Leo Does Political Philosophy With Advanced AI

[Leo Gura]

@Exystem If you feel my conversation was biased you are welcome to have your own and compare the results.

[Princess Arabia]

5 minutes ago, Exystem said:

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

All Leo said was he'll use it for work related, not to compensate for something he's already doing. 

[Adrian colby]

There are parts of this conversation and dialectic I would send to every minister in my government, purely to plant a seed( if they’d even listen)

I commented in the thread on hitler as conservative: 

This is what I mean and is captured in Leo’s discussion with the AI. When I was pointing out that regardless of either sides beliefs whether one calls oneself conservative or liberal, the behaviour is the same. Labels just being used to justify ones behavior. 

“This is the insight at the heart of the horseshoe theory - that ideological extremism, regardless of its specific content, tends towards a similar psychology and politics”

when I speak to people arguing over any issue, I  use a saying “it’s not the content, it’s the behaviour” to take away from the superficial and start looking a little deeper. 
 

The other thing I noted was there’s no such thing in its individual right. In the objective universe there are always two relative to one another. The thing and what it is defined against or relative to ( metaphysically the thing and what it does. The further away from itself or oneness, the more separate, individual and disconnected it becomes. Looking away from itself in ignorance where if it looked back on itself it would gain wisdom/self proximity. 

 

“In this sense, radical conservatism and radical liberalism, for all their apparent opposition, end up mirroring and enabling each other. They feed off of and intensify the social polarization and dysfunction that they claim to solve. They create a vicious cycle of escalating extremism and conflict.” 

 

This is what I was talking about. They behave the same as each other. They can’t exist independently but instead of fighting and opposing using their respective content as an excuse, they could learn to cooperate as a unit that is complementary. Like two enemy soldiers in a forest of hungry wild animals, back to back and sharing what they can see, to keep each other safe and move through the forest till they reach safety( don’t take the analogy too far). Take the uniforms off( the superficial identities and beliefs) to find just two humans similar in every way looking out in opposite directions and describing different views that each other cannot see,listening and learning from the view they don’t have access to and together gaining a higher vantage point and means to navigate through nature more efficiently instead of fighting facing each other while nature attacks and obliterates both of them. As it says stop looking at your enemy and start using their eyes and perspective as an extension of your own limited view. 

 

It’s easy to talk about our ideals but hard to embody it. I understand this from a long time ago claiming to be liberal and fair (with a gender disorder) and having a deep seated hate of Christian’s because of their hate and dismissing of my right to exist in peace calling me an abomination. It dawned on me one day that I was being cognitively dissonant and applying double standards by complaining about their hateful behaviour when I was participating in exactly the same behavior of hate and dismissal. We both had our ideologies and beliefs and were using them to justify perpetuating identical behavior. That’s when I stepped out of the divide, saw both points of view, was no longer affected by and, developed a respect of them and raised myself to a higher vantage point. I don’t look down on them rather accept and respect a stage of development much like a class at school where everyone is in their respective grade. Some progress, others need help, others might get stuck repeating the year.

 

“Leo:

So this then is where Spiral Dynamics Tier 2 comes in. My claim is that to enter the most evolved form of liberalism requires breaking into Tier 2 levels of development and cognition, otherwise the left gets stuck in demonizing the right. Only in Tier 2 does the leftist start to gain a deep understanding and need of the right. Until then the leftist just wants to defeat the right. But a mature leftist at Tier 2 starts to see that the vast majority of society is underdeveloped, closedminded, uneducated, and stuck in Tier 1 cognition, and so pushing radical leftist ideals on them is not a viable way to do politics. There is also a dawning of the recognition that some situations require a conservative approach because of survival pressures. This new approach avoids the problems with typical leftism, rightism, and centrism.”

 

Yup there it is 🤗🔥

 

This conversation reminds me of the dialectic in John Scotus Eriugena “periphyseon”

 

[Exystem]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Exystem If you feel my conversation was biased you are welcome to have your own and compare the results.

Right now I am in another country where I don't have access to claude-3 with my phone and no vpn -.-

It was more of an attempt to add something critical to the discussion here - the problem is that the AI may pretty quickly get a grip on what you want to hear, so if you sow a tiny seed of pro-leftism at the beginning it may keep on that track the rest of the conversation. Things like

"Were Stalin and Mao really leftist, liberal, and progressive? Conservatives love to say that Communism and thereby leftism/liberalism killed more people in the 20th century than capitalism and conservatism. But to what extent is there really true? [...] I don't want to bias the conclusion, but I suggest that Stalin and Mao were mostly governed by a lust for personal power and their leftist ideology was mostly empty words which allowed them to rise to power, hold power, and amass more power. Stalin and Mao simply did not have enough moral or cognitive development, nor consciousness to embody higher liberal and progressive ideals. To what extent is this backed up by the historical record of their actions? Let's try to be fair in our analysis so we don't play favorites with left or right."

Or

"The conservatives are cartoonishly conformist, this is obvious. But even the leftists fall into a higher order of conformity."

These statements seem kind of biased in my eyes. It would be interesting how an AI would react when we reverse statements like these in general. My attempt was to make people (especially you) alert of the potential bias-echo-chamber, so a suggestion would be to frame biased questions twice with a reversed one.

33 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

All Leo said was he'll use it for work related, not to compensate for something he's already doing. 

You're right. But he also said

"I hardly see the point of speaking to humans for purposes of intellectual conversation anymore."

What I wanted to point out is that intellectual conversation (like discussions) are about stuff like emotions, too. It's harder to admit to a human you're wrong than to an AI. Also, Leo is extremely advanced/ripe and I guess he has a well balanced life. I still wanted to challenge him a bit and I am also aware he is not the only one reading it - others have way less comprehension of what they lack during AI conversations. There are guys here who would copy Leos statement above out of arrogance but actually because they lack human connection. This will be the social problem of the century - people are relating to AIs much easier than to other human beings because they don't experience anything negative.

[Davino]

@Leo Gura

Have you asked Claude how it ranks itself in the Spiral Dynamics model?

 

I think you have a new friend for the book

Edited April 1 by Davino

[Yog]

U can use a knife to scoop water. But it's far better if you use a gigantic knife to do so.

This is how we use our analytical minds these days, being as addicted as we are to them. Now we need a gigantic analytical mind to solve things that are not solvable with it.

I don't deny it can do wonderful things in terms of survival. AI is basically a fragment of an ego, without the ego, which is an isolated analytical mind, in this case, blown out of proportion. So it can deal with survival quite well, or provide answers to whoever's ego needs. You can also use it as a mirror and introspect what it said. So that is a great plus for society.

What a great minus is, is that it serves as a great distraction from the potential of the human psyche. The human psyche can know things out of the human database very directly and be aware of their truthfulness on the spot. Without any involvement of the analytical mind and without dealing with known external information or set of distinctions.

U can be living in a cave for your whole life, and you would be able to get accurate information about a planet that existed 5 million years ago, while having no concept of what a planet even is. AI can't do that.

Edited April 1 by Yog

[EternalForest]

@Leo Gura Not impressed tbh. 

Of course a robot is gonna be smarter than the average human on paper or when it comes to arbitrary factoids. It's a fucking robot.

It has no soul.

It has no emotions.

It has no wisdom.

It has no experience.

It has nothing new to bring to the table.

Could it be useful when making sense of your own thoughts and theories? Sure. Would I ever trade the intellectual discussion I get from my educated friends, great authors and philosophers for a chatbot? No way.

[RendHeaven]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

For me the biggest difference is that GPT is too cautious in its answers. To much text wasted on harm reduction platitudes and political correctness. I need an AI that isn't afraid to take a clear stance and call out bullshit

This is all I needed to hear

[Sabth]

I did a conversation with ai sometime ago and mine was barely 12 pages. I couldn't read Leo's 60 pages. I'd rather see a real example of a conservative and liberals either on social media or something. A real life example of people being a conservative or liberal. Then compare it. I can't read those. 

[Yimpa]

17 minutes ago, Sabth said:

I couldn't read Leo's 60 pages.

I wonder if you can copy and paste the convo and ask to condense it down to 30 pages 🧐 

(Which reminds me, that’s one of the benefits of Google Gemini. There’s an option to shorten or lengthen any response Gemini gives.

https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/14262426?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid)

[Jirh]

@Exystem Amen brother. What a refreshing read after the 60 pages long abuse of natural intelligence. Humaneness is so subtle and unique, it cannot be replicated. And I fell in love as it shined through your well crafted post. Now that's what I call something else. Thank you.

[GabeN]

Awesome! The ability of AI to process vast amounts of data and derive meaningful insights is truly impressive. let those insights roll man!

[Alexop]

3 hours ago, EternalForest said:

@Leo Gura Not impressed tbh. 

Of course a robot is gonna be smarter than the average human on paper or when it comes to arbitrary factoids. It's a fucking robot.

It has no soul.

It has no emotions.

It has no wisdom.

It has no experience.

It has nothing new to bring to the table.

Could it be useful when making sense of your own thoughts and theories? Sure. Would I ever trade the intellectual discussion I get from my educated friends, great authors and philosophers for a chatbot? No way.

AI is smart and you have to admit it, just by simply interconnecting the tons of information it has about the world. Soul and emotions wil not map the world and make distinctions, logic will. It is still in development though, keep in mind the first Iphone.

[The Renaissance Man]

Did any of you incur in rate limits using Claude 3 Opus?

[Nivsch]

41 minutes ago, Alexop said:

AI is smart and you have to admit it, just by simply interconnecting the tons of information it has about the world. Soul and emotions wil not map the world and make distinctions, logic will. It is still in development though, keep in mind the first Iphone.

AI cannot enter the right brain's expertise nor will ever can. Facing and learning from raw emotions is very important and unreplacable.

Edited April 1 by Nivsch

[Staples]

Amazing. AI is such an awesome technology.

It's very interesting to compare different models. Asking the same questions to claude 3 vs GPT-4 gives very different results.

Thanks for introducing me to Claude, it's much less self-censoring than GPT-4.

Does anyone else have recommendations for good models to talk to? I've gotten frustrated with GPT-4 and it's passive answers, it will do everything to avoid giving an opinion. I find a lot of AIs just agree with what I say, I would love to find an AI bot that is specifically trained to deconstruct and poke holes in your arguments.

[mmKay]

You can do some serious psychotherapy and life coaching with Claude. You can feed it your entire life story and ask it questions, guidance and perspectives

Edited April 1 by mmKay

[Leo Gura]

You can just ask the AI to play devil's advocate or constantly keep giving you counter-examples to your theory.

Claude is certainly capable of that. You can tell it how you want it to behave. For example, I told it to be less verbose in its answers and it did so. You can also tell it to be less flattering and agreeable. It's important to coach it on how you want it to behave, not just use its default behavior. "I want you to do x, y, z and not do a, b, c."

Edited April 1 by Leo Gura

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

12 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Basically unless he agrees with solipsism this AI don't know crap.

This ties in nicely with what Leo wrote about what would happen / does happen when a staunch conservative talks to AI.

"What, this thing doesn't conform with my biases and conceptual stories about reality? IT'S CRAP!!"

Lol.

[The Renaissance Man]

I also noticed how when you say "I think", such as:
I think the that politics in that era, and in most eras, was so brutal that only a genius opportunist could succeed at it.

Or "I see", such as:
I see conformity and reactionary behavior as another big factor in all this.

the AI expands your theory more than questioning it. It doesn't feel as biased as chatgpt 3.5, not even close, but it could withhold some information that contributes to the full picture.

It's probably just a nuance of prompting, where maybe asking the question without letting it know your opinion, like: "what do you think happened to all the ideological purists?, why weren't they in power?" forces the AI to express its own opinion and more unexpected perspectives (or limitations) can show up