I remember talking about maybe six packs or abs muscles at that age... Did not make me fitness nut. Kids talk about lot of stuff, most of it doesn't really stick.
why do they keep training on publicly available online data, god dammit? what the fuck. don't they want to make a good LLM? train on the classics, on the essentials reference manuals for different technologies, on history books, medical encyclopedias, journal notes from the top surgeons and engineers, scientific papers of the experiments that back up our fundamental theories. we want quality information, not recent information. we already have plenty of recent information.
no, not the actual content, just the titles of the content.
like "book title" by "author". the tool just simply can't be taken seriously by anyone until they release that information. this is the case for all these models. it's ridiculous, almost insulting.
i didn't mean to say that making society more rational healthy and coordinated is the only way to contribute. you could certainly go to a monastery and meditate. also i meant that money would not even be something to think about, not that you are very rich. and i know what you're talking about with the rationalist thing, where a lot of "rational people" are really just overly-intellectual and selfish and don't really do anything; that's not what i mean by rational. i'm talking about evolutionary adaptation, surviving collectively, doing actual science, changing our mindset to care for everyone and make money obsolete because we have the technology and skills to do so.
>It sounds to me like you are a narcissist as well, to think that you are more rational than others or know better just because you have money.
we're just sharing ideas, not implying that we know better than anyone. anyone can share their ideas in this thought experiment. i think you imposed an incorrect assumption of what i was trying to say upon my words.
Thank you! Would love any help! Email on my profile. I am currently working with a few high/middle school kids, so they can start working on building codes.
A good example is the multiverse hypothesis. It is the only way to avoid theism if you are a physicist, but it is also ludicrously extravagant and states as it's first principle that evidence for it cannot be detected (because all the things we can detect are in our universe).
But if the need to avoid theism counts as evidence, then I guess you're stuck with the multiverse.
The best example is the existence of life. The question of the origin of life truly is the only interesting question because without life no other questions even arise.
But we can do biochemistry and microbiology at a high level now and the evidence for life having been designed is overwhelming to the point of being staggering. We found a freaking a *code* at the bottom of it all, for !*$%&@ sake!
Note that the entire Darwinian story assumes the existence of life. So you can't appeal to "evolution" to bail you out because evolution depends on reproduction and survival and so on, and none of that happens prior to the existence of life. (Read The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check by Tan & Stadler if you want the reality check good and hard).
People will commonly start throwing in big words at this point: abiogensis! protobiotic vesicles! bioenergetic pathways! abiotic polymerization! but it is all just designed to snow you into submission.
Physics rules out atheism, and the existence of life rules out deism. So we're stuck with theism.
The move from theism to specifically Christian theism can also be made, but I'm not going to do it here.
I will say, however, that unless Christianity is true Judaism doesn't make any sense, because Judaism lacks a universal cosmology (it simply can't answer the question "why didn't God choose all people").
From the perspective of Christianity Judaism make sense (the Jews are chosen in the sense that through the Jews comes salvation for all people), but Judaism doesn't make sense from the perspective of just Judaism.
> I will say, however, that unless Christianity is true Judaism doesn't make any sense, because Judaism lacks a universal cosmology (it simply can't answer the question "why didn't God choose all people").
In Judaism, the answer to that question is that God asked each nation to accept His commandments, but they each had cultures that were incompatible, and refused.
When He asked the Jews, they agreed unconditionally.
That is an obvious of post-hoc rationalization. It appears no where in Scripture or in any other culture's history or mythology. And even if it were true, it still doesn't amount to more than "the Jews are just better", which is just a pathetic theology.
I guess it depends on what you think the point of money is.
If you think it’s like getting a high score in Donkey Kong, then you’ll be sad you didn’t max out your gains for 3 extra years. But if you think of money as something you need enough of and that’s it, then you’ll gladly take the 3 extra years of complete freedom.
I only need as much money as I need — not more.
Obviously there’s some risk/uncertainty there and I’m not against saving for the future so I do my best to be prepared. But I don’t see saving money as something that’s worth my time if it can be reasonably avoided.
reply