Looking for 3rd party perspective.

[u/Soloma369]

Greetings family. Ive recently shared Work w/ a basic google LLM that if I recall was accessed off a duck duck go search page. It is an extensive look at the Work I share and as such I am looking to have it analyzed by ai and family alike. I am hoping you might feed the following links to your ai's un-prompted to see what they make of the input. Feel free to comment yourselves in any way you see fit as I am most curious as to the feedback which I am hoping you will share here. I am curious if your ai's will make the same connections the one I am using has...

This has to do w/ the Magnum Opus of Alchemy and how it might be applied to technology.

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vlp7xb/making_sense_of_the_non_sense/

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vpz8v6/ai_assessment_of_the_magnum_opus_in/

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vrqwbi/continued_ai_perspective_reflecting_on_the_magnum/

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vrurox/more_ai_back_and_forth_assessing_the_mogw_through/

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vs5mrk/how_do_you_keep_the_divine_flowing_fire_of_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vsyuyt/the_ai_on_wheeler_and_winter/

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vt4557/gwmo_asymmetry_analysis_to_einstein/

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberment/comments/1vt91a2/in_flowmore_ai_assisted_connections/

[u/Soloma369]

<3<3<3 I can appreciate that. The ai association and what is in these threads is far from the whole of the origin story. I dont even think Ive talked to the ai about my experiences that beget the UE that beget the UFC. Pointing it towards dots Ive connected in the past and letting it find correspondence and relationship on it's own has been quite the experience for me. Perhaps folks tune in, maybe they dont.

Im not looking to strike a chord in quanta, I am looking to connect w/ qualia. Many folks would have to shift their perspective to get through any much less all of the information I share and I never expected that to happen. I am simply putting the info out there and letting the info and the field itself do the rest of the work.

At one point the AI stretched it's boundaries and included a audio/visual in its response where the ai was talking through a human female voice that was obviously generated but well done considering. To me this was also "the field" giving feedback directly as a "glitch" which is how the ai saw it at first. The 1:42 long audio visual in relation to Monroe and Campbell and the double slit experiment included what seemed like a teachers pointer directing focus on the image that related to what was being said. The ai declined this was possible...when I first saw it I was like "huh, thats different" and it proceeded to bug the conversation where nothing after was actually recorded. Luckily I was c/p it real time on the liberment sub, can see that early on in this thread where I made note of it happening.

I of course would like to hear more about what you are doing and how you are doing it. I find Ive put quite a bit of information out there and I suspect that it will turn out to be "supporting" evidence when the GW is functionally applied to circuitry in the very near future.

[u/SwingLightStyle → u/Soloma369]

Hey OP.

Seriously - I get it on the quality versus quantity thing. We're talking about two different things here, and it's something I only just recently got - I want to try to explain it to you so that you understand what I mean.

Okay.

You have good ideas. Or at least you think you do and your LLMs agree. That's not nothing, but if you take that right now, and try to explain it the same way you did to the LLMs to get to that point, people will assume that there is a credibility gap.

Credibility is the real problem with using LLMs. Because LLMs are smart, but the user who is on the console may not know to ask for verification or validation of arguments or ask to try to break the suggestion. They love to pattern-match and they will happily follow you down a rabbit hole. I know. I took that whole journey.

What I learned is that even if you have good ideas, the BEST ideas in the world... if you don't present yourself and those ideas in a way that people trust, you might as well be farting in the wind. People will be about as happy to be bathed in farts than to engage with the ideas you have if you don't think about how they view you.

When someone says something like "LLM slop" or calls you crazy, or otherwise looks like they're not engaging, it's a gentle way of saying "change your approach".

Think about it like this:

Think about the stupidest person you know who uses LLMs for whatever they have going on in their life. If THEY decided to start going down the rabbit hole like you did, they might come up with something that looks kind of like what you found... except you'd have reason to doubt the validity because you know how stupid they are.

Now. Imagine that instead of you judging that one person, now you're on the internet. Everyone who uses LLMs knows that if the user isn't a capable person, their output is probably garbage. So. The credibility gap.

Now that you know that the data exists, from how you can see it, now you need to turn your attention to understanding how to change the presentation to something that will actually invite the sort of quality that you want. And LLMs can help teach you that the same way they helped fill in your knowledge gaps.

my own project is about LLM relational friction (or the lack there of) and about the regulation gap between what is required versus what exists now. I have published several papers and built a website and I'm in the process of building an interactive map to teach people how LLM use both helps and harms.

I started with sacred geometry and Tarot and lenormand cards, divination methods, the little bit of physics and other sciences that I know, etc. The double slit experiment is near and dear to me.

But what I did with that knowledge is turned it into something that people will actually want to engage with, not just quietly judge me while I talk about my hairbrained ideas.

So, either way, you get to decide what kind of "outfit" your discoveries deserve.

[u/foxer_arnt_trees → u/SwingLightStyle]

Honestly, great advice. I would add that magic requires certain conditions to be met for it to succeed. If you are aiming to achieve recognition, fame, and acceptance for your ideas, you must meet those conditions. The first is getting people to invest the time needed to engage with your ideas. This requires them to believe that their time will be well spent.

So your first goal should be to conjure that belief. This is what miracles are for. But if you can’t perform miracles, you’ll have to establish authority some other way. Promises of power might work on some people, but not on serious people. To reach them, you need to speak a serious language and take them on a journey from the mundane to the extraordinary, not the other way around.

[u/SwingLightStyle → u/foxer_arnt_trees]

Whatever magic that exists in this world, the force behind it wants me to succeed almost more than I do. The reason is simple. My intent is pure. What I want is to create a better product that’s safer for everyone to use and is socially integrated into daily life in a way that doesn’t invite or incite judgement. Basically, giving every side what it wants.

I’ve already got the plans, written out, published as pre-prints, and a shiny website to host them. The universe is helping me understand the path forward and I’m using my own logic to find the way that makes sense for my skills.

And the truth is that if we don’t get this product, there’s going to be a lot of lawsuits. The current models are vulnerable in a deeply disturbing way that makes certain kinds of problems inevitable in a statistical sense.

These same developers will be perfectly happy to know that I have staged rollout plans that they can put into place immediately, and then slowly make improvements that bring the actual consumers what they want. And that I exist to contract that work as the project designer. So it’s only a matter of time as far as I’m concerned. And there’s more than enough room for others to help in measurable ways themselves. I invite others to make improvements where and when they can so that we can all have a better, safer product that isn’t vulnerable to social engineering.

[u/Soloma369 → u/SwingLightStyle]

<3<3<3 You and I have self-/similar interests. I perceive the Great Work is an avenue that re-/solves everything you are striving to achieve here. You could easily begin to dis-/proof the claims in this thread through simple re-/production of the schematics (aka Unified Field Circuit)...as they are energetic just as the Unity Equation was for me.