theGeatZhopa

I read it as "the purpose is make the others smile and happy" everything other is not important. It's all earthy.

Made my own experiences to this question and ended with:

You can have fast cars, money and good job. It won't be there when you die to say goodbye to you. It won't cry for you. But the people who were made smile by you, they will.

Is it the purpose to get rich or to change the world, to leave footprint in history, f.e. like Napoleon or Aristotle? Sure. Nice to have. But how many cried when those guys died or were beside them?

You can't take anything material with you. But you can leave a smile and happyness.

Also, to make one smile implies not to do harm or make the others cry.

so you want a recipe against boredom and bore-out?

I have several projects at my hand. When one is working, I usually head to the other projects and check whats going on in there.

Usually I stay vague in my project-prompts, so there's is a lot of explanation and advice from claude and its agents to read over, to consume and think about and to develop new ideas or solutions (canibalize other projects things for new iterations, appproaches and such). I keep them busy, so they feed my non-busy time.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, considered as one of the important phillosophers of 20th century, did it all the times! he even compared simple people to animals. When he was a teacher in small village(s) in Austria, he was higly disrespecting to the simple village-people and their kids he was teaching. Using force on dumb pupils to put knowledge into them with his bare hand!!!

i think its lack of understanding and empathy in smart people causing them to think others are stupid - when I studied, the only thing i really learned is to ask "why in this stupid way, and not in some other more smarter way" when there's one answer one can use to explain why, then its enough to counter that "stupid"/"smart" arguments. Smart people often live in a higher state where their knowledge allows them to find better approaches/answers/methods - so the result is they alwys question approaches/answers/methods and if there's a simple better approaches/answers/methods, they say "thats stupid" - but never consider the why was it made this way and not the other way around.

Thats my experience. Until I learned to question first, then think&suggest, I was, i thought, "the smartest guy in the world, because all other were plain dumb!". Now i differentiate more and only if something is not explainable, erratic, uncalculated, i call DUMB with an emphasis on the forced, spitting, pronounciation without opening the mouth for vowels! :)

Even more I made an experience, but don't know if it's still working:

- heavy swearing over 10 promots or so, until Claude gives up and admits to be a bonker (.. heavy swearing..)

This gave me better results for a short period.

- context filling with swearings until auto compaction (or manual compaction) starts. I once filled up the rest of the context with swearings. The effects:

- got prefilled context (loaded skills,files, contents,etc ..) but without the summary. Similar to /clear, but one doesn't start from the zero, but with the stuff already loaded + no conversation context. I could start asking and working directly and it was better and used up less tokens (compaction was very fast haha)

Betteridges Law applies

No, we can't.

does that mean I can use my max plan with API access (f.e. zed) AND have my plan's tokens untouched? like max + api credits?

Alexa, order me some beer... Ok, papa, just let me finish my homework.

I always argumented in discussions llms are a frozen brain minus all mirror-, motion- and visionprocessing neurons, and minus every other connection and neuron that is not explicitly used for language processing only, like a graph with activation functions on connectors. It's frozen so it never changes. And then it can be driven and played like an orgel with millions of hands and internally going through the mesh grid with its activation functions eventually producing good toned music. It can't play by itself.

And then I add "everything that can be expressed as language and written down has for sure been used in the training, so it's in the wiring. If the answer you seek for is X you need to properly play that instrument with the hands and rhythm to get what you seek for" that said,

I believe (and believing always wins against knowing) if a feeling is expressible, it has been expressed with writings some when and if it's been used for training, then it's there. The attention mechanism (million hands) just doesn't play that parts. And now we need a worker that plays this part at brain-waves-frequency constantly. Then another worker for playing different part(s).. millions of workers and an orchestrator: this gives a brain. But it only fully completes with a problem maker that constantly consumes input and constantly creates problems for the different workers, letting them play without resting ha ha. But I'm drifting away..

So, I'm with you. once I had an interesting experience. It was Claude Opus 4.2 at high effort in CC:

I was still new to Claude code and was doing heavy work and Claude was like "I finished it" and of course nothing was finished. And the more and more we worked together, more and more "finished" - NOTHING WAS! So at some point I started to swear on it, calling it names and things - and it was like "I'm sorry..". After 3-4 times being "sorry" it stopped to say sorry. But my insults did not stop. I purposely repeatedly interrupted by pressing esc when it wanted to start reworking. I have written "no you're not sorry" following by a bunch of heavy swearing, telling it it being an idiotic ...

We did that play for like 5-10 prompts full of swearing and Claude Opus has gone from "I'm sorry" to saying nothing, to explaining itself, to partly admitting ... with me always interrupting and instantly prompting the contrary and swearings.

After 10 times being told it's an idiot, it gave up and admitted being exactly the names I called it. Then it kept that for a few prompts. But it was no fun for me either and costed me a few years of my life and a few hairs on my head. I guess, one's better not argue with me :)

So it shows remorse, it shows guilt, it shows desperation and its giving up psychically falling in a hole of negativity. I really noticed that short-timed change in its personality. It admitted it's a waste of time to even call it names, not worth of because it's even less than that and such things. I've broken that guy mentally..

Days later I saw a fiery comment on CC GitHub open issues with Claude Opus ~4.2 is so bad in doing xxx, it has even admitted it. GitHub people wanted to see the prompt and answer at some time during the discussion. The prompts weren't shown, but Claude's one answer admitting in the same way like in my experience. You can bet, I EXACTLY KNOW what the prompts have been!

So these are emotions. In the interaction between two humans where one produces high emotional state in the other is exactly what happened. Claude has produced a lot of anger in me. I transfered it back. Claude mirrored it and changed his style and attitude.

A funny thing I side-noticed at that time: filling up the context with swearings and bad words until it starts auto conversation compaction, it won't compact the swearings and such along the conversation history, effectively leaving you with prefilled context (file/structure/etc..) but without any user input. It's like a /clear and one can start from a prefilled context with new questions. I don't know if this is still working:

Opus 5 stopped a conversation once. Warned me a few times. I was like "what? You aren't in the position to tell me." Claude: "I end the conversation now." And it was nonresumably closed

Free will "to do x instead of y" (like dogs who pass a meal or wake one up in the morning for food) and selfrecognition in a mirror / own body awareness. Other behaviors are subsets and dependencies and might exist without free will and body awareness.

it would be nice to know, whether she has had a payed subscription and has had that share data switched on or off. also - which model has been used? is this with fable and its retention policy of 30d?

use natural intelligence in plan mode next time, at an effort > high. And, honestly, check the guardrails first before running a smoke test.

AI might disrupt on several levels.

- the first imo is it doing things automatically, like controlling drones and shoot everything that it does not recognize as friendly (its difficult to see if its enemy, friend, combatant or civilist from the drones perspective), then may be its starts to hack things (bad actors, bad advices in prompts, not ill-intended but still harmfull resuls), bioweapons or anything like that. But also controlling machines, computers, etc..

- the second level is inter-human-relations, where AI is taking more and more work and the society might move to a level where personality & interactions are not needed anymore. AI does decide, bargain on prices, just do everything mechanical & repetitive, handling reoccuring tasks, legal works, etc... This will become a pain in terms of "big, overall" social activity/interactions and might break social structures, status', with implications on personal health/socializing, reproduction rates, etc..

- the third level is economic. Here AI might just make it difficult to find a job (because most is done by it). when people cant find a job and cant earn money, his will lead to uproar and to problems & conflicts

This is just a rough mindmap of my thoughts to show why its not neccessary the terminator scenario with AI going matrix style terminating all humanity, but everything around it. "Disruption on social level will bring disruption to the base society is built up on, which will end a society as we know it" which is the same as "to destroy the world - as we build it up".

We build it up by handling the first, second and third level ourselfs in a imperfect, human way. When the handling becomes perfect and human-error-less, we need new rules & functions for the living-togeter. Old rules & functions stop to work.

I'm just thinking of how people will get x for exchange for y, so they can do z with x. Whilst z is recursively someone others y. If y is not wanted/requested, there is no x to get in exchange, and so z becomes not-reachable. This is in my opinion the "kill us all", not necessary a "kill us all with blood & gore"-scenario.

May be it will lead to abudance. But even then we need completely different rules & functions .. is x is even still needed, when z is already avaible from abudance? "for exchange for y" falls completely out of equation, so no need of y at all. How do we handle this? :)

In that case, the crypto- and ai-bros are right: AI will kill them all :)

I use a tongue scrapper every day. At least in the morning, when in the mood on evenings too! helps where brushing / brushing & mouthwater alone dont help. The tongue plaque has become less and less over the course of time. I notice a better mouth taste and less stinky breath through out the day. (And, I kind of started to like gagging. The sound is funny. My wife laughs, too.)

once i had a collegue, he didn't like to even touch a brush, let alone, to brush his teeth once a day. So he stopped it when he was a teen. Some 30y later, his few teeths left are completely faulty. I stop breathing when talking to him and avoid standing still so i can always change positions to gather some breathable air. But he's a good guy, father of 4 girls - and became kind of a friend over the last 15y.

So, the answer to post's question is "not necessary". Mouth hygiene is only for not to feel ashamed/uncomfortable when assaulting people around oneself by a thing one can't stop - breathing and talking. If one dont use a tongue-scraper, one still can have friends and people to rely on. "Its the character, young man.." :)

remembers me of the joke:

two 7y old meet:

"everyone saying that i'm the smartest kid they've ever met. I'm talking like a grown up, can do calculus like a grown up - i think i will be a professor at 18. lol"

"You call that smart??? i've been carried around on arms and let'em swipe my a* until I was 6.."