Consume Product

When the rich man asked Jesus "how can I obtain eternal life" and Jesus answered "follow the commandments," this is the key to Heaven.

The man then says "I have observed these things from my birth" and Jesus, being happy with him, replies "if you seek perfection then sell all that you own and follow me."

Here we are delivered two distinct paths. The one is simply paradise. The second is "perfection." We read in the NT Jesus telling his followers on several occasions to essentially abandon life and surrender the flesh to God. Modern Christians in practically every single case fall FAR short of this. Frankly, if you have any personal money or Earthly asperation whatsoever, you are not *truly* Christian. You have not taken up the cross and you have not sought after perfection. You, and I, have thought about what this would entail and denied it flat out.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that you are not either saved or in favor with God the Creator. Job, David, Abraham, Constantine. Your Protestant preachers. 95% of Catholic and Orthodox priests. They seek after Christ but fall short, having remained in the flesh, though in varying levels dedicated to the Father God and his son Jesus the Christ. We belong to Christ's flock, and are indeed saved assuming we conform to Christian morality.. but we are not truly Christians in the same way the Apostles or Saints are.

Am I wrong? Why are you not capable of miracles? Why do you not prophecy? Did God *remove* these abilities from the faithful, or are these reserved for those who will be exalted above the Angels?

There are one religion: the true religion and worship of God the Creator, father of Jesus Christ. Subscribing to it gets you into Heaven. And there is the sect of the Christ, which frankly we should all aspire to fall into but will almost all fall short of. For this path your reward will be incomprehensible bounty in the world to come.

There's this Jewish guy I know who recently finished a PhD in math at my university and now works as a machine learning researcher at some startup company. Surprisingly, he agreed with most of you guys, and disagreed with me.

We were just chatting about tech stuff then I brought up that I was worried AI will take jobs from people in quantitative fields:

Me:
Eager to have your read on that topic, actually, since you're an insider. How long do you think we have until AI replaces tech jobs, research roles, etc, if you think that will happen at all?

Him:
It won't. AI is total garbage at reasoning and any claims otherwise are self interested marketing. AI will never replace jobs, rather it will make workers more efficient leading to more jobs being cost effective.

Me:
Have you tried out OpenAI's o1 and o1-Pro models? I tested them and they can answer some pretty advanced math problems, even some from the Putnam.

Not typically with perfect logical precision and proof, but it has a good chance of deducing the correct answer at the least.

But my understanding is that AI progress in this area will be very slow, is that correct?

Him:
https://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/eliza.htm

What you're discovering is the human need to impose a reflection of ourselves on anything we see, not intelligence in a machine.

Yes we use OpenAI as baseline models. Its most impressive behavior is producing deeply nested, valid json.

Me:
Are you familiar with chess/chess engines?

A few years back Google DeepMind released AlphaZero, and it came up with a very specific novel idea or concept that many top players employ now.

The idea to push flank pawns forward early in the game for several reason: taking space, chipping away at the opponent's pawn structure, and having your pawns closer to queening squares for the endgame.

This is essentially the robot equivalent of innovation, is it not?

Is this possible in chess because what is and what is not possible on a move by move basis is absolutely defined, while in domains such as math, we're constantly coming up with new definitions, structures, and constructions to then work from?

Him:
Any closed, discrete system can be modeled by reinforcement learning. The issue is that most of the world is not a closed system.

AlphaFold is the only actual contribution of deep learning to science.

The rest of the conversation is tangential.

My takeaway is that it seems like this boils down to philosophy more than anything else.

Can we construct a closed system that mimics a system in the real world, say, mathematics, well enough so that it can do the job better than most humans, say 99% or 99.9%?

Can we eventually train AI on people's brains? Then we could pick any genius out there to train the AI on and produce AI more capable than 99.9% of the human workforce.

Is this completely farfetched? I don't think so, Neuralink has already developed a prototype for a brain computer interface.

The fact that Elon Musk is behind Neuralink and advocates for the mass takeover of white collar American jobs by Indians indicates to me that he is a very evil person and a threat. I do not believe he has good intentions with Neuralink.

Right now news sources report James Wood's and Hunter Biden's homes were destroyed. Anybody here is following California fires damage?

We will kill them all. Be ready. Tell your friends to be ready. Don't lose hope. We will kill them once and for all.

Winter of love for conpro

<3