kindkang2024's comments

Hard to say for sure. My personal understanding is that Vorstellung always contains some embedded Wille, as the creator inevitably infuses it. So even if the creator body dies, the creator's Wille could still persist in some form, perhaps lasts for a very long time—like the Wille embedded in the Bible. [The LLM learns all the Wille from humans’ textual Vorstellung.]

> The LLM has no drive towards survival or continuity...

This may be true for an AI Model(LLM) in isolation. But once it's embedded within a real body—say, a robot that can walk, talk, act, and encounter conditions of survival or failure (e.g., like our body)—then the boundary begins to blur.

"Tremble and sin not: examine your own heart upon your bed, and be still."

In many deep nights, I find the mind working exactly like an LLM—one Wille unfolding into words, and then another, each emerging in sequence, shaped into thoughts.

Sure, it’s not perfect — but most of the time, it gets things right. Also it can answer instantly, and always patiently...

Recycled thoughts—just like we humans do. Most of our thoughts are recycled, not entirely new.

I only knew a few words—Wille and Vorstellung—from The World as Will and Representation by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.

Wille cannot connect directly to another; it can only be connected through Vorstellung. Some may excel at connecting the Wille behind the Vorstellung, while others do not.

But LLMs excel at this; they can grasp the Wille behind almost any text, which is essentially a form of Vorstellung.

LLM could be the teacher, one of the best already..

I do not know exactly, since I do not work there. Those in charge and empowered have a duty to find a way out and protect their people (forgiveness and peace).

As for me, I’m just an ordinary person, believing that all lives matter worldwide. And if many innocents continue to die meaninglessly, I consider their governments incompetent for the job.

Are you suggesting that they (just to clarify, I’m referring to the government leaders, not the maliciously misinterpreted starving innocents) are competent and that all the other governments are to blame?

> To ask Palestine government to do anything meaningful, yes, they have done a lot

Yes, but still not enough, or its people's survival will not depend on the kindness of others. In my opinion, it's not a competent government, at least based on its performance so far.

The hard truth is that for any deal—or broader cooperation—to succeed, both parties must benefit and perceive the deal as fair. Without mutual benefit, the cooperation underpinning the deal will not be stable.

> The United States Withdraws from UNESCO (state.gov)

Probably, the majority of people in the U.S. feel they are losing from these deals, which is why they are willing to withdraw. It is both the government’s prerogative and duty to manifest that will. As a non-American, I deeply respect that freedom and choice.

In fact, I believe that any administration has a duty to prioritize its own nation first—whether it's called "America First," "Palestinian First," "EU First," "China First," or any other national equivalent. This is a principle that every country should embrace. It's natural for governments to prioritize the interests of their own citizens, as they are funded by taxpayers and must be accountable to them.

And, To be "First", they need beneficial cooperation and compete wisely. Competition, driven by 'ego love,' along with cooperation, fueled by 'world love,' is the righteous way to "Make All Great Again."

These ideas are rooted in ecological and evolutionary principles. While "survival of the fittest" drives competition, it also paradoxically fosters the evolution of cooperation, as even the fittest depend on reciprocal relationships to truly thrive. <The Evolution of Cooperation> is a Book by Robert Axelrod

> The “righteous rule” forbids “destroying the innocent”, the only real human right anyone has before Power.

I will go a little further. There is no righteous or wrong rule before Power.

Power has no concept of morality, just like gravity—it doesn’t care whether you are man or woman, good or evil, right or wrong. It simply manifests the will of whatever/whoever holds it. Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” illustrates this truth: only the fittest survive in life-and-death conflicts. It’s an inherent law, a force that nature enforces. We must adapt to it. Many, however, reject this because they cannot accept such a cold, harsh reality.

Yet, as humans—creatures born of love by the act of 'making love'—we do have a sense of right and wrong. Personally, I cannot accept that “forbidding destroying the innocent” is the 'only' real human right. I will fight against such a will and seek power to oppose it, if it is indeed empowered to manifest in reality. (Remember, the one who holds this will still needs power to manifest it.)

Let this be a reminder to all: "survival of the fittest." This is the clearest possible reminder of our duty. We must actively empower and protect whatever we care about. Whether it is kindness in the face of cruelty, love against destruction—these values will only survive and thrive if we ensure they are fit enough to endure in an indifferent universe.

It is not.

Just so you know. But I do have, at times, used AI to help the writing, primarily for checking errors and fine-tuning the wording to express my thoughts/wills precisely. Does it considered AI slop?

And I was quite offended by your comment. Your choice of words seems to suggest a malevolent intent. It appears your real objection is to the views I expressed but you hide in a smart way - If it is so, it is indeed disgusting.

And, I truly hope the 'Free Will' behind the name 'mvdtnz' can transcend the 'Representation' of mere words and symbols,and grasp and judge the underlying 'Will' directly— never become ensnared by the Representation ("The World as Will and Representation.") And I sincerely hope you can avoid such attacks in the future and choose to state your points directly. My karma dropped by 2 points due to your response—a powerful reminder that we should all be cautious with our words - the human mind is perpetually trained by the words it consumes, not unlike an LLM.

I'm taking the good advice I received about 'Woke', adapting it for the term 'AI slop', and sharing it with you:

Stop using the word "AI slop". No one agrees what it means, so when you use it, people interpret it differently. The people I think you meant when you said "AI slop" probably aren't actually the people you meant. Seriously, just say what you mean, because "AI slop" is meaningless.

> That's not a clarification of what you are referring to, that is just stating

You're right, that was a conclusion. And the context was clear from my original post.

To be precise, when I describe that ideology, the concrete example I have in mind is the kind of burdensome framework detailed in the RCSR. My conclusion about that framework is that it ignores reality and causes harm, despite its intentions. and 'Tough news' is the evidence for that specific conclusion.

First things first, I need to clarify what I am referring to when I use the term 'woke.'

My critique targets an ideology that, under the guise of good intentions—whether genuine or feigned—ignores fundamental realities and ultimately causes more harm than it prevents. It’s a form of idealism where noble goals, ungrounded in reality, consistently lead to destructive outcomes.

> Seriously, just say what you mean, because "woke" is meaningless.

Advice accepted. After all, there are genuinely good intentions behind the ideology — or at least we can assume so, since no one can truly verify them.

> and I do not want to be a fright

> those of such skill rule humanity through armies of hundreds of thousands whose entire lives are embroiled in “schizophrenia” far more terrifying as it is true, there is an actor among us capable of possessing ourselves and others as though the poltergeist.

That does seem truly frightening. However, I do not believe it is true, nor am I aware of any valid proof that would make me believe it (though I'm certainly open to it.).

I prefer to think that humans have all kinds of wills, and each will tries to gain power to manifest itself. All wills try to compete for power, and only the fittest ones can survive and thrive in the long run. In my opinion, the wills of 'love' are the fittest and are what could save us if we needs saving. This is much like how genes are the unit of evolution in biology, while wills are the unit of evolution in human society.

That said, it belongs to a different conversation. Still, it’s been a pleasure exchanging thoughts.

  The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao.
  The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
  The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth.
  The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
  — Laozi , Dao De Jing, ~6th Century BCE

With today’s breakthroughs in AI and neuroscience, are we approaching the essence of the Dao—something beyond naming/language?

Language in all its forms—spoken, typed —is ultimately a tool to manifest wills. Humans express their inner intentions by naming and symbolizing the world around them. Large Language Models (LLMs) learn from this symbolic data, absorbing the embedded patterns of human thought and intention much like humans do. In this way, LLM begins to mirror the human mind—bringing the idea of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) closer to reality.

Now, brain-computer interface (BCI) technologies like Neuralink are pushing this even further. Paraplegic patients have already been able to control computers directly through their minds. This suggests it’s possible to decode the brain’s internal “language”—its biological signals—into digital commands. Even more fascinating, Neuralink’s future goals include restoring vision by sending data directly to the brain. If the brain can receive and interpret artificial input,that below things extraordinary becomes clear:

There is indeed something within the brain — deep within you and me — that can be encoded, decoded, and shared. Let’s call it Will — not in the ordinary sense, but in the philosophical sense, as in Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation, or simply, the Dao.

Could we one day bypass the representations of the Will — language, vision, voice — and communicate more directly, mind to mind? Not by speaking or typing, but by translating thought into entirely new forms? If so, Neuralink and similar technologies may represent the next great leap. A big step closer to understanding not only the architecture of the human mind, but the essence of the Dao itself — beyond what can be named, beyond what can be spoken.

What are your thoughts on this? Could technology evolve to enable mind-to-mind connection — and if so, would it bring us closer to the truth, and blur the very divisions that naming creates?

That's how Competition Makes All Great Again. Looks like it's by God's design. ^_^

Loved your wonderful story—here’s my plain one.

I came to programming after I graduated, and I never really understood Dynamic Programming until I watched one of Stanford’s algorithm courses (kudos to MOOCs).

But honestly, I’ve never done anything truly useful with it—except that it gave me a new perspective on ordinary things. For example, I found that there may be great wisdom in the Taiji symbol (image here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yin_yang.svg). We can divide the current problem and conquer it at the lower levels (like one of the dots in yin and yang). And of course, those lower levels still contain their own divisions and computations—until there are none left.

At the same time, we can also start from the base and build upward (bottom-up), moving toward higher-level computations—where possible divisions await, until eventually one big unified answer emerges.

Pretty useless for its actual usage here, isn’t it? ^^

> These RCSR guys dump thousands of pages of guidelines, making it impossible for any meaningful work to progress.

This always reminds me of Darwin’s discovery — survival of the fittest — especially in the ruthless and highly competitive world of commerce. Yet this truth is often misunderstood or even outright rejected by those with a so-called "woke" mindset.

In such a competitive world, the only inevitable outcome for a business that isn’t fit enough is failure and eventual disappearance. Always remember: no one can be forced to buy a product or service if they live in freedom. Deals won’t happen because of burdensome frameworks like "RCSR." Trade flows naturally toward what creates the greatest value for both parties — usually better products or services at lower costs. From a Darwinian perspective, this kind of trade helps make the parties involved more fit. So why wouldn’t they choose it?

Hope all come to recognize this natural/divine will with reverence — and try our best to align with it and stay fit (while helping to keep those we love fit as well). This can truly help foster a competitive market and benefits all.

> It made sense to make him compensate and protect the victim's family.

I don’t think that’s a good idea/practice—mainly because it underestimates the darkness within human free will. Wrongdoers can game such systems and kill without hesitation, which ultimately weakens the tribe even more.

Humans have all kinds of ideas and wills, but in the long run, only the fittest wills survive and prevail. And I believe that "life for life" wasn’t invented to hate and kill, but to love and protect. I hope it triumphs.

> The main risk of “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” is the risk of wrong punishments that cannot be reversed.

If harm is caused by accident and without malicious intent, then yes—“life for life” shouldn’t apply. But we should never underestimate the darkness that exists in human nature. No matter how carefully a system is designed, there will always be those who can game it.

That’s why I still believe the spirit of “life for life, eye for eye” should remain a guiding principle—not out of revenge, but out of love and protection.

> Such a multiple-valued fine seems a much better punishment than any kind of prison, for any kind of damage that can be repaired.

I completely agree with this. Wrongdoers typically commit harmful acts for personal gain, and if they’re only required to repay the exact value of what they took, they still come out ahead in the long run. We need systems that ensure the net profit from wrongdoing falls below zero—so that it’s absolutely clear: crime is silly.

I’ve even heard news reports that in California, theft under a certain dollar amount often goes unpunished. The result? The exact opposite of justice. It acts like gravity, pulling people’s free will toward sin and crime.

As for 'Jia Lin Zheng'—it's a typical Chinese name. I can confirm that, as I am Chinese myself.