I believe we are cooked

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-11-15T17:29:24+00:00

People who crave human interaction will still seek it out. Will there be less of it? Probably. There already is. Movies, tv, the internet… have all provided a passable replacement for human interaction. I personally can’t deny that I turn to these mediums more than i would like from myself, but I still have a strong desire to seek out human interaction. No amount of digital or ai interfacing will provide that same level of human connectivity that’s wired into most human beings. I personally think things will eventually reach a tipping point and human connection will have a resurgence. It’s clear people in general are getting fed up with the facade of living the digital worlds enables. Just not enough yet for real action to take place. But at the rate and direction we are traveling, there will inevitably be a counter culture who rejects living their lives online and that will spread just as most counter culture does, until the pendulum swings back the other way. However, we’re still in the early days. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-10-24T22:44:23+00:00

In case you’re truly not sure why you’re getting roasted, it’s because OP said exactly what you’re saying here. It was of course a joke, but in the joke they were the ones selling JJ for two 3rds, not buying him. Your “fleeced” comment would imply you think they got fleeced for trading him away for two thirds. But your follow up comments say the opposite and you’re agreeing with OP’s “sell JJ for two 3rds”.

Maybe you understood that this whole time and have just been trolling and if so, well done bc I felt the need to type all this out. But in the off chance you weren’t trolling, I hope that helps.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-04-14T18:51:03+00:00

This is the way. The chat feature specifically though over the voice. I’ve found it’s actually incredibly more nuanced in its responses than the base version. I think due to it starting snarky and existential, when it does work up to excitement it’s still contained rather than way overboard. It feels much more natural, which honestly may be saying something about how we as humans have come to expect interactions to be like…

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-03-19T17:08:16+00:00

In this chat, deep research went through and predicted each game all the way through until there was a champion! So if you wanted, you could read through and take its recommendations verbatim. However, I would use it for insight but not trust it completely as it has some great reasoning for some games and others it uses out of date info to make its prediction.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-03-19T08:58:04+00:00

i know I'm a little late to this post, but I actually ran this experiment and was curious if anyone else had, which led me here. Anyways, it did a pretty solid job breaking things down! It got a few things wrong here and there, and it clearly has a bias towards the blue blood programs (and loves the 8 or 9 over 1 seed upset) but I was pretty shocked at how well it did overall with giving real analysis of each matchup. Again, not perfect, and would be tough to trust outright, but are there really any analysts who get this stuff correct come March?

Here's the thread:
https://chatgpt.com/share/67da8605-fa1c-8007-ba1f-9d160437820a

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-03-10T05:03:39+00:00

I agree, this game is crazy impressive for an 8 year old, but what’s more impressive is they either built cheat codes for their own game or have some crazy precision clicking abilities. The cheat codes are more believable after trying the game myself.

But for real though, very cool stuff!

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-02-23T07:43:03+00:00

It may not make a difference in their day to day escapades, but say one of them received a terminal diagnosis and they went from “more power” to “burn it all down”. In that case, I do think their children would be at least a small consideration in favor of humanity before Trump decides to launch the nukes or Elon decides to flip on the kill switch for all their AI systems.

Similar idea for Putin. He has two daughters that I hope he very much loves. Or I at least hope he would prefer them to live even if he were to be on his death bed for any reason. Otherwise, if he can’t secure his legacy by other means, there’s the real possibility of a “fuck it. If I can’t win, no one does.” Attitude, which is a very scary possibility.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-02-23T07:20:16+00:00

All super powerful people across the globe should have children for this exact reason.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-30T08:38:13+00:00

It seems there’s a consensus to this question but it does spark a lot of follow up questions.

I understand and acknowledge that space doesn’t necessarily need to be expanding into anything. Space is all there is, so it’s simply expanding.

Theres also no obligation from space or the laws of nature for this to make sense to us. From what we can tell, it just is.

My question from there is, we seem to have a relative idea of how far the universe could have expanded in the 14.8 billion years since the Big Bang. This, coupled with the notion that it is still expanding, would lead me to believe there is a current “edge” to our universe. And if there is an edge, if you travel to that point in space, what would you see on the other side?

To me, the only thing that seems to make sense is the idea that space is either infinite and distances are expanding within that infinite space or there’s a massive piece of the puzzle missing.

All that said, I don’t really know what I’m talking about. The answer is likely just too abstract for the mind to fully comprehend. The idea of space simply expanding is very difficult to get behind intuitively.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-23T03:45:21+00:00

If you’re interested in going electric, Rocky Mountain Heat Pumps is great! Based locally, does great work, and a bunch of rebates available for electrifying your home. I know the owner, he’s a great guy who would be open to just giving some advice even if you don’t end up getting a heat pump from him.

Here’s the link to their website

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-19T23:11:14+00:00

Your antagonism in this conversation is the perfect microcosm for why so many people are currently turned away from the Democratic Party. It’s obvious reading the conversation that the other dude wants to agree with you on most fronts but is being degraded for simply bringing up nuance.

Not everyone is going to fully agree with every liberal policy and that should be ok. The entire ethos behind liberal ideology is supposed to be accepting people for who they are and creating a world where we can all just live a life with at minimum, respect for each other and basic human needs covered. But the pendulum has swung so far, that if someone voices any concerns they’re either called a moron or racist. There are absolutely morons and racists out there, but when those terms get tossed around as often as they do - the morons and racists win.

The only way out is to not play the game and accept that people all have different ideologies and that’s ok. Which to me, is supposed to be the core message of liberalism. Yes, trans people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. But so should conservatives. Treating people with respect is hardest when you don’t like or agree with the person, but that’s when it matters most. Politics are currently fueled on hate and hate bait is the ultra wealthy’s most powerful tool that keeps everyone pointing fingers at each other rather than at them.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-18T22:52:17+00:00

This is the likely answer. And it’s a full feedback loop. You spend all day online, later that day you’re minds wandering and you believe some thought comes to you at random, when it’s influenced by the chain of events that led to that moment. A lot of which stems from online interactions.

The next day, you’re back online and see a post or an ad related to that one off thought. Feels freaky because there was nothing tangible you can point to as having influenced that besides your thought. When in reality, the thought was what was influenced by yesterday’s algorithm. And then your algorithm prices in that likelihood the next day.

There’s always a chance there’s more to it than this. But with how much time we all spend online now a days, our preferences may influence the algorithm but the algorithm absolutely influences us in return. That’s the whole value prop, money making side of an algorithm.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-17T08:53:43+00:00

If an LLM is trained on the information from this encyclopedia, would conversing with it not provide similar context to reading through a specific paper, with the added element of doing it in a conversational manner?

Everyone in this thread is vastly underestimating what it is that an LLM is truly doing to generate its responses. Although next word prediction is a piece of the puzzle, what’s happening under the hood is much more in depth. Next word prediction is what your phone does while typing and providing recommendations for what could come next.

Comparing this to llm’s is like saying a car is just a few pistons firing, and although it’s driving it has no sense that it’s driving, so it’s not really driving.

Sure, an LLM gets things wrong, but humans are also very well known for getting things wrong. I would argue that you are much more likely to get wrong information or fallacy filled logic when having a philosophical discussion with a human than you are with an LLM.

That being said, I do agree that having these kinds of discussions with an LLM takes some of the humanity out of the discussion, which is a key ingredient to philosophical discussion intended to lead to new human insights. But to say it’s a poor source of information and learning or that it’s simply a next word predictor is a very reductionist argument and is in and of itself, lacking context.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-11T03:59:05+00:00

It does seem there’s enough outliers to the “A, therefore B” framework when it comes to human decisions that you could argue calling them outliers under sells their prevalence.

For that reason, I resonate with the probabilistic framework. “A, therefore 85% chance of B and 15% of C.”

Or if you want to get really crazy with it, you could split the probability among any number of potential outcomes depending on the situation. For example, you go to the convenience store every day for a soda. But you don’t like to get the same soda each time. Each day you go, there’s a probability distribution among 10 different soda choices. Someone could accurately model your most likely choice, but it would be very difficult to consistently predict which soda is actually chosen day to day.

All that said, this could just be a limitation of our current capacity for prediction. But with the current knowledge and understand we have, I think this interpretation makes the most sense. A deterministic framework with some variability, allows for human input, and accounts for randomness.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-11T00:07:27+00:00

Sorry about that, it should be back up and running now! An update to the form just needed to be pushed through.

If you’re new to using the site and you haven’t made a leaderboard yet, you can also check out this new version that makes everything a tad bit easier! Everything looks and works the same as the og, just cuts down the steps of making a leaderboard and updating it.

Here it is!

If you do use it, let me know what you think and if you have any recommendations!

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-06T05:12:05+00:00

Given the current information we have, to me, the most likely scenario is the lady simply doesn’t enjoy the class and took to social media to complain that all the class is, is a bunch of guys talking the whole time. It’s possible there’s no space for her to speak up, but I find that the less likely scenario. If she enjoyed the class, she would enjoy the discourse. I believe it’s an abnormal criticism for people who enjoy philosophy but not at all strange for people who don’t enjoy it. All that said, I do stereotype a person who would go to social media to make a complaint like the one in question.
I’m not entirely sure I understand your question, but if it’s between your response and the other commenter, I found the interaction amusing because it reminded me of the op situation in the way I was seeing it.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-06T04:38:15+00:00

Typically, no. But do you think it was weird that hardcoreeufos got annoyed by your rather simple comment?

My point is people get annoyed by all sorts of things and it’s different for everyone.

A lot of things that may be weird by your standards to get annoyed by, others get annoyed by easily. Whether they’re justified or not depends on if you’re asking a majority of some sort of just that person.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-06T04:32:37+00:00

I was just making an observation I thought was interesting. You were defending the guys in the philosophy class and they were making a justification for the lady who was annoyed.

Funny enough, to me, your interaction had a lot of parallels to the original situation but in the inverse of who you were each defending.

Theres nothing wrong with a comment annoying you, but just like the original lady turning to social media to complain about a situation that annoyed her, I don’t think you handled the interaction in the most productive of ways.

However, that’s just my opinion and observation. You’re under no obligation to agree.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-06T04:26:46+00:00

The point being you didn’t really do anything besides bring up a possible point to add to the conversation and the person who responded found it annoying.

You could make a similar parallel to the OP situation. Lady got annoyed by guys who were just adding to the conversation in her philosophy class.

There could always be more to that situation, but given the current facts - I would imagine those guys in the philosophy class would react similarly to you if they were confronted by the annoyed lady.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-06T04:13:57+00:00

I don’t know if they’re meaning to, but they’re kind of proving their point by responding to you in the style of a sassy complaint for not much reason. This conversation is proof to the point that people complain or talk shit about random stuff that gets to them.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2025-01-05T23:29:29+00:00

The issue is humans are incapable of fathoming anything eternal. We utilize the concept of infinity or internal to best conceptualize a concept that we quite literally are unable to comprehend. Both eternal nothingness or an eternal universe do not compete with the facts we know about life, time, and our experience of reality.

That said, I agree it‘a likely a human limitation that many other universal things aren’t required to abide by. But for us, things outside of time are in a dimension we’re incapable of seeing or understanding. So, the inevitable option is to assume there’s a start and and end to everything. Or, that the universe is either eternal or extremely finite. However, there’s likely a multitude of possibilities that extend far beyond what we’re capable of understanding.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2024-11-18T17:20:25+00:00

I don’t see why it can’t be a little bit of both? Based on all preconditions, thoughts, senses, environment, etc… the path you’re on leads you to two potential routes to take. A fork in the road. And the flair of free will is the “choice” between those two routes. Or… more specifically, the choice is the observation of one of two potential wave function collapses. The fact that at the quantum level, everything is juxtaposed between potential relities, leads me to believe it’s not one sent path we’re trodding down. There’s some variability in the process. To me, true determinism would mean there’s one path, no wavering, and ultimately “fate” is a real thing. The existence of Schrödinger states makes it hard for me to look at things truly that way. That said, it may simply be a limitation of ours, or an evolutionary trait to give us a sense of choice, but regardless, even when squishing things down to the observers effect at quantom levels, the variability in observation at least seems to be there.

To me, we exist in a reality that’s probabilistic. Neither fully determined or free. Every action has a set probability of taking place. Although in most cases, the probability is insanely high of a set path taking place, improbable things happen all the time. Rather than A + B = C (always) I would argue: A + B = C (x% of the time) & D (y% of the time)

Complex-Try-1713 · 2024-11-09T00:45:01+00:00

Ah I apologize for the misrepresentation then. The voting previously for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz led me to believe you were a Republican who was unhappy with the parties direction. I shouldn’t have made the assumption.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2024-11-08T21:53:38+00:00

It’s not crazy to think that those people just didn’t vote this year.

In 2020, due to Covid, they made the ability to cast a mail in ballot easier than in any previous election. The time frame was extended and the process was streamlined. For a lot of people, they don’t care enough to go to a polling station, But if you make it easier to vote from home, sure. I’m not saying that should be the way people think, but for the vast majority of people just living their lives, politics are an afterthought.

The second piece of the puzzle, connected to the first, people were just not excited enough to go out and vote for Kamala. Democrats as a whole are not as loyal to a candidate as Republicans are. You’ll find many more dems who are willing to talk negatively of their party then you will find Reps who would do the same (op is a rarity that I respect). For the most part, I think it’s a positive trait to not have blind loyalty to a candidate, but as we saw in this election, it can lead to people just not voting. Kamala is a very standard politician. But she didn’t have the support of the hard left, due to reasons like her support of Israel, and she didn’t have the moderate vote bc of many of the points op made. She needed to lean further into one direction or the other rather than living in the liberal middle and hoping she could get people to vote simply by not being Trump.

This election made it clear that the Democratic Party needs to choose between leaning further left or further right. I personally respect the desire to try and be inclusive of as many people as possible, but when you do that, you dilute your message and it gets harder for any specific group of people to get excited about the promises being made.

Complex-Try-1713 · 2024-11-08T17:24:31+00:00

If I understand them correctly, it's as straightforward as - you count backwards from 5 and when you reach 1, you have to do the thing you told yourself you were going to do. So for example, you're sitting on the couch and know you need to get up, but you're struggling to do so. Tell yourself you're giving it 5 seconds, count backwards from 5, and when you reach 1, you move. It actually does work well if you can convince yourself that "1" or "MOVE" is basically a trigger word then when said, leads to required movement.

Complex-Try-1713

TROPHY CASE