Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Nemra]

6 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Rewatch his video on Authority. You all are turning AI into your Messiah.

Rewatch his "Assumptions is the Mother of all Fuck-ups" and "How Openmindedness Works", but more than 5 times.

Edited October 24 by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

50 minutes ago, Nemra said:

One case would be to ask a specific question and get an answer based on the transcript.

Very few YT videos warrant such work.

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Very few YT videos warrant such work.

I agree.

I meant the videos that are educational and focused on explaining a subject.

[ryandesreu]

On quote #078.

This wouldn’t stop non-politicians or media personalities like Pucker Carlson from spreading false information. With all the distrust and mixed messages about the government, trying to enforce honesty just wouldn’t be effective right now.

Unintended Consequences: The proposal assumes that firing and banning officials would clean up corruption, but it may lead to an even more cautious, less transparent government. Officials might avoid making any definitive statements, fearing that their words could later be judged as lies.

[Davino]

@ryandesreu It was a thought experiment to exemplify his first statement. Truth must be the bedrock of healthy government. Then he states: "Imagine [...]"

It's clear that such policy is out of touch with severe application and legislation, Leo gets this. Although fact checks and things of these kind could be more heavily implemented. The example is quite good in pointing the deepness and entanglement of lies, power and corruption. Which is the meta lesson beyond the particular example to contemplate.

[Socrates]

Actualized Quotes #078

This is a great idea but let's address the relativity of the situation, you can't tell if someone is intentionally lying or just misinformed and there is a high level of difficulty if you want to enforce that. Also, notice that every tool that can be used for the collective good can be used for someone to abuse the system and be used to discriminate. That is why the government first needs to become airtight in terms of structure, efficiency, and honesty and then get that much power so someone can face consequences based on something they said.

If this was already in place I could easily see scammy Republicans like Trump co-opt it to gain a political edge and witch-hunt their opponents. At the end of the road, the ideal government needs to have the least amount of "human factor" possible since the human is a flawed being that is inherently self-biased and can't act without being affected by self-interest.

[Davino]

Let's see historical examples of applications of such policies.

Quote

Governments often start with what they perceive as legitimate concerns about social harmony, national security, and protecting truth, which eventually evolve into systems of control.

• The Ottoman Empire's early printing press regulations (16th century) began as religious protection - ensuring sacred texts weren't misrepresented. However, this evolved into a comprehensive system controlling all printed materials, effectively creating a state monopoly on "legitimate" knowledge.
• Ming Dynasty China's "Literary Inquisition" started as a scholarly effort to maintain "correct" Confucian interpretation and cultural purity. Officials genuinely believed they were protecting society from dangerous ideas. Over time, it became a tool for prosecuting any writing that could be interpreted as criticism of the state.
• In colonial Spain, the Inquisition's book censorship began partly from genuine religious concern about theological truth and spiritual well-being. The censors often saw themselves as protecting people from dangerous falsehoods. This system expanded to control all aspects of intellectual life.
• The Soviet case is particularly interesting - many early Bolsheviks genuinely believed they were creating a system to protect workers from bourgeois propaganda and help people understand "scientific socialism." Glavlit officials often saw themselves as educators rather than censors. This idealistic mission transformed into systematic suppression of any alternative viewpoints.
• In Fascist Italy, Mussolini's MinCulPop (Ministry of Popular Culture) started with the concept of protecting Italian cultural "authenticity" and "truth" from foreign corruption. Many intellectuals initially supported it as a project of cultural renewal. It became a comprehensive propaganda machine.

The fascinating pattern is how these systems often begin with:

1. Genuine belief in protecting some form of truth or social good
2. Initial support from intellectuals and cultural figures
3. Self-perception as educators rather than censors
4. Conviction that they're protecting people from harmful ideas
5. Gradual mission creep from specific concerns to total control

Over time, they typically evolve to include:

1. Creation of bureaucracies whose existence depends on finding "threats"
2. Expansion of what constitutes dangerous/prohibited content
3. Development of increasingly sophisticated justifications
4. Shift from protecting specific truths to controlling all truth
5. Transformation of protectors into prosecutors

It would be interesting to contemplate how it could be done practically speaking in the US for example. Just as a thought experiment

[JosephKnecht]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

This is a great idea but let's address the relativity of the situation, you can't tell if someone is intentionally lying or just misinformed and there is a high level of difficulty if you want to enforce that. Also, notice that every tool that can be used for the collective good can be used for someone to abuse the system and be used to discriminate. That is why the government first needs to become airtight in terms of structure, efficiency, and honesty and then get that much power so someone can face consequences based on something they said.

You used to have much better ideas, Socrates. What happened?   

Quote

Only the philosopher, therefore, is qualified to rule, as only the philosopher has knowledge of the absolute truth and is able to apply this knowledge for the good of the state.  The Republic - Plato

Quote

Socrates then acknowledges that many philosophers are indeed corrupt, but attributes this to the fact that they are brought up in a corrupt society. Only in the ideal state will a philosopher be able to achieve his full potential, "and be the saviour of his country, as well as of himself". The Republic - Plato

I think now is the right time for a philosopher king.

[Yimpa]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-078

Edited October 26 by Leo Gura

[Socrates]

@JosephKnecht These ideas are more up-to-date

1 hour ago, JosephKnecht said:

Only the philosopher, therefore, is qualified to rule, as only the philosopher has knowledge of the absolute truth and is able to apply this knowledge for the good of the state.  The Republic - Plato

This is the exact fundamental premise in my mind when I end up with that precise solution I mentioned.

The fact is that real philosophers will never be elected to positions of power in such an underdeveloped and cognitively impaired society hence the best we can do is minimize the human factor.

Not to mention that democracy will always retard the progress of a nation, meritocracy would be ideal but a sick society has a flawed perspective of what is actual skill and understanding.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

To add to what people have said, Quote 78 does seem poorly thought out. It's surprising to see this of Leo.

The most obvious problem is what would be considered a lie and who would decide. Lies aren't always obvious factual lies, they can come in many subtler forms. Even if the lies are factual it's hard to prove that the person wasn't just misinformed. A department of lying in practice would lead to totalitarianism. 

[UnbornTao]

Can't tell whether the croc meal is AI or real.

Edited October 26 by UnbornTao

[Yimpa]

 

[Thought Art]

@UnbornTao All Leo can eat these days…

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Yimpa said:

 

@Thought Art

Cabbage Awakening for me.

Edited October 26 by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

We already have perjury laws and enforcement. It's not as difficult as you guys imagine. It just needs to be more strictly and widely applied and enforced.

A lie could be legally defined as statements that are demonstrably false and said with the knowledge it is false. For example, Bill Clinton lied about his affair, so he should be banned from government forever.

If it's just a matter of difference of opinion or perspective, then that is allowed.

A panel of 9 judges could oversee evidence for every case of disbarment. A jury could also be used as a check to abuse. Our legal system already handles such things. There would need to be reasonable evidence to get someone disbarred.

Lies are not purely subjective things. Lies can be demonstrated. The notion that lies are just a matter of personal opinion is part of the whole corruption. The entire legal system is based on subjective judgements of humans and determining very grey cases. How do you decide whether someone committed treason, or sexual abuse, or fraud, or racial discrimination, or patent infringement? Courts decide such things every day. It's not perfect but it's good enough.

Basically just apply perjury laws to all government officials automatically and rigorously.

Of course politicians could still mislead and deceive in other ways, but at least they couldn't outright lie about factual matters. Which would weed out the most corrupt and shameless politicians.

Edited October 26 by Leo Gura

[enchanted]

 

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The notion that lies are just a matter of personal opinion is part of the whole corruption. 

Nice.

 

[Davino]

Leo don't you think it is your responsability to make an express Trump video or go talk on some show about USA election politics?

Just saying I would do my bit if I were on your situation. Call out the devil, shamelessly 

[Davino]

Btw, I would like to thank @Princess Arabia for the idea of making a Blog Discussion Mega-Thread. It had a very positive domino effect

[Thought Art]

I disagree with Leo’s election prediction. 
 

I also disagree with his view that Kamala is hollow. 

Edited October 26 by Thought Art