ChatGPT Come try it out

[Basman]

Only real downsides of Chat GPT is having to register with your phone number, the server capacity and there being a limit how many questions you can ask per day.

[Harikrishnan]

?

[gettoefl]

two things you have to learn re chat-gpt; one is to write a good prompt and two to have probing follow up questions

the answer chat-gpt gives is the beginning not the end

you are a creator not a curator

chat-gpt will only output the level of consciousness of the words you input

if you are lame and lazy so it is too

[LoneWonderer]

@How to be wise agreed, this tech is so sick!

[Leo Gura]

I wonder if you can get this AI to do a qualitative analysis of perspectives. For example, if you give it two articles, one from Ben Shapiro vs one from Ken Wilber, can this AI tell you which represents a more developed, more conscious perspective? Or does this AI think that all perspectives are equal?

Can this AI tell the difference between dogmatic perspectives vs non-dogmatic ones? That would be epic. Most humans cannot do that.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[How to be wise]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I wonder if you can get this AI to do a qualitative analysis of perspectives. For example, if you give it two articles, one from Ben Shapiro vs one from Ken Wilber, can this AI tell you which represents a more developed, more conscious perspective? Or does this AI think that all perspectives are equal?

Can this AI tell the difference between dogmatic perspectives vs non-dogmatic ones? That would be epic. Most humans cannot do that.

it did here: 

 

[gettoefl]

people are using this AI to write pretty decent 10,000 page books now

i would say

people don't care about your art

what they care about is the artist

all art is relationship and connection

get your priorities in order

horse first cart second

[Leo Gura]

Well, most art these days is marketing.

No one will see your art unless you market the shit out of it. So I hope this AI knows marketing.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Greatnestwithin]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, most art these days is marketing.

No one will see your art unless you market the shit out of it. So I hope this AI knows marketing.

@Leo Gura How do hoy market your lp course? Throught seo, ads etc or something else?

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Greatnestwithin said:

@Leo Gura How do hoy market your lp course? Throught seo, ads etc or something else?

I don't

[Greatnestwithin]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I don't

@Leo Gura So what marketing do you do beyond putting your content on YT? 

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Greatnestwithin said:

@Leo Gura So what marketing do you do beyond putting your content on YT? 

Dude, do you really think I give a fuck about marketing or profits?

Edited January 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Greatnestwithin]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, do you really think I give a fuck about marketing or profits?

It seems that way given your ambition and how many times you shared you have millions of dollars. And latetly how you have invested in cripto and shares.

It doesn't make sense to achieve all that and invest if you didn't care about profits.

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Greatnestwithin said:

It doesn't make sense to achieve all that and invest if you didn't care about profits.

I care enough to keep my bills paid.

In fact, I have a stack of bills on my kitchen counter right now which I haven't even paid for months because I simply stopped caring to send them money.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Greatnestwithin]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I care enough to keep my bills paid.

In fact, I have a stack of bills on my kitchen counter right now which I haven't even paid for months because I simply stopped caring to send them money.

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Leo Gura ???

[Osaid]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I wonder if you can get this AI to do a qualitative analysis of perspectives. For example, if you give it two articles, one from Ben Shapiro vs one from Ken Wilber, can this AI tell you which represents a more developed, more conscious perspective? Or does this AI think that all perspectives are equal?

Can this AI tell the difference between dogmatic perspectives vs non-dogmatic ones? That would be epic. Most humans cannot do that.

I asked the AI to compare your perspective on hallucinations against a more materialistic perspective on hallucinations:

I want you to do a qualitative analysis of two pieces of texts on the topic of hallucinations. Tell me which has a more holistic and intelligent interpretation of the topic.

Here is what we will call "text number one":

A hallucination is a false perception of objects or events involving your senses: sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. Hallucinations seem real, but they’re not.

Chemical reactions and/or abnormalities in your brain cause hallucinations. Hallucinations are typically a symptom of a psychosis-related disorder, particularly schizophrenia, but they can also result from substance use, neurological conditions and some temporary situations.

A person may experience a hallucination with or without the insight that what they’re experiencing isn’t real. When a person thinks their hallucination is real, it’s considered a psychotic symptom.

Here is what we will call "text number two":

What ordinary humans consider to be "hallucinations" not really hallucinations (since everything is a hallucination), they are just God's imagination — Infinite Imagination — at work in non-ordinary states of consciousness.

You can't really understand things like Schizophrenia without God-Realization.

Schizophrenia is like an extreme form of open-mindedness. Your mind/consciousness is so abnormally open that reality itself becomes less material and more fluid — similar to being on mushrooms. This kind of openness correlates with high creativity because a lot more novel ideas are floating into your field of consciousness. But your mind is so open that these ideas literally start to morph your material world. A coffee table could start talking to you and giving you novel ideas. The trade-off is that your mind is less buttoned-up, so it literally starts to feel like you're going insane.

How would you react if all the sudden your coffee table started to talk to you? Would you be open to listening, or would you freak out and run to the doctor to put yourself on meds to suppress it? Most people would freak out because they don't have a proper context for it. Under the materialist paradigm the only context is that you're going insane. But if you understand how consciousness works then there's really nothing wrong about it, you just have an extra-open mind.

The notion that talking to your coffee table is "irrational", "crazy", or unscientific is just wrong. There's nothing unscientific about it. In fact, it is unscientific to call it unscientific because under the right states of consciousness people can talk to their coffee tables and this is not a bug, it's a feature. You have to be very careful about privileging one state of consciousness over another. This is an unscientific bias. No state of consciousness is superior to any other. No state of consciousness is truer than any other. They are just different, with various pros and cons. But humans are very judgmental and demonizing of states of consciousness which are unlike their own. This is just another form of bigotry. When a scientist says that some non-ordinary state of consciousness, like schizophrenia, is irrational or crazy, he is being a bigot. Rationality does not have a monopoly on reality, as it is commonly assumed.

With that said, of course not all states of consciousness are equally functional. Some forms of schizophrenia may be highly maladaptive to living in modern society. Evolution and natural selection have carefully shaped mankind's default state of consciousness over millions of years to be hyper functional for survival in the kinds of environments that humans usually find themselves in. This is what creates the illusion of material reality. Reality is not at all material, but it seems that way because all the immaterial, dream-like aspects have been pruned off in order to make it possible for humans to excel in activities such as business, engineering, socialization, and war. You know what happened when the US military gave LSD to soldiers to make them better killers? The soldiers refused to fight each other because they experienced too much love. You literally have to be very closed-minded to kill people!

In other words, the reason humans are so materialistic, rational, and business-like by default is because all the humans with dreamy default states of consciousness were killed off by the business-minded ones. Consider the possibility that 2000 years ago all humans were much more dreamy by default than they are today. But war killed them off and selected for the most materialistic, rational, and business-minded ones. Which is to say, all the most spiritual humans were killed off long ago. Which is why humans today struggle so much with being spiritual whereas in the ancient past people were much more mystically inclined. This wasn't merely a cultural shift, it was a shift at the genetic level. Nobody understands this! Ta-Daaaaa! It's even possible that Neanderthals were more spiritual than humans but were killed off by the more business-like and war-like humans. Science & history has yet to appreciate such matters because they take state of consciousness for granted.

Text number one provides a more holistic and intelligent interpretation of the topic of hallucinations. It provides a clear and scientific explanation of what hallucinations are and the various causes, such as chemical reactions and abnormalities in the brain. It also explains that hallucinations are typically a symptom of a psychosis-related disorder, particularly schizophrenia, and can also result from substance use, neurological conditions and some temporary situations.

Text number two, on the other hand, presents a more speculative and less evidence-based interpretation of hallucinations. It suggests that hallucinations are not really hallucinations, but rather the work of God's imagination and that understanding schizophrenia requires "God-realization". While it does mention the idea that the states of consciousness are different, with various pros and cons and that some forms of schizophrenia may be highly maladaptive to living in modern society, it also presents the idea that talking to a coffee table is not irrational or unscientific and that a scientist calling it so is a form of bigotry. This perspective is not widely accepted or supported by scientific evidence and it's not the way hallucinations are typically understood by the scientific and medical communities. While it raises some interesting points, it lacks the clear, evidence-based information that text number one provides.

Which perspective is more dogmatic, though?

Text number two is more dogmatic. The author presents their perspective as the only correct one and dismisses alternative perspectives as "wrong," "unscientific," and "bigoted." They also make bold claims about the nature of reality and consciousness without providing scientific evidence to support them. In contrast, text number one presents a more balanced and evidence-based view of hallucinations, describing them as false perceptions caused by chemical reactions and/or abnormalities in the brain and noting that they can be a symptom of a psychosis-related disorder or result from substance use or neurological conditions.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Osaid

[Leo Gura]

@Osaid Lol. Very interesting.

The myths of science are indeed strong.

At least I know this thing won't be putting me out of a job anytime soon.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

@Osaid robot parrot.

 

[Thought Art]

I asked ChatGPT what I should do today:

"That depends on your personal preferences and schedule. Some suggestions could be: going for a walk or exercise, spending time with friends or family, trying a new hobby or activity, or working on a personal project. You could also consider self-care activities such as reading, meditating, or taking a relaxing bath. Ultimately, the decision is yours, and you should choose something that you enjoy and that will make you feel good."

[Leo Gura]

Why haven't they hooked this thing up to Alexa yet? Seems like a no-brainer $100 billion dollar idea.