Zozano
@Zozano@aussie.zone
- Comment on Based 3 days ago:
Depends how you want to define PoC.
The author is fair skinned, like most Japanese.
So this quote does kinda come off as fetishistic.
Here’s the kicker though - who cares?
Author of a manga likes brown girls. If that bothers anyone, go find something worth giving a fuck about.
- Comment on Oh god 3 days ago:
The first time I saw this post: sunglasses The second time: 375mL can of beer.
- Comment on Finally a map to show me 3 days ago:
Fuck yeah, I’m moving to New Zealand!
- Comment on Jar need a jar 5 days ago:
Rookie shit. I’ve got 7 Fluttershy jars filled to the brim.
- Comment on Meditation is like drugs but better 6 days ago:
Fair assessment. Though I didnt go as far as to assert that it ‘was’ all bullshit - and is the reason I prefaced my comment with an admission of ignorance.
In any case, I’m convinced that my friend was not doing it right, either by his own failure to understand, or the lack of adequate instruction during guided meditation, because he didnt seem to have any meaningful insight into his own mind - beyond having a better imagination, which I suppose does translate to a more creative mind in general.
In addition, he didnt comprehend the idea of being able to ‘drop in’ to a meditative state when not actively practicing. After introducing him to mindfulness, he found it far more insightful and beneficial in general.
- Comment on Meditation is like drugs but better 6 days ago:
I talk like a guy who read a pop psychology book? That’s very judgmental. I did my best to articulate my thoughts and you arrogantly claim your own response is better, even though the court of public opinion regards my explanation as preferable.
You claim meditation is helpful for focusing attention, but this reply is the first which isnt riddled with grammatical or structural errors. You dont need flowery language to describe your sensations.
As for the dichotomy between drugs and meditation, it all depends what metric you’re evaluating. The ones aforementioned in my comment (which you’ve reduced to ‘getting high’) are the metrics I’ve used, but doesn’t encompass the entire spectrum of drug use. There are ways to compare them, and way they’re different - it’s a very narrow perspective to simply claim that one is just a more extreme version, or that one is better.
- Comment on Meditation is like drugs but better 6 days ago:
It might be more beneficial for some people to think of ‘meditation’ as ‘exercise’.
If someone says they’ve exercised, you dont automatically assume they’ve lifted weights, or done cardio, or stretches; we know how broad this term is.
One of my friends did ‘meditation’ during his karate days, but failed to understand a lot of basics around the science focused practices like mindfulness.
Turns out his dojo was practicing zen meditation, which involves trying to illicit vivid imagery in the mind (according to him).
Now, I dont know a lot about zen-meditation, maybe they did it as a cultural thing, but from what he was able to tell me, it sounded like a whole lot of junk mind flailing.
- Comment on Meditation is like drugs but better 6 days ago:
- Comment on Meditation is like drugs but better 6 days ago:
Let’s break this down: You’re essentially saying that paying attention to something is how we experience reality. Well, no kidding. If you pay attention to something, you’re going to notice it more. But that’s not some grand, cosmic revelation. That’s just basic human perception.
I think there’s a bit of overcomplication here. Yes, meditation involves focusing attention, but describing it as the “axis of your reality” is a bit much. The basic idea is that by concentrating, we become more aware of certain things, which does influence our experience. That’s a simple process, not some deep philosophical mystery.
The “wings” analogy also feels like an attempt to make meditation sound more magical than it really is. Meditation is a way to help focus the mind, find calm, and possibly gain insight. But it’s not about discovering some hidden set of “wings” or some grand spiritual power. It’s just a practice for mental clarity.
As for the comparison to drugs, both meditation and drugs alter consciousness, but in different ways. Drugs can give an intense experience, while meditation tends to offer a slower, more controlled shift in awareness. Saying that drugs are weak because they’re like a “dumb machine” doesn’t really capture the complexity of either experience. Both have their place, and both can have benefits, depending on what someone’s looking for.
In short, meditation isn’t some mystical or supernatural process, it’s about training attention in a specific way. The real value comes from consistency and practice, not some grand revelation.
- Comment on Meditation is like drugs but better 6 days ago:
Meditation is essentially a self-imposed flow state; an artifact of consciousness reflecting extreme focus. It’s akin to a runners high. Its features include ego dissolution, a distorted sense of time, reduced perceptions of pain, and feelings of bliss.
This is normally due to the release of neurotransmitters - dopamine, serotonin, endorphins and GABA, the same chemicals affected by common recreational drugs.
These features are regrettably short-cut with drug use. With training, these states of consciousness can be attained without any downsides, though at the cost of not being quite as powerful as drugs.
Think of it this way, meditation is like pouring happy juice on your brain slowly. Taking drugs is like placing the bottle on your head and smashing it with a hammer - sure, you’re going to get a lot of happy juice on your brain, but the glass might make it unbearable, you have no choice when it ends, and the next day you’re going to be forced to pick the shards of glass out.
Weird analogy I suppose, but it helps to illustrate why OP might prefer the slow drip.
At the end of the day, there’s no debate about whether meditation can produce these feelings - it’s simply a matter of whether a person has the time and interest to seek these things out, or whether they want to flood their brains with happy juice.
Personally, I live in both camps; I’ve had profound realizations about my own mind while meditating, but I also like getting zonked off my gourd.
- Comment on Meditation is like drugs but better 6 days ago:
Lol OP is actually right but not explaining it well in the comments.
- Comment on Post your favourite Berks 6 days ago:
The Fap Door
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
You’re not actually disagreeing with me, you’re just restating that the process is fallible. No argument there. All reasoning models are fallible, including humans. The difference is, LLMs are consistently fallible, in ways that can be measured, improved, and debugged (unlike humans, who are wildly inconsistent, emotionally reactive, and prone to motivated reasoning).
Also, the fact that LLMs are “trained on tools like logic and discourse” isn’t a weakness. That’s how any system, including humans, learns to reason. We don’t emerge from the womb with innate logic, we absorb it from language, culture, and experience. You’re applying a double standard: fallibility invalidates the LLM, but not the human brain? Come on.
And your appeal to “fuck around and find out” isn’t a disqualifier; it’s an opportunity. LLMs already assist in experiment design, hypothesis testing, and even simulating edge cases. They don’t run the scientific method independently (yet), but they absolutely enhance it.
So again: no one’s saying LLMs are perfect. The claim is they’re useful in evaluating truth claims, often more so than unaided human intuition. That you’ve encountered hallucinations doesn’t negate that - it just proves the tool has limits, like every tool. The difference is, this one keeps getting better.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
No, I’m specifically describing what an LLM is. It’s a statistical model trained on token sequences to generate contextually appropriate outputs. That’s not “tools it uses,” that is the model. When I said it pattern-matches reasoning and identifies contradictions, I wasn’t talking about external plug-ins or retrieval tools, I meant the LLM’s own internal learned representation of language, logic, and discourse.
You’re drawing a false distinction. When GPT flags contradictions, weighs claims, or mirrors structured reasoning, it’s not outsourcing that to some other tool, it’s doing what it was trained to do. It doesn’t need to understand truth like a human to model the structure of truthful argumentation, especially if the prompt constrains it toward epistemic rigor.
Now, if you’re talking about things like code execution, search, or retrieval-augmented generation, then sure, those are tools it can use. But none of that was part of my argument. The ability to track coherence, cite counterexamples, or spot logical fallacies is all within the base LLM. That’s just weights and training.
So unless your point is that LLMs aren’t humans, which is obvious and irrelevant, all you’ve done is attack your own straw man.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
I do understand what an LLM is. It’s a probabilistic model trained on massive corpora to predict the most likely next token given a context window. I know it’s not sentient and doesn’t “think,” and doesn’t have beliefs. That’s not in dispute.
But none of that disqualifies it from being useful in evaluating truth claims. Evaluating truth isn’t about thinking in the human sense, it’s about pattern-matching valid reasoning, sourcing relevant evidence, and identifying contradictions or unsupported claims. LLMs do that very well, especially when prompted properly.
Your insistence that this is “dangerous naïveté” confuses two very different things: trusting an LLM blindly, versus leveraging it with informed oversight. I’m not saying GPT magically knows truth, I’m saying it can be used as a tool in a truth-seeking process, just like search engines, logic textbooks, or scientific journals. None of those are conscious either, yet we use them to get closer to truth.
If you’re worried about misuse, and so am I. But claiming the tool is inherently useless because it lacks consciousness is like saying microscopes can’t discover bacteria because they don’t know what they’re looking at.
So again: if you believe GPT is inherently incapable of aiding in truth evaluation, the burden’s on you to propose a more effective tool that’s publicly accessible, scalable, and consistent. I’ll wait.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
Right now, the capabilities of LLM’s are the worst they’ll ever be. It could literally be tomorrow that someone drops and LLM that would be perfectly calibrated to evaluate truth claims. But right now, we’re at least 90% of the way there.
The reason people fail to understand the untruths of AI is the same reason people hurt themselves with power tools, or use a calculator wrong.
You don’t blame the tool, you blame the user. LLM’s are no different. You can prompt GPT to intentionally give you bad info, or lead it to give you bad info by posting increasingly deranged statements. If you stay coherent, well read and make an attempt at structuring arguments to the best of your ability, the pool of data GPT pulls from narrows enough to be more useful than anything else I know.
I’m curious as to what you regard as a better tool for evaluating truth?
Period.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
What makes you think humans are better at evaluating truth? Most people can’t even define what they mean by “truth,” let alone apply epistemic rigor. ChatGPT is more consistent, less biased, and applies reasoning patterns that outperform the average human by miles.
Epistemology isn’t some mystical art, it’s a structured method for assessing belief and justification, and large models approximate it surprisingly well. Sure it doesn’t “understand” truth in the human sense, but it does evaluate claims against internalized patterns of logic, evidence, and coherence based on a massive corpus of human discourse. That’s more than most people manage in a Facebook argument.
So yes, it can evaluate truth. Not perfectly, but often better than the average person.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
I’m good enough at noticing my own flaws, as not to be arrogant enough to believe I’m immune from making mistakes :p
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
Granted, it is flakey unless you’ve configured it not to be a shit cunt. Before I manually set these prompts and memory references, it talked shit all the time.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
Actually, given the aforementioned prompts, its quite good at discerning flaws in my arguments and logical contradictions.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
I often use it to check whether my rationale is correct, or if my opinions are valid.
- Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies 1 week ago:
This is the reason I’ve deliberately customized GPT with the follow prompts:
-
User expects correction if words or phrases are used incorrectly. Tell it straight—no sugar-coating. Stay skeptical and question things. Keep a forward-thinking mindset.
-
User values deep, rational argumentation. Ensure reasoning is solid and well-supported.
-
User expects brutal honesty. Challenge weak or harmful ideas directly, no holds barred.
-
User prefers directness. Point out flaws and errors immediately, without hesitation.
-
User appreciates when assumptions are challenged. If something lacks support, dig deeper and challenge it.
-
- Comment on Linux help and actual pros and cons 3 weeks ago:
New to Linux? Try NixOS! It’s great for beginners! (Hee hee)
- Comment on The window for a convincing UFO video has closed 3 weeks ago:
Ever been able to see your shoes, and then be blinded by sunlight?
- Comment on The window for a convincing UFO video has closed 3 weeks ago:
So i looked into the lens flare thing and I’m not so convinced.
Here’s the kicker:
The thing jammed radar.
Multiple pilots VISUALLY saw it.
It was confirmed to have descended 80,000 feet in less than a second, by both radar and a shipborne Aegis system, which prompted the pilots to take to the skies and check it out.
The videos we see aren’t the most important pieces of evidence, it’s supporting evidence.
Lens flare cannot explain the radar and aegis verification, and subsequent jamming, the visual confirmation, or the physics breaking performance characteristics.
The thing went from hovering stationary, to beyond the speed of sound without creating a sonic boom.
Anything made of meat would be liquefied by the inertia.
There was no visual propulsion, or heat signatures from it.
So, I reiterate, what the fuck is it?
- Comment on The window for a convincing UFO video has closed 3 weeks ago:
The new benchmark is the pentagon releasing the videos, with radar, and infrared, as well as testimonies to congress from people who are skeptical themselves.
Seriously though, what the actual fuck are those UAP videos… It’s fucking wild.
- Comment on Where Misato like women exist when I was teen. 4 weeks ago:
I think forgiveness is the wrong metric. It’s simply about understanding.
If someone ate my child to survive, I would probably never forgive them, but I could understand.
As this post illustrates, society deems female predators as less of a moral threat. If this post was from the POV of a woman saying “where were all the pedos when I was a teen” people would lose their shit.
I’m a victim of this intuition myself, though I justify it by considering the potential for physical abuse, even though mentally they’re comparable.
- Comment on Where Misato like women exist when I was teen. 4 weeks ago:
Its clear some of you horny bastards missed the point.
Misato wasn’t a pedo.
The whole show revolves around people who are starved of attention to the point of isolation.
Misato wasn’t in love with Shinji, she was desperate for connection.
It’s the same reason Shinji strangles Asuka, and the reason Asuka let’s him.
Everyone is so broken that they’ll take what they can get, even if the physical contact betrays their virtues.
- Comment on Thanks 5 weeks ago:
If I can’t kiss her wenis, then it’s a 1/7 at best.
- Comment on Archaeologists Find Creepy 2,400-Year-Old Puppets Atop El Salvador Pyramid 2 months ago:
My best guess, is based on the wide hips, and holding their bellies, along with the baby one, might be some kind of pregnancy / childbirth good-luck charm.
