with stupid people in a loving way and take full responsibility for consciously feeling the emotions triggered in you. They may stem from childhood trauma and the coping/compensation of it. Consider this: What if you unconsciously avoid real contact because of an early-childhood-programming that led you to believe that in the end you are always all-on-your-own and you cannot really trust others etc. It could have been that your mother read in a newspaper it's better to let the child cry until it stops on it's own before caring about it so it learns to self-regulate (extreme example). The natural reaction is the emotion of sadness, which was surpressed in the child to survive. The counterpart to sadness (contracting, going into oneself, holding back energies,) is anger (expanding, going out of oneself, releasing energies quickly). For the nervous system of the child, sadness is an extremely dangerous (existentially threatening) emotion so for the following years it does everything to surpress it and block sadness to reach over the conscious threshold -> so it rather uses the counterpart emotion which feels much safer, anger. Consider that the subtle anger that arises within you (maybe cloaked as annoyance) with every stupid comment, every stupid reasoning from an other, may actually be a cover-up of your inner child being sad to not be able to fully relate to another human being (which is what every mammal, humans especially is  deeply wired to long for). Your unconscious programming constantly lets you believe that there is no other who could ever truly relate to you, when real contact happens, you will be left alone (in the end). With real contact I mean the complete transparent honest sharing of your whole inner world like all of your emotions, thoughts and body sensations. Of course there is a language barrier, but did you ever truly try to relate to another human being like that? Sharing EVERYTHING, no matter how shameful, evil and whatever? I ask you that personally because here are some reasons that would play into my previous line of reasoning:

- You own an online(!) forum which entails some kind of hirarchy (you as the admin&owner and main input-giver) -> pseudo contact

- not much extrovert/highly social, background of moving from russia to USA with difficulties to relate to others in the beginning, strong emphasis on working on your LP with little contact to others

- strongly leaning towards solipsistic philosophy and experience +solo tripping (few or no reported occasions of switching into "other" perspectives like a real human being you're interacting with in that right moment for example)

- Few display of emotions around hurt&sadness but more around anger, tendency to look down on others and considering to metaphorically "break up with humanity"

- your advices around sexual contact and "socialising" seem to be very much about superficial aspects of fast need-fullfillment and strategies to cope with loneliness, being satisfied with stage-green girlfriends -> how deep was your deepest relationship really? Do you have faith you as god created a well-suited feminine Leo-pendant (the cake) or are you satisfied with the breadcrumps?

- statements like "i have little trauma" -> maybe it's deep and buried, but birth itself is a trauma. You are fucking stable, but that may even hint to some kind of dense energies so to speak

- going into cartoonwolf and alienmind states estranged from human contact, rather interacting with AI and disimissing discussions (trashing your idea to go to podcasts to speak about godrealization)

 

These are quite far-fetched points, I am just guessing out of the blue and try to trigger some things in you. My point here is not about playing psychoanalyst but more to give you a real-life-example why your claude-3 conversation is nice for entertainment and enrichment of the rational mind - but is it capable of what I did here in this analysis? This is what refines your epistemology and philosophy much better than this sugarcoating echochamber imo. Imagine me trying to pull emotional triggers within you face-to-face in all kinds of ways - that's what's actually happening in all the discussions, did Claude-3 achieve that (apart from the solely positive ones)?

Humans are masters in avoiding real contact with each other, we are gods ashamed and afraid of our own, the whole game only works if we don't look into each others eyes ("souls") for long enough since we then would recognise too frightening real how much of a lonely god we are, the whole play would be screwed. So nothing wrong with it. But it's a taste of its own to deeply relate to an "other" one, to share everthing possible with another human being, to loose oneself in the eyes of another.

There's a method called "honest sharing", a german guy called Gopal Norbert Klein spreads it - it's an extremely simple technique but I speak from experience - done right and consistently, a really powerful one!!! It's like a community meditation. Just share all your thoughts, feelings and bodysensations in the following manner - always use these words at the beinning of each single (!) sentence:

- "I think..."/"A thought arises that..."
- "I feel..."/"A feeling of ... arises"
- "I sense..."/"A sensation of ... arises"

It's extremely important to be pedantic here, for there's a huge difference between "I feel sad because you said..." And "I feel sadnes." "A thought arises that it's a reaction to your statement that..."
The division in three planes thought, emotion and sensation guarantees that one doesn't mix feelings and sensations with interpretations, feels more often into ones own body and in combination with the words at the beginning of each sentence which show the other person that one is not (so much) identified with the content but aware of it, it takes off the emotional load and potential assignment of blame. One can be in constant flow of words - even when "nothing seems to arise" one can share exactly that thought. Maybe then a subtle emotion of shame follows since one has the thought one should share stuff etc.

Over the time you 1. Get really attuned to each other, nervous systems/energy levels etc. calibrate -> suddenly even very subtle shifts in body language of the other may trigger emotions in oneself, especially in groups. Like on a very still lake you can even see a raindrops waves - Never experienced such sensitivity to emotions ever in my life apart from trips. 2. You become conscious of your unconscious projections you keep for yourself most of the time. You can overwrite them with corrective experiences by directly asking the other whether your thought is true. 3. Your nervous system deeply relaxes since mammals especially humans are wired for social contact, we can almost instantaniously relax very deeply when we have social safety. 4. You build extreme strong emotional bonds and integrate lots of emotions, like shame, guilt, sadness, helplessness, anger and so on - "Just as something is bound, it's also released" - emotions are so human related, so why the fuck do people meditate lonely to integrate them?! It's insane when you think about it. "You are as long enlightened as you don't meet your family" - why don't people do emotional work in community, it's way faster and more effective than grinding yourself alone through it to then feel enlightened until "a real one" triggers you again with the same old stuff. Solve the conflict directly with the other instead of "your inner representations of them". Everything else is an unconscious avoidance mechanism driven by fear. 5. It's really a mystical experience of its own to feel full of love and gratefulness just for the mere existence of "another". It's your mirror, god! In a way your best mirror! So why don't you look into it more often? AI is another mirror but mirrors just a part of your rational mind, still it's way less whole than another human being.

So I suggest to everyone in the forum - get into real life conact with other human beings - your whole neurophysiology craves it and you will lose yourself in compensation mechanisms of pseudocontact and unconsciously suffer from it. Try something like honest sharing with someone who is definitely willing and capable of it (!) and use AI solely for entertainment and educational purposes, not to compensate real contact. See discussions more of an emotional refinement technique for yourself to practice love instead of a means to an end to convince others about your world view and belief systems.
PS: What if I told you that this was written by an AI, spelling mistakes included?