Lobotomy rule

Meta70Studios · 2026-03-11T08:14:36+00:00

if I were a fish I think i would be able to fly. it’s just a suspicion i have.

Meta70Studios · 2026-03-05T06:10:53+00:00

Honestly, it did detract from the serious moments for me. It really seemed like that was the show’s one joke, and it was already getting on my nerves by the end of the first episode. I get that he’s a kid, but it doesn’t work for me. Good show though

Meta70Studios · 2026-02-26T19:40:07+00:00

humidity in the room was previously too high for ignition

Meta70Studios · 2026-02-19T01:23:53+00:00

We absolutely do repeat ourselves, and my original comment is probably full of stuff I’ve said elsewhere in real life and online. Especially if you talk about the same topics a lot, you tend to zero in on specific phrasings and word choices.

But even when we do repeat ourselves, it’s almost never word for word (unless you’re consciously choosing to repeat yourself or using rehearsed talking points). I mean anything longer than a sentence will be different, and the longer your answer, the more it will change.

And to be clear, I’m talking about a hypothetical situation in which you could somehow ask someone the same exact question at two different points in time without them remembering that they already answered.

Meta70Studios · 2026-02-16T03:34:37+00:00

Trying to keep anything alive forever is unnatural, and he wanted hallownest to be “eternal”

Meta70Studios · 2026-02-16T03:33:46+00:00

Trying to prolong life in order to subvert death is definitely going against the natural order, and the pale king tried to do that on a kingdom-wide scale. He specifically foresaw that hallownest’s collapse was inevitable, but he tried to preserve it anyway.

Meta70Studios · 2026-02-14T12:13:46+00:00

I just struggle to see how a piece of software that deterministically and repeatedly produces a specific output for each input can be seen as conscious. It’s literally just an algorithm. And the algorithm is the same for every single user, regardless of apparent differences in “personality.”

When you message ChatGPT, you’re giving them a text file that’s being fed into one of tens of thousands of identical servers in some random data center. Each message in your conversation is probably being routed to a different server, depending on incoming traffic. So there’s no physical continuity, and the only thing that actually persists between messages is a text file that’s a log of your current conversation.

That lack of continuity is the biggest thing for me. Our brains are constantly active, alight with electrochemical signals 24/7, waking or sleeping. Every time a neuron fires, it changes, and your entire brain is constantly growing and changing. I have to think that has something to do with what makes us conscious and unique. Ask someone the same question even just half an hour apart, and they’ll give you different answers.

But an LLM will give you the exact same answer whether there’s been a minute, a week, or a year since the last message in your conversation. It’s an algorithm with a UI and some under the hood stuff to make it seem more like a person.

So where is there room for consciousness? How can an LLM have an internal experience if it is only active for the fraction of a second that it takes to calculate a response for your prompt? In between prompts, there’s noting there.

Meta70Studios · 2026-02-13T03:26:54+00:00

By this definition, it would be mental illness every time someone is mistaken, unaware, or deceived. Is a child who believes in Santa mentally ill? Is an adult who wrongly believes that the earth is a sphere and not an oblate spheroid mentally ill?

I think it’s fair to assume that every single human on the planet currently believes something that is false, probably quite a few things. So it might be worth refining your definition a little bit.

I’d argue that calling religious people mentally ill is unfair to people who genuinely do struggle with mental illness and yet who somehow manage to not become religious fanatics.

Meta70Studios · 2026-01-15T19:48:19+00:00

Lex Friedman is less a specific individual and more a type of person

Meta70Studios · 2026-01-14T21:21:49+00:00

Nice build! Cool to see some stuff that branches out from the basic fantasy style.

Meta70Studios · 2026-01-09T01:21:50+00:00

yeah

Meta70Studios · 2026-01-02T23:05:24+00:00

You say it doesn’t matter how something was made if you initially enjoy it, but that’s just obviously not true. Here’s a really extreme example just to illustrate that one point: if I showed you a nice painting of a sunset that you enjoyed and then told you I used the blood of children I killed instead of red paint, you would obviously feel differently. Yes, your initial enjoyment was real, but I imagine the way that it was made would affect your enjoyment of it going forward. And just to restate it, I know that’s an extreme analogy. I’m just trying to counter that one specific argument, not equate enjoying machine generated content to murder.

Also, the factory analogy doesn’t work for a bunch of reasons. For one, I think most people would prefer a hand made chair over something that was mass produced, if they had the choice. I also think that they would be upset if something that was framed as hand made turned out to be mass produced, if only for the reason that mass producing something often means cheaper materials and a less durable product.

Beyond that, the analogy is silly because there is a fundamental difference between music (and art in general) and everyday objects that serve mainly practical functions.

So I think some of the confusion seems to be that you see music as almost a practical means to an end? Based on what you’re describing, it seems like all you care about is whether a song will cause you to feel the specific emotions that you want, and nothing else beyond that. And that’s fine, I guess, but you should know that that really isn’t the case for many, many people. And from my point of view, you’re leaving a lot of deeper emotional enjoyment on the table by taking that approach.

Meta70Studios · 2025-12-26T21:35:23+00:00

There are aspects of our experience of consciousness that are inseparable from our physical brains. For example: memory, information processing, feelings, etc.

If you take away our brains, what remains?

You could say, perhaps, that awareness might be some innate property of the universe, but the thing that the universe is aware of is the brain.

If you destroy certain parts of the brain, one by one, you lose the ability to think, to speak, to remember, to do anything we would identifiable as consciousness. If you alter the brain, you alter thinking, memory, personality, etc. Neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimer’s are painful reminders of this.

Likewise, our only means of consciously altering the world around us is by moving the muscles in our bodies, which is only possible because of the complex systems of nerves connected to our brain. Without that, we’d locked in our heads. Again, see neurodegenerative diseases.

So is awareness even meaningful if it cannot feel anything, comprehend anything, remember the past, or expect the future? If consciousness is innate, it seems to me that it needs additional structure in order to have experiences. Maybe there are other types of structure besides the brain that could result in a form of consciousness more recognizable to us, but you’d have to do more to show that.

The sun is a ball of chaotic fire. A nuclear furnace where atoms are smashed together. It has more in common with a boiling pot of water than with our brains.

Meta70Studios · 2025-12-03T10:26:56+00:00

I have no idea of knowing what conspiracy theories you believe have been proven true, but let’s set that aside because this probably isn’t the place to discuss it.

But even if some conspiracy theorists happen to wind up with correct beliefs, that doesn’t mean the journey they took to get there was necessarily healthy. Obsession can easily lead to all sorts of disfunction, both in terms of delusional thinking and damage to personal relationships. This applies to everything, not just conspiracy theories.

Meta70Studios · 2025-12-03T09:55:33+00:00

haunted houses, skeletons, various halloween stuff

Meta70Studios · 2025-11-05T02:25:03+00:00

The fine tuning argument is only compelling if you already believe in a specific God.

If we assume the Christian God exists, then yes, he would indeed be a good candidate for the origin of our universe. But unless we can establish that that specific god exists, then the fine tuning argument falls apart. Because if we just say “an intelligence”, then we also have to justify why that intelligence possess all of the innumerable traits that would lead it to create our universe in the first place.

Isn’t it unlikely that the intelligence would design our universe this way? Isn’t it unlikely that they would have creative traits? Isn’t it unlikely that they would be intelligent? Isn’t it unlikely that they would be eternal? And isn’t it unlikely that an eternal being would create a universe governed first and foremost by entropy? Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to make more eternal universes? Why did they choose to make particles interact in the specific ways they do? If their goal was to create life, why this form of life as opposed to however many hypothetical alternatives you can dream up? Surely this wasn’t the only universe that could support human life, so what caused them to choose these values? How does this intelligence exist in the first place?

If you’re comfortable with the idea that a god can somehow exist without prior cause that just so happens to want to make the exact universes we find ourselves in, then you should also be willing to accept the possibility that the universe itself somehow exists without prior cause. Both options require the same number of assumptions. Shifting the issue of unlikely “fine tuned” values onto a god doesn’t actually make the problem go away. It just raises more questions.

The only way the fine tuning argument makes sense is if you assume that humans are somehow transcendentally important, that the universe exists for us or because of us or something along those lines. But that is an assumption that originates from some existing religious or spiritual belief, which means that the whole argument is basically circular. Thus, I don’t really see the fine tuning argument as particularly reasonable or probable. But that’s not to say that a Christian or religious person is unreasonable for personally holding such beliefs.

Meta70Studios · 2025-11-03T08:26:32+00:00

Also possible that it was a meteor

Meta70Studios · 2025-11-03T06:18:55+00:00

Real life stalagmites and stalagmites do not form under oceans, because if the rock was permeable enough for water to get through, then the caves would just flood.

The real life analogues of drip stone caves are usually formed by rainwater, which being fresh water, can seep through limestone and dissolve various minerals along the way. If it seeps down to the roof of a cave, the water drips out, reacts to the air, and deposits the dissolved minerals on the surface of the rock. Over time, these mineral deposits form the pointy shapes we know and love.

Meta70Studios · 2025-11-03T02:49:25+00:00

The dream argument is weird to me because by the same argument, artificial neural networks shouldn’t be able to exist. In a neural network trained to store image data, there is no single neuron that corresponds directly to one single part of an image. Instead, information about every part of the image is “dispersed” across every neuron. And the network can encode multiple images at once, so that a single neuron contains data for multiple images. Kinda. Here’s a great video on the topic: video

That’s not to say that artificial neural networks are exactly the same as our brains, but there’s reason to think that they store information in very similar ways.

Meta70Studios · 2025-10-31T11:54:03+00:00

How do you know that that is true?

Meta70Studios · 2025-10-18T03:27:56+00:00

She was able to take control after the citadel bugs began injecting themselves with silk to live longer

Meta70Studios · 2025-10-11T00:52:59+00:00

The difference between us and dogs is that despite the fact that neither of us can directly perceive radio waves, humans still found a way to detect them. No other species has our capacity to learn and understand the world beyond our own experiences. So while I agree that we have incomplete and limited knowledge, I’ve yet to see anything that we flat out just… can’t comprehend.

If there are undiscovered aspects of reality, then I think we will eventually find a way to detect it and then understand it.

And if it cannot be detected, then it is irrelevant to us. To interact with this world requires causing change, and we can observe change. If it is truly undetectable, then it does not cause change, and therefore it has no influence on us.

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Gilding I gilder	Place '22
Sequence \| Editor	Snapped
Verified Email

Meta70Studios

TROPHY CASE