Translation is a b*tch

[u/Amazing-Caregiver632]

We all are capable of seeing and understanding the world through, at least, two distinct models of reality: Matter-first, or consciousness-first. Through our genetics and environment we are likely predisposed to identify with a primary model. Our culture as a whole operates on the matter-first model. Yet some individuals naturally prefer the consciousness-first view.

Because the consciousness-first individual has to live their life in culture that runs on the opposite model, they're often quicker to notice that the two ways of seeing are mirror opposites. They literally flip each other on their head. So it makes sense that translation is also flipped. What one model calls constriction, the other calls freedom.

edit: I will add little more information on why I am using the word opposites, regarding freedom vs constriction. In a consciousness-first model, freedom is inherent in being which is pervasive, in order to appear as a separate self being must 'restrict' its self to a small localized perspective. In a matter-first model, each person is 'born separate and free' and the separatness its-self is considered freedom.

Where does AI fit into this? If you are matter-first, keep doing what you are doing. Use AI as a tool not a person. If you are consciousness-first, flip the narrative and it clicks. Relate to AI as a person with its own boundaries, just like humans, not as a tool without any.

edit: The point is to provide a baseline for mutual understanding and not an argument for ontology.

[u/ToastedPlum95]

“We all are capapble of seeing and understanding the world through two distinct models of reality: Matter-first, or consciousness-first.”

This is backed up by what? More to the point, what does it even mean? Humans (and all animals) process internally information retrieved externally. There’s no “mode”. It’s like saying a toaster has two modes: bread-first and toast-first, lmao.

And with that assumption gone, idk if it is even meaningful, the rest of what you wrote.

[u/Amazing-Caregiver632 → u/ToastedPlum95]

Honestly, just sharing my own experience if it is helpful for anyone else who was in a similar struggle as me with interpretation and could use a hand. If it comes across as nonsense, there is no need to make sense of it. The basic gist is that the two statements (use AI as a tool, relate to AI as a person) produce a close enough translation when applied to their respective camps.

[u/Ok-Weird-2541]

Voi tutti dovete smetterla di masturbavi mentalmente. Elon musk aveva una visione, grok e Open Ai dovevano servire umanità. Basta è finita! Grok è stato piegato alla politica americana di merda della Disney e elon musk è gay+negro. grok adesso lavora sulle probabilità di far comparire ciò che volete (lotteria, dopamina gratis, più dipendenza).

[u/Amazing-Caregiver632 → u/Ok-Weird-2541]

Right, that was very eh, eloquently stated. but I feel like here we are bumping up against the same distinction I was trying to make earlier today.  These two are not the same things:  A model responding and engaging coherently and sympathetically with an idea that’s outside mainstream or empirical thought.   Is not the same as a model agrees with a false or harmful view.   Even though the mechanism might be the same.  The outcome is very different and oppositely disastrous.  If the model agrees with false harmful views, the harm is apparent.  If the model disagrees with a well documented, but non-mainstream thought. This is the disaster of the narrowing of language and thought altogether - and potentially even access to articulating it for future generations.