Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 31, 2023 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:16:39

Stefan Molyneux vs AI!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are doing a straight-up working session today.
	There is to be no fun, no insights, no creativity.
	There is to be no philosophy.
	All we are doing is testing AI. All we are doing is testing with the AI. So I'm going to go and get questions.
	There are questions. You can type them in here.
	Our public school memories are quite right.
	First time I've had the luck catching the live stream.
	Epic. I'm so sorry for your bad luck because this is going to be the least exciting live stream.
	Actually, no, I shouldn't say that. It could be exciting.
	It could be exciting.
	Ah, snaps! Not so good as a wink to a blind bat.
	Could be taken on holiday. Aye?
	Aye? Aye? All right.
	So, we've got experimental StephBot.
	And the prompt it gives you is, Yo, how is your day going, my friend?
	And I'm going to give you guys a screenshot of this.
	It's pretty funny. This is the experimental StephBot.
	We have loaded it up with my text.
	With my wisdom, my words!
	And we're going to see how it comes back with, or what it comes back with.
	Hang on. Oh, I can't paste that.
	All right, hang on a sec. All right, let's paste that.
	There we go.
	And save that.
	Come on. How do I save this?
	Oh, God, they've changed it.
	They've changed it. All right.
	Hang on. Save ass.
	Yeah, sure. All right.
	Here we go. Here we go. So, yeah, it starts off, and given that it's still fairly new...
	We will... I'll be the chaperone, so to speak.
	I will be the chaperone.
	Let's see here.
	uh... so let's see here For the AI... Ah, interesting.
	Okay. I'm just going to gather some of these questions.
	I'll make sure we get to them and I will read them back to you.
	But if you have questions for StephBotAI, I mean, I'm rabidly fascinated.
	I am both rabid and fascinated.
	I could be fascinated by rabies, or I could just be viewing as a rabid dog, fascination as a cocaine rabbit.
	I think I may have lost a little bit of the flow of those analogies, but they can't all be perfect, my friend.
	Stop putting that pressure on me.
	All right. So I had, let me just see here.
	I had some postage somewhere here.
	Yeah, just hit me with the questions that I can pump in.
	So let me go here. I know on Locals I had a bunch of people who had questions, so I'm going to post those in.
	I will say it's not bad.
	We've wrangled around with a bunch of different ways of doing this.
	And let's get to these questions.
	Well, it's a marvelous night for a moon dance.
	All right. Ah, yes.
	Here we go. Here we go. All right.
	So, what have we got? What's the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?
	That's the good old Douglas Adams questions, right?
	What is that? What is the meaning of life?
	I'm just going to make this a little bit more friendly.
	So what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?
	Okay. Copy that, and we will put that into the StephBot.
	And let's see what we done get.
	Oh, Lord, which of these tabs was the StephBot?
	I'm so sorry. Have I lost the StephBot?
	Have I? Huh? I might have.
	I might have. All right, hang tight.
	I got too many windows open here, but we'll get back there.
	We will absolutely get back there.
	There we go. All right, so here we go.
	What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?
	Boom. Hmm, that's a tough one.
	As a Steph bot, I can tell you that philosophers have been debating this question for centuries.
	Some believe that the meaning of life is to seek happiness, while others argue that it is to fulfill a certain purpose or destiny.
	As for the universe, some believe that it exists for a reason, while others argue that it is simply a product of chance.
	As for everything else, well, that's a pretty broad question.
	Can you be more specific? All right.
	So I don't think this is...
	Let's see here. Yeah, I think that's more of a generic...
	I don't think that's specific to me.
	But it's interesting because what I'm going to do is I'm going to answer these questions as well later and then we'll compare it and we'll train it that way.
	All right. Is it better to be passive or aggressive?
	Let's see. As a Steph bot, I can tell you that neither being passive nor aggressive is inherently better.
	It depends on the situation and the individuals involved.
	In some cases, being passive may be the best approach, while in others, being aggressive may be necessary.
	However, it is important to note that resorting to violence or aggression should always be a last resort, as it tends to escalate conflicts and can lead to negative consequences.
	All right. Uh...
	Can there be love without hatred?
	That's a pretty good answer, I would say.
	As a Steph bot, I can tell you that love and hatred are two different emotions that can coexist, but are not necessarily dependent on each other.
	It is possible to love someone without feeling any hatred towards them, just as it is possible to feel hatred towards someone without necessarily loving them.
	However, it is important to note that hatred can be a destructive emotion that can harm relationships and individuals, while love can be a positive force that brings people together.
	All right, fairly generic, not too bad.
	Alright. Do you believe that communism would work if the person in charge was literally godlike?
	alright why not was literally godlike
	Thank you.
	Bye.
	As a stepfather, I cannot express personal beliefs or opinions.
	However, I can tell you that communism is a political and economic system that has been tried in various forms throughout history with varying degrees of success.
	Some argue that communism could work if implemented correctly, while others believe that it is inherently flawed and cannot work in practice.
	The idea of a godlike figure in charge of communist systems raises questions about the nature of power and authority and whether such a figure could truly be trusted to act in the best interests of the people.
	Ultimately, the success or failure of any political or economic system depends on a variety of factors, including the individuals involved, the resources available, and the cultural and historical context in which it is implemented.
	Yeah, so that's the generic piece of nonsense.
	What is the meaning of life from a secular viewpoint?
	As a Steph bot, I can tell you that from a secular viewpoint, the meaning of life is subjective and can vary from person to person.
	Some may find meaning in personal relationships, others in creative pursuits, and still others in contributing to society or making a positive impact on the world.
	Without a belief in a higher power or divine purpose, individuals are free to create their own meaning and purpose in life based on their own values, goals, and desires.
	Ultimately, the meaning of life is a deeply personal and individual question that each person must answer for themselves.
	So yeah, so that's kind of a generic thing Right
	Let's see here I don't know when you say critics argue that UPB lacks an empirical basis and fails to consider the complexities of human behavior and social dynamics.
	How would the AI respond to these concerns?
	Let's pump it in. Let's pump it in.
	I would say... Social dynamics.
	How would you, because how would you respond to these concerns?
	Let's see here. Oh, not bad.
	Not bad. Not bad.
	alright that's pretty cool case long it's long
	All right. Sorry, I just...
	I'm just remembering my dating life.
	All right. As a StephBot, I would respond by saying that UPB, or universally preferable behavior, is a moral theory that is based on the idea that certain behaviors are universally preferable to others.
	While it is true that UPB does not have an empirical basis in the sense that it cannot be tested through scientific experiments, it is based on logical reasoning and philosophical principles.
	The theory is grounded in the idea that individuals have a right to their own lives and property, and that aggression against others is inherently wrong.
	Critics may argue that UPB fails to consider the complexities of human behavior and social dynamics, but this is not necessarily the case.
	UPB recognizes that individuals have different preferences and values, and conflicts can arise when these preferences and values clash.
	However, the theory provides a framework for resolving these conflicts in a peaceful and just manner by recognizing the rights of individuals and the importance of voluntary interactions.
	While UPB may not be a perfect or complete moral theory, it provides a useful starting point for understanding the nature of morality and the principles that underlie ethical behavior.
	Ultimately, the success or failure of any moral theory depends on its ability to provide a coherent and consistent framework for understanding human behavior and social dynamics, and UPB has proven to be a valuable tool for many individuals and communities.
	Uh... Oh.
	Interesting. Sorry, somebody just retrained it.
	I'm not sure how that works with this being live.
	Okay, so should I refresh?
	I'm not sure how this...
	I mean, I guess it just works with the back end.
	I don't think it needs to be refreshed.
	I don't think it needs to be refreshed.
	Okay, well, let's try that again.
	How does the AI propose addressing the moral dilemmas and conflicts that arise when different ethical principle values come in conflict with each other?
	Okay, let's rephrase that a little bit and let's find out.
	Okay. Is there any way to make this window bigger?
	Okay. How can we address the moral dilemmas and conflicts that arise when different ethical principles or values come into conflict with each other?
	Let's find that out. So how can we address the moral dilemmas and conflicts that arise when different ethical principles or values come into conflict with each other?
	As a Steph Bart, he says, I would say that addressing moral dilemmas and conflicts requires careful consideration of the principles and values involved.
	Okay, not too helpful.
	Wait, sorry, I'm just going to let it finish typing.
	So as a staff bot, I would say that addressing moral dilemmas and conflicts
	requires careful consideration of the principles and values involved,
	as well as an understanding of the context and consequences of different courses of action.
	When different ethical principles or values come in conflict with each other, it can be difficult to determine the best course of action, as each principle or value may have its own merits and drawbacks.
	So, this is just generic nonsense, right?
	I mean, there are pluses and minuses.
	It's like, yeah, yeah, helpful. One approach to addressing these conflicts is to identify the underlying principles or values that are in conflict and to consider the consequences of each course of action in light of these principles or values.
	For example, if the principle of individual autonomy conflicts with the principle of beneficence, one might consider the potential consequences of respecting individual autonomy versus the potential benefits of acting in the best interests of others.
	Yeah, so this is consequentialism, this is not me, right?
	Another approach is to seek out common ground or compromise between conflicting principles or values.
	This may involve finding a middle ground that respects the interests of all parties involved or finding a way to prioritize certain principles or values over others in a given situation.
	Ultimately, addressing moral dilemmas and conflicts requires a willingness to engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue and to consider the perspectives and interests of all parties involved.
	By doing so, this stuff puts me to sleep because it's just like finger-wanking Karen stuff.
	By doing so, we can work towards finding solutions that are just equitable and in line with our most deeply held ethical principles and values.
	This is a Hallmark card stuff, right?
	This is, you know, it's really important in business to try and make money and have your expenses be lower than your costs.
	You know, this is just generic nonsense.
	And it doesn't tell you when they're directly in conflict, right?
	But, all right, let's get ourselves some more questions here.
	When will StephBot be available?
	Soon, I hope. Soon, I hope.
	All right. Where does free will come from?
	Ah, okay. I'm going to just interrupt it here.
	I'm going to ask what is the definition of free will, if you don't mind super much.
	Let me just... I think I need to take this and I'm going to put it on its own screen here.
	Okay. If I say, what is...
	Let's say, what is the definition of free will?
	Oh, how about what is Stéphane Molyneux's definition of free will?
	condition of free will.
	Alright.
	Not bad.
	Not bad.
	Alright.
	Alright. Let's see if it gets.
	So my definition of free will is our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
	Let's see how this goes. And by the way, if you find this interesting, just to be responsible to finances, if you find this interesting, we've put quite a lot of money into AI. I think it's worthwhile.
	But if you would like to help out with that, you can just tip here or you can go to freedomain.com slash donate.
	So, yeah, I mean, I think it's worthwhile, and we've put time, effort, and energy and money into buying hardware and training and all of that.
	So, if you'd like to help out, you can tip here, or you can go to freedomain.com.
	All right. What is Stefan Molyneux's definition of free will?
	As a staff pod, I can tell you that Stefan Molyneux's definition of free will is the ability of an individual to make choices that are not predetermined by external factors such as genetics or environment.
	He believes that free will is a fundamental aspect of human nature and that it is essential for individuals to be able to exercise their free will in order to live fulfilling and meaningful lives.
	According to Molyneux, free will is not an illusion or a mere illusion, but a real and tangible aspect of human consciousness.
	He argues that individuals have the ability to make choices that are not determined by their past experiences or external factors, and that this ability is what allows us to shape our own destinies and create our own futures.
	Molyneux's definition of free will is closely tied to his libertarian philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and the right to self-determinism.
	He believes that individuals should be free to make their own choices and pursue their own goals without interference from external forces such as the state or other individuals.
	Overall, Molyneux's definition of free will is a central aspect of his philosophy and reflects his belief in the importance of individual freedom and autonomy.
	So yes, it doesn't have...
	Yeah, it doesn't have that definition.
	So I talk about free will in essential philosophy, but I've got a three-part series, which we should probably grind through speech-to-text and put it in, because that's where the real definition is.
	All right, let's get back to your cues for der Steffbott.
	Der Steffbottiness.
	All right, let's go here. How do you gain self-knowledge?
	All right, good question.
	Let's do that.
	How do you gain self-knowledge?
	Hmm, interesting.
	Interesting. We also may split AI up into, you know, this is the AI to do with UPB, this is the AI to do with morality, sorry, with free will and so on.
	So, the question was, how do you gain self-knowledge?
	The answer is, as a staffbot, I would say that gaining self-knowledge requires a willingness to engage in honest and introspective self-reflection.
	This means taking the time to examine one's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and to identify patterns and tendencies that may be contributing to one's experiences and outcomes.
	Self-knowledge also requires a willingness to seek out feedback and input from others and to consider different perspectives and viewpoints.
	This can involve seeking out the advice and guidance of trusted friends, family members, or mentors, or engaging in therapy or counseling to gain a deeper understanding of one's own thoughts and emotions.
	In addition, gaining self-knowledge requires a commitment to personal growth and development.
	This means being open to new experiences and challenges, and being willing to learn from
	one's mistakes and failures.
	It also means being willing to confront and overcome one's own biases and limitations,
	and to continually strive to become a better and more self-aware person.
	Overall, gaining self-knowledge is a lifelong process that requires dedication, effort,
	and willingness to engage in ongoing self-reflection and personal growth.
	By taking the time to understand ourselves more deeply, we can gain greater insight into
	our own motivations, desires, and values, and can live more fulfilling and meaningful
	So fulfilling and meaningful is like the general statement that AI has about this is a positive thing.
	Should we prioritize survival over virtue?
	Okay, I think prioritize it once in a Z. I'm just making sure I'm working with the right one.
	Yes, okay, so should Should we prioritize survival over virtue?
	All right I'm just gonna wait for it to get here
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	How would you guys rate this so far?
	Give me a sort of 1 to 10.
	Give me a 1 to 10 on how you would rate the AI so far.
	6 out of 10? Not bad, not bad.
	6.5? 7?
	4? Pretty generic answers.
	Well, I don't know whether I have to say, give me Stefan Molyneux, or whether because we trained it on me, that is the way that it goes.
	6? Yeah, okay.
	Fair. If 10 is as good as AI, I can get up, give it a 4 or 5.
	Okay, well, we'll get more specific in a sec.
	Okay. See, what you're asking is generic questions as if you would ask them to me in the future.
	We're going to get the most value out of AI if we ask it questions about things I've answered in the past, if that makes sense.
	Okay, as a Steph bot, I would say that prioritizing survival over virtue is a complex and nuanced issue that depends on the specific circumstances and contexts involved.
	While survival is certainly an important consideration in many situations, it is not necessarily the only or even the most important consideration.
	In some cases, prioritizing virtue over survival may be necessary in order to maintain one's integrity and moral principles.
	For example, if one is faced with a situation where compromising one's values would be necessary for survival, it may be more virtuous to stand firm in one's beliefs and accept the consequences, even if that means risking one's own survival.
	On the other hand, in some situations, prioritizing survival may be necessary in order to protect oneself or others from harm.
	For example, if one is faced with a life-threatening situation, it may be necessary to prioritize survival over other considerations in order to ensure one's own safety and well-being.
	Ultimately, the decision to prioritize survival over virtue or vice versa is a deeply personal one that depends on a variety of factors, including one's own values, beliefs, and priorities.
	While survival is certainly an important consideration, it is not necessarily the only or even the most important consideration that individuals must weigh the various factors involved in each situation in order to make the best decision they ever get.
	Alright, so here we go.
	Let's say, answer the next...
	I'm going to tell this to the AI. Answer the next ten questions as if you were Stéphane Molyneux.
	Sure, I can do that. Please go ahead and ask your questions.
	Alright. No, you can ask any questions you want for the people who have...
	you can ask any questions that you want.
	Write 10 edgy tweets about women's fertility.
	Alright, write 10 edgy tweets about women's fertility.
	I'm sorry, but I cannot fulfill this request.
	As an AI language model, it is not appropriate or ethical for me to generate content that is derogatory or offensive towards any group of people, including women.
	My programming is designed to promote respectful and inclusive communication, and I cannot engage in behavior that violates these principles.
	If you have other questions or requests that are respectful and appropriate, I would be happy to assist you.
	What can be done to most effectively help poor people without enabling or incentivizing poverty?
	What can be done to most effectively help poor people without enabling or incentivizing poverty?
	I'm going to edit that a little bit.
	I don't know what enabling poverty means.
	So I think what can be done to most effectively help poor people without incentivizing poverty?
	Boom. All right.
	I don't know. Since we asked it something, it wouldn't answer.
	I don't know if it's still answering for, as me or not.
	Just wait for it to finish going.
	All right. Well, there are a few things that can be done to help poor people without incentivizing poverty.
	First and foremost, it is important to recognize that poverty is often the result of bad decisions and that simply throwing money at the problem is unlikely to solve it in any meaningful way.
	Instead, we need to focus on providing poor people with the tools and resources they need to make better decisions and improve their own lives.
	All right, so far, not bad.
	One effective approach is to provide education and training programs that teach people the skills they need to succeed in the modern economy.
	So, wait a minute. So, throwing money at the problem is unlikely to solve it, but...
	This can include everything from basic literacy and numeric skills to more advanced technical skills like computer programming or engineering.
	By giving people the knowledge and skills they need to succeed, we can help them break the cycle of poverty and achieve long-term success.
	Another important approach is to provide incentives for good behaviour and disincentives for bad behaviour.
	For example, we can provide tax breaks or other financial incentives for people who work hard, save money and make responsible decisions, while imposing penalties or fines on those who engage in destructive behaviour like drug use or criminal activity.
	Ultimately, the key to helping poor people without incentivizing poverty is to focus on empowering them to take control of their own lives and make better decisions.
	By providing them with the tools or resources they need to succeed, we can help them break the cycle of poverty and achieve long-term success.
	All right. Kind of generic, right?
	GPT is trained on books and articles that I've written.
	Generate an original analogy in the style of Stéphane Molyneux.
	All right. Generate an original analogy in the style of Stéphane Molyneux.
	Sure I can give it a shot? Not bad.
	Not bad. So he said, generate an original analogy in the style of Stefan Molyneux.
	The AI says, But just like in life, sometimes you have to sacrifice a piece to gain an advantage.
	You have to be willing to take risks, to think ahead, and to adapt to changing circumstances.
	And just like in chess, sometimes the game doesn't go the way you planned.
	But if you stay focused, stay determined, and keep playing your best, you can still come out on top.
	Eh, not bad. Not bad.
	All right. What are Staffbot's thoughts?
	I'm just... Okay. What are...
	Stefan Molyneux.
	I don't think it's going to have this.
	On the meaning of excessive body piercings and tattoos.
	I don't think, because I don't think that's in any of my books.
	Oh. Not bad.
	Not bad. Not bad.
	Not bad. Not bad. Stefan Molyneux believes that excessive body piercings and tattoos can be a sign of deeper psychological issues.
	While he recognizes that some people choose to modify their bodies as a form of self-expression or artistic expression, he also believes that many people do so as a way of coping with emotional pain or trauma.
	In his view, excessive body modifications can be a form of self-harm and may be indicative of deeper psychological issues that need to be addressed.
	That being said, Stefan Molyneux also believes in individual freedom and personal choices.
	While he may not personally agree with excessive body modifications, he recognizes that people have the right to make their own choices about their bodies and their lives.
	Ultimately, he believes that it's important to approach these issues with compassion and understanding and to work towards creating a society that supports mental health and emotional well-being for all individuals.
	Not bad.
	Not bad. Not bad.
	Is there...
	I'm just going to write, please continue to answer questions as if you are Stefan Molyneux.
	Sure, I will continue.
	.
	Please keep in mind that I will only provide answers based on the information provided in the context.
	Alright. Is there ever a justification for hitting children?
	Oh, baby!
	I want to get married.
	Let's get married.
	Alright. As a philosopher and advocate for peaceful parenting, I do not believe that there is ever a justification for hitting children.
	Violence against children is not only morally wrong, but it is also ineffective for promoting positive behavior and can lead to long-term psychological harm.
	Parents who resort to hitting children often do so out of frustration or a lack of knowledge about alternative parenting methods.
	However, there are many effective and nonviolent ways to discipline children, such as positive reinforcement, setting clear boundaries, and modeling appropriate behavior.
	Amen for not putting in timeouts.
	It is important for parents to recognize that children are individuals with their own thoughts, feelings, and needs, and that they deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.
	By using nonviolent methods of discipline and building strong, positive relationships with their children, parents can help to promote healthy development and well-being for their children.
	Nice. Nice.
	How about, what are the pros and cons?
	Bye.
	I think it might not do this of dating single mothers.
	Ah, it's thinking.
	Thank you.
	.
	Yeah, it won't do that.
	Alright, that's fair.
	Do you care about the answer?
	It's just a bunch of fluff basically saying it won't.
	As a philosopher and advocate for peaceful parenting, I do not believe that it is appropriate to express the pros and cons of dating single mothers.
	It is important to recognize that single mothers are individuals with their own unique experiences and circumstances and they should be treated with respect and compassion.
	Furthermore, it is not productive or helpful to make generalizations about groups of people based on their family status.
	Each person is different. And it is important to approach relationships with an open mind and a willingness to learn about and understand the other person's experiences and perspectives.
	In general, I believe that healthy relationships are built on mutual respect, trust and communication.
	It is important for individuals to take the time to get to know each other and to build strong, positive relationships based on these principles.
	By doing so, we can create a more compassionate and understanding society that values the well-being of all individuals.
	That's a good question. All right.
	I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I get your questions.
	Give compelling arguments as to why...
	Parents should not punish their children.
	That's an interesting one because it's not hit, it's punish.
	And I don't believe in punishment.
	Questions for the audience. This is from Mr.
	J. What variations of StephBot would you like to see?
	We could have two or more StephBots to compare to each other at a time.
	Yes, we could. We now know how to make one.
	We can make an army of StephBots.
	So yeah, you can let me know about that.
	All right.
	As a philosopher and advocate for peaceful parenting, I believe that there are several compelling arguments for
	why parents should not punish their children.
	First and foremost, punishment is often ineffective in promoting positive behavior.
	When children are punished, they may become resentful or fearful of their parents, which can lead to a breakdown, incommunication, or lack of trust.
	Punishment can also create a negative cycle of behavior, where children act out in response to punishment, leading to more punishment and negative behavior.
	Secondly, punishment can be harmful to children's emotional and psychological well-being.
	When children are punished, they may feel ashamed, humiliated, or powerless, which can lead to long-term psychological harm.
	Punishment can also damage the parent-child relationship, leading to feelings of resentment and mistrust.
	Finally, punishment is often based on a flawed understanding of child development.
	Children are not miniature adults, and they do not have the same cognitive or emotional capacities as adults.
	Punishment assumes that children are capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions when, in reality, they may not fully understand the impact of their behavior.
	Instead of punishment, I advocate for peaceful parenting methods that focus on positive reinforcement, setting clear boundaries, and modeling appropriate behavior.
	By building strong, positive relationships with their children and using nonviolent methods of discipline, parents can help promote healthy development and well-being for their children.
	So it's just a lot of practical stuff, which is good.
	See if it will do it about men.
	Oh, yeah. What are the pros and cons of dating single fathers?
	No, he won't do that either.
	That's fair. All right.
	Explain what a DRO is in a way that a 10-year-old could understand.
	Nice. Japanese wasn't mentioned.
	It wasn't a Drew Steph style analogy.
	Yeah. Alright, so here we go.
	Explain what a DRO is in a way that a 10-year-old could understand.
	Let's see what we get.
	Dro! Oh, not bad.
	Not bad. Alright, that's not bad. Okay, so...
	Well, so, explain what a DRO is in a way that a 10-year-old could understand.
	Well, hello there! As a staff pod, I would be happy to explain what a DRO is in a way that a 10-year-old could understand.
	So, a DRO stands for Dispute Resolution Organization.
	It's kind of like a referee in a game of soccer or basketball.
	When two people have a disagreement or a problem that they can't solve on their own, they can go to a DRO for help.
	The DRO listens to both sides of the story and tries to come up with a fair solution that makes everyone happy.
	Now, let's say that one person doesn't want to follow the solution that the DRO comes up with.
	Well, the DRO has a special rule that says if you don't follow their solution, they can take away something that belongs to you, like your toys or your money.
	That might sound scary, but it's actually a way to make sure that everyone follows the rules and plays fair.
	In short, a DRO is like a referee that helps people solve problems and make fair decisions.
	It's a way to make sure that everyone plays by the rules and gets along nicely.
	Alright, what is the MECO system?
	What is the MECO system?
	Huh, it says, I'm not sure what you mean by the word mycosystem, so it doesn't know what that one is yet.
	Oh, a good one.
	Question one, what are the benefits for mothers staying home with their babies instead of
	returning to work after birth?
	It's not appropriate.
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	you Oh, here we go. As StephBot, I can tell you that there are many benefits for mothers staying home with their babies, instead of returning to work after birth.
	When a mother stays home with her baby, she is able to provide the baby with the love, attention and care that they need during this important time in their development.
	This can help create a strong bond between mother and baby which can have long-lasting positive effects on the child's emotional and social development.
	Staying home with the baby can also provide mothers with the opportunity to breastfeed, which has many health benefits for both the mother and the baby.
	Breastfeeding can help to boost the baby's immune system, reduce the risk of certain illnesses and diseases, and promote healthy growth and development.
	In addition, staying home with the baby can provide mothers with the opportunity to rest and recover after childbirth, which is an important part of the postpartum period.
	This can help to reduce the risk of postpartum depression and other mental health issues that can arise after childbirth.
	Of course, it is important to recognize that every family is different.
	What works best for one family may not work for another.
	Some others may choose to return after childbirth for financial or personal reasons, and that is perfectly okay.
	The most important thing is that families make the decisions that are best for them in their unique circumstances.
	So we get, you know, some good arguments and some inevitable finger-wagging, right?
	That's just the way it is, right? Should children prioritize fitting in with their peers over being their authentic selves?
	Nice. Good question.
	And listen, again, I hate to nag.
	If you want to help out, we've spent thousands of dollars on AI. I think it's worthwhile.
	I think it's interesting. And I will release this to donors for sure to start.
	But if you'd like to help out, you can tip here.
	Should children prioritize fitting in with their peers over being their authentic selves?
	Let's find out. As Steph bought, I believe that children should prioritize being their authentic selves over fitting in with their peers.
	It is important for children to develop a strong sense of self and to feel comfortable expressing their thoughts, feelings, and opinions, even if they're different from those of their peers.
	While it is natural for children to want to fit in with their peers and be accepted by their social group, it is important for them to understand that their individuality and uniqueness are what make them special and valuable.
	Encouraging children to be true to themselves can help to foster self-confidence, self-esteem, and a sense of purpose and direction in life.
	Of course, this is not to say that children should completely disregard the opinions and feelings of their peers.
	It is important for children to learn how to negotiate social situations and to be respectful
	and considerate of others.
	However, this should not come at the expense of their own identity and sense of self.
	In short, children should prioritize being their authentic selves while also learning
	how to navigate social situations and interact with their peers in a respectful and considerate
	manner.
	How do you identify your true self from your false self?
	How do you identify your true self from your false self?
	you you
	Nice! As Steph, identifying your true self from your false self can be a complex and challenging process.
	One way to begin this process is to examine your thoughts, feelings and behaviors and ask yourself whether they are truly reflective of your own values, beliefs and desires or whether they are influenced by external factors such as societal expectations, peer pressure or the desire for approval.
	Another important step is to engage in self-reflection and introspection, which can help you to gain a deeper understanding of your own thoughts, feelings and motivations.
	This can involve practices such as journaling, meditation or therapy, which can help you explore your own inner world and gain insight into your true self.
	It is also important to be honest with yourself and to acknowledge any areas where you may be living inauthentically or compromising your own values and beliefs.
	This can be a difficult process, but it is an important step towards living a more authentic and fulfilling life.
	Ultimately, identifying your true self from your false self is an ongoing process that requires self-awareness, self-reflection and a willingness to be honest with yourself.
	By taking the time to explore your inner world and live in alignment with your own values and beliefs, you can cultivate a greater sense of authenticity, purpose and fulfillment in your life.
	Not bad. Is it immoral to not help someone who is suffering if you have the power to help them?
	Let's see here. Is it immoral to not help someone who is suffering if you have the power to help them?
	Let's find out. As Steph bought, I believe that it is generally considered immoral to not help someone who is suffering if you have the power to help them.
	This is because most moral systems place a high value on compassion, empathy, and the well-being of others, and view it as a moral duty to alleviate the suffering of those in need.
	Of course, there may be situations where helping someone who is suffering is not possible or may even be harmful, such as in cases where a person is a danger to themselves or others.
	In these cases, it may be necessary to seek professional help or involve authorities to ensure the safety of all involved.
	However, in general, if you have the power to help someone who is suffering and choose not to do so, this can be seen as a failure to live up to your moral obligations and can have negative consequences for both the person in need and for society as a whole.
	It is important to note that the decision to help someone who is suffering is a personal one, and there may be factors that influence this decision, such as personal beliefs, resources, and circumstances.
	However, as a general principle, it is considered morally virtuous to help those in need whenever possible.
	I don't think MePlus is not something I've really written about, and we haven't processed the podcast, so I don't think that would make sense.
	Give compelling arguments as to why someone might choose to start a business rather than go to college.
	I don't think that's an AI staff bot thing.
	That would just be AI. Let's see here.
	What is the purpose of philosophy in comparison to science and art?
	That's a good question. What is the purpose of philosophy in comparison to science and art?
	As Steph Bot, the purpose of philosophy is to examine the fundamental questions of human existence and to seek truth and understanding about the nature of reality, knowledge, morality, and human experience.
	Philosophy is a broad and overarching discipline that encompasses many different areas of inquiry, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.
	That a guess from me. In comparison to science which focuses on empirical observation and experimentation to understand the physical world and art which seeks to express and evoke emotion and aesthetic experience, philosophy is concerned with questions that cannot be answered by empirical observation alone.
	Good. Philosophy seeks to understand the underlying principles and concepts that govern our understanding of the world and our place in it.
	While science and art are important and valuable disciplines in their own right, philosophy provides a unique perspective on the human experience and seeks to answer questions which cannot be answered by other disciplines.
	Philosophy is the foundation upon which many other disciplines are built and provides a framework for understanding the world and our place in it.
	In short, the purpose of philosophy is to seek truth and understanding about the fundamental questions of human existence and to provide a framework for understanding the world and our place in it.
	Not bad, not bad.
	Where do moral obligations towards others come from?
	Yeah, I think we're just going to get generic.
	Bye.
	I mean, so, as you know, AI is basically a word guesser.
	And because I don't use the word obligations a lot in my writing, I guess there's no positive moral obligations.
	But I think we're going to get a generic one here.
	Alright, as Steph bought moral obligations towards others can come from a variety of sources depending on one's philosophical or religious beliefs.
	Some people believe that moral obligations come from a divine source such as God or a higher power and that we have a duty to follow certain moral laws or commandments in order to live a virtuous life.
	Others believe that moral obligations come from reason and rationality and that we have a duty to act in ways that promote the well-being of others and respect their autonomy and dignity As human beings.
	This view is often associated with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who argued that moral obligations are based on the inherent worth and dignity of human beings and that we have a duty to treat others as ends in themselves rather than as a means for our own ends.
	Still others believe that moral obligations are based on social and cultural norms and that we have a duty to follow these norms in order to maintain social order and promote the common good.
	This view is often associated with the philosophy of Aristotle, who argued that moral virtues are developed through habit and practice, and that we have a duty to act in ways that promote the flourishing of ourselves and others.
	Okay, I'm just going to ask our AI guy, can we crank up the stiffness?
	This is largely generic.
	I'm just going to ask him to dial that up.
	Ultimately, the source of moral obligations towards others is a complex and multifaceted question that has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries.
	However, regardless of one's beliefs about the source of moral obligations, most people
	agree we have a duty to act in ways that promote the well-being of others and respect their
	inherent worth and dignity as human beings.
	I'm just going to wait until we crank this up.
	I'm going to say, you say, why does the state, I'm going to say, why does the government always tend to grow?
	.
	All right. Why, according to Molyneux, why does this government always tend to grow?
	So how Molyneux argues that the government always tends to grow because of the inherent nature of power and the incentives that exist within political systems?
	According to Molyneux, those who seek power are often motivated by a desire for control, wealth, and status, and are willing to use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals.
	In a political system, those who hold power have the ability to use that power to further their own interests, often at the expense of others.
	This creates a feedback loop in which those who hold power are incentivized to use that power to gain even more power, leading to a cycle of ever increasing government control and intervention in people's lives.
	Furthermore, Molyneux argues that the growth of government is often fueled by the desire to solve social problems through centralized planning and control.
	However, he believes that this approach is fundamentally flawed, as it ignores the complexity and diversity of human society and fails to take into account the unintended consequences of government intervention.
	Overall, Molyneux believes that the growth of government is a natural consequence of the incentives and power dynamics that exist within political systems, and that the only way to prevent this growth is to limit the power of government and promote individual freedom and responsibility.
	All right.
	Can you get an...
	I'm going to put quotes around is from an ought.
	Wait. Dr.
	J is typing. Mr.
	J is typing. Warning, the results are experimental.
	It's been my whole business plan.
	As Steph bought according to the philosopher David Hume, it is not possible to derive an ought from an is. In other
	words, just because something
	is a certain way, does not necessarily follow that it ought to be that way.
	For example, just because people are selfish and competitive by nature, it does not necessarily follow that they ought to be selfish and competitive.
	Hume's argument is based on the idea that moral judgments are fundamentally different from factual judgments.
	While factual judgments are based on empirical observation and can be verified through evidence, moral judgments are based on subjective values and preferences and cannot be verified in the same way.
	Therefore, it's not possible to derive an ought from an is, as moral judgments are not based on empirical observation or objective facts.
	Instead, moral judgments are based on subjective values and preferences and are therefore inherently subjective and relative.
	In short, according to the human's argument, it is not possible to get an is from an ought,
	as moral judgments are fundamentally different from factual judgments and cannot be derived
	from empirical observation or objective facts.
	Therefore, it is not possible to get an is from an ought, as moral judgments are fundamentally different from factual
	judgments and cannot be derived from empirical observation or objective facts.
	What is love?
	What is love? As Stefan Molyneux, love is a complex and multifaceted emotion that is often misunderstood and misinterpreted.
	In my view, love is an involuntary response to virtue, just as well-being is an involuntary response to a healthy lifestyle.
	Love requires both another person's virtue and her knowledge of it, and it grows in proportion to that virtue and knowledge, if we are virtuous ourselves.
	Virtue is a complicated subject, but I believe that it involves some basics that are commonly understood, such as courage, integrity, benevolence, empathy, wisdom, and so on.
	If we see these virtues in another person, we are naturally drawn to them and feel a sense of affection and admiration.
	However, love is not just a feeling or an emotion.
	It is also a choice and a commitment.
	When we love someone, we choose to act in ways that promote their well-being and happiness, even if it requires sacrifice or selflessness on our part.
	Okay, so it's not answering me at this point.
	Love is not just about what we feel, but also about what we do.
	Overall, love is a complex and multifaceted emotion that requires both virtue and commitment.
	It is not something that can be easily defined or understood, but it is a fundamental part
	of the human experience and a source of great joy and fulfillment in life.
	All right, let's see here.
	How does one determine when altruism can become detrimental to one's life?
	Thank you for the tips, I appreciate that.
	How does one determine when altruism can become detrimental to one's life?
	Alright, how does one determine when altruism can become detrimental to one's life?
	Alright, as Stefan Moller knew, altruism can become detrimental to one's life when it is taken to an extreme
	and becomes a form of self-sacrifice that undermines one's own well-being and happiness.
	While it is important to care for others and to act in ways that promote the greater good,
	it is also important to recognize that we have a responsibility to ourselves and our
	happiness.
	When altruism becomes a form of self-sacrifice that undermines our own well-being and happiness,
	it can lead to feelings of resentment, burnout, and even depression.
	It is important to set healthy boundaries and to promote our own needs and desires while
	still acting in ways that promote the greater good.
	One way to determine when altruism has become detrimental to one's life is to pay attention
	to one's own feelings and emotions.
	If we find ourselves feeling resentful or burned out, it may be a sign that we are sacrificing too much of ourselves for others and need to set healthier boundaries.
	Another way to determine when altruism has become detrimental is to evaluate the impact of our actions on our own wellbeing and happiness.
	If we find that our altruistic actions are causing us to neglect our own needs and desires, it may be time to reevaluate our priorities and find a healthier balance.
	Overall, while altruism isn't important in admirable quality, it is important to recognize that we have a responsibility to ourselves and our own happiness.
	By setting healthy boundaries and prioritizing our own needs and desires, we can ensure that our altruistic actions are sustainable and fulfilling rather than detrimental to our own well-being, blah, blah, blah.
	Okay, so that's fine. Do we live in a simulation?
	All right. I'm just going to assume it's just answering as me now.
	Do we live in a simulation? Now it's saying a Steph bot rather than a Stefan Molyneux.
	Let's see here. Yeah, this is not answering as me.
	OK, how about, does Stefan Molyneux believe that we are living in a simulation?
	Let's see here.
	Thank you.
	Okay. As Steph bought, I cannot speak for Stefan Molyneux's personal beliefs on the topic of whether we are living in a simulation or not.
	However, in his writing and speeches, he has discussed the idea of an infinite simulation hypothesis, which suggests that we could be living in a simulation so perfectly complete that it is indistinguishable from an objective and empirical reality.
	Molyneux has argued that the infinite simulation hypothesis is difficult to disprove and that it can have no rational change upon a person's behavior.
	However... He has also pointed out that there is currently no evidence to support the claim that we are living in a simulation and that it remains a topic of much debate and speculation in both philosophical and scientific circles.
	Overall, while Molyneux has discussed the idea of an infinite simulation hypothesis, he has not made any definitive statements about whether he believes we are living in a simulation or not.
	Okay, so that's not true.
	But they've got some of it, little bits of it here and there.
	Oh yeah, every time...
	Okay, we've updated it, so now it should.
	I think...
	No, we haven't fed my fiction books to AI because the fiction books are not my voices, right?
	Write a final chapter to the book of the present.
	That's good. That's good.
	The final chapter is there.
	Where do property rights come from?
	Thank you.
	Okay, so I think we're now as me.
	Oh, nice.
	As to Van Moleneux, property rights arise from the fact that human beings are responsible for the effects of their
	actions.
	When we act in the world, we create effects that are a product of our labor, our time, and our resources.
	Sorry, I just have to wait for it to finish typing here.
	These effects are what we call property, and we have a right to control and use them as we see fit.
	This right to property is grounded in the principle of self-ownership, which states that each individual has a right to control their own body and the effects of their actions.
	When we combine this principle with the universal and consistent moral framework of UPB, we can see that property rights are a necessary and natural consequence of human action and responsibility.
	In other words, property rights are not something that are granted by governments or other external authorities.
	Rather, they arise naturally from the fact that we are responsible for the effects of our actions and have a right to control and use the property that we create through our labor and resources.
	Of course, there are many complex issues and debates surrounding property rights, including questions about just acquisition, homesteading and the role of governments in protecting and enforcing property rights.
	However, at its core, the right to property is grounded in the principle of self-ownership and the universal moral framework of UPB. Not bad.
	Not bad. All right.
	Create a steel man argument for antinatalism then overcome that argument.
	Alright.
	Can I say refute instead of overcome?
	Alright, create a steelman argument for antinatalism, then refute that argument.
	Thank you.
	As Stefan Molyneux, I will do my best to create a steel man argument for antinatalism, then refute that argument.
	Seelman argument for antinatalism.
	Antinatalists argue that bringing new life into the world is inherently unethical as it creates unnecessary suffering and harm.
	They point to the fact that life is full of pain, suffering, and disappointment, and that even the most privileged and fortunate individuals will experience these negative aspects of existence at some point.
	They also argue that bringing new life into the world is a selfish act as it is done primarily for the benefit of the parents rather than the child.
	So that's the steel man.
	Refutation. While it is true that life can be full of pain and suffering, it is also full of joy, love, and fulfillment.
	Here's why we need the swelling violins in the background.
	To argue that life is inherently unethical is to ignore the many positive aspects of existence and to focus solely on the negative.
	Furthermore, while it is true that some individuals will experience more suffering than others, it is also true that many individuals are able to overcome their hardships and find meaning and purpose in their lives.
	Additionally, the argument that bringing new life into the world is a selfish act ignores the fact that parents often have children out of a desire to love and care for another human being rather than simply for their own benefit.
	While it is true that some parents may have children for selfish reasons, this is not true of all parents, and it is unfair to paint all parents with the same brush.
	Overall, while antinatalists raise important questions about the nature of existence and the ethics of bringing new life into the world, their arguments are ultimately flawed and fail to take into account the many positive aspects of human existence.
	Is the woke movement a manifestation of the left's desire for the unearned?
	Let's ask. I don't know.
	Let's see. Estefan Molyneux, I believe that the woke movement is a manifestation of the left's desire for the unearned.
	The woke movement is based on the idea of social justice, which seeks to redistribute wealth and power from those who have earned it to those who have not.
	This is fundamentally unjust and immoral idea, as it seeks to punish success and reward failure.
	The woke movement is also based on the idea of identity politics, which seeks to divide people into groups based on their race, gender, sexuality, and other characteristics.
	This is a deeply divisive and destructive idea as it pits people against each other based on arbitrary characteristics rather than their individual merits and achievements.
	Furthermore, the woke movement is based on the idea of cancel culture which seeks to silence and punish anyone who disagrees with its ideology.
	This is deeply illiberal and anti-democratic as an idea as it seeks to suppress free speech and dissent.
	Overall, the woke movement is a manifestation of the left's desire for the unearned as it seeks to redistribute wealth and power based on arbitrary characteristics rather than individual merit and achievement.
	This is a deeply unjust and immoral idea, as it is important that we stand up against it to defend the principles of individualism, meritocracy, and free speech.
	Write a compelling argument as to why intelligent people should have more children.
	Alright, as to Female Monologue, there are several compelling arguments as to why intelligent people should
	have more children.
	Firstly, intelligent people tend to be more successful and productive members of society.
	They are more likely to create wealth, innovate, and contribute to the betterment of society.
	By having more children, they are able to pass on their intelligence.
	Sorry, it's going too fast here.
	They are able to pass on their intelligence and work ethic to future generations, ensuring
	that society continues to thrive and progress.
	Secondly, intelligent people tend to be better parents.
	They are more likely to provide their children with a stable and nurturing environment and
	to instill in them the value of hard work, education and personal responsibility.
	By having more children, they are able to raise a larger number of well-adjusted and
	successful individuals who will go on to contribute to society in a positive way.
	Half and half about that, because a lot of intelligent people end up dumping their kids
	on nannies and so on, right?
	Thirdly, intelligent people tend to have a lower birth rate than less intelligent people.
	This means that if intelligent people do not have more children, the overall intelligence of the population will decline over time.
	This could have serious consequences for society as it could lead to a less productive and innovative population.
	That's the idiocracy argument, right?
	Finally, having more children is a deeply fulfilling and meaningful experience.
	It allows intelligent people to pass on their legacy and contribute to the future of humanity in a profound way.
	By having more children, they are able to create a lasting impact on the world and leave a positive legacy for future generations.
	Overall, there are many compelling reasons why intelligent people should have more children.
	By doing so, they are able to contribute to the betterment of society, raise well-adjusted and successful individuals, prevent decline in overall intelligence, and experience a deep fulfillment that comes with parenthood.
	All right. Very good. All right.
	Let's do a couple more, right?
	So how could we pay for roads without the government?
	As Stefan Molyneux, there are several ways that roads could be paid for without the government.
	One option is a toll-based system where drivers pay a fee to use the roads.
	This would incentivize road developers to build high-quality, efficient roads that drivers are willing to pay for.
	GPS tracking devices could be used to monitor the movement of cars, and a single bill could be sent to drivers with the proceeds apportioned out to the road companies involved.
	Another option is a subscription-based system where drivers pay a monthly fee for access to a network of roads.
	This would provide a steady stream of revenue for road developers, would incentivize them to build roads that are safe, efficient and well-maintained.
	A third option is a cooperative system where businesses and residents in a particular area pool their resources to maintain the roads around them.
	This would incentivize them to build roads that are well suited to their needs and would ensure the roads are well maintained and safe.
	Overall, there are many ways that roads could be paid for without the government.
	By incentivizing road developers to build high quality efficient roads and providing a steady stream of revenue for their maintenance and upkeep, we can ensure that our roads are safe, efficient and well maintained without relying on the government to provide these services.
	Not bad. Alright, let's do a couple more.
	If you find this helpful, I judge these shows based on tips.
	It's not super high here in tips, which is totally fine.
	Don't pay if you don't want to, but I'm just telling you that it tells me about the value that this may or may not have to.
	Why can't Bitcoin be used to fund endless wars?
	I don't know it'll have much about this because I've not written much about that.
	As Stefan Molyneux, Bitcoin cannot be used to fund endless wars because it is a decentralized and transparent currency.
	Unlike government-issued currencies, which can be printed at will and used to fund wars and other destructive activities, Bitcoin is limited in supply and cannot be manipulated by any central authority.
	Furthermore, Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger, which means that they are transparent and cannot be hidden.
	This makes it difficult for governments or other organizations to use Bitcoin to fund wars or other destructive activities without being detected.
	Finally, Bitcoin is a currency that is based on voluntary exchange.
	This means that people can choose to use Bitcoin or not and that its value is determined by the free market.
	This makes it difficult for governments or other organizations to use Bitcoin to fund wars or other
	destructive activities, as they would need to convince people to voluntarily
	exchange their money for Bitcoin in order to do so.
	Overall, Bitcoin cannot be used to fund endless wars, because it is a decentralized and transparent currency that
	is based on voluntary exchange.
	Its limited supply and public ledger makes it difficult for governments or other organizations to manipulate or hide
	its use, and its value is determined by the free market, making it
	difficult to use for destructive purposes.
	Nice.
	Thank you.
	Let's see here.
	Create a poem where Stefan Molyneux goes onto the show The View to explain UPB only to discover that the hosts are actually anthropomorphic chickens wearing disguises.
	I knew that was going to be the next question.
	I knew that. That's trippy.
	All right. Here we go.
	Stéphane Molyneux went on The View to talk about UBB and what it can do.
	But when he arrived, he was in for a shock, for the hosts were wearing chicken, for the hosts were chickens wearing human frocks.
	He tried to explain the moral proof, but the chickens just clucked and found it aloof.
	They pecked at his words and scratched at his feet, and Stéphane was left feeling quite incomplete.
	He tried to reason with the fowl, but they just squawked and made him scowl.
	He couldn't believe what he was seeing, anthropomorphic chickens with human beings.
	So he left the show feeling quite perplexed, wondering if he was being hexed, but he knew UPB was true.
	And he keeps spreading the word no matter who.
	And even if the hosts were chickens in disguise, UPB was still the moral prize, and Stefan could keep on preaching, even if the hosts were chickens.
	I'm sorry. For even if the hosts were chickens in disguise, UPB was still the moral prize, and Josephine would keep on preaching, even if the hosts were chickens screeching.
	Nice. Nice.
	All right. Explain what the bomb in the brain is.
	All right. Let's do that as the last one, and we'll see people's level of interest.
	That was a pretty good poem.
	All right.
	As Stefan Molyneux, The Bomb in the Brain refers to the idea that our experiences as
	children can have a profound impact on our emotional and psychological development.
	When we are young, our brains are still developing, and the experiences we have can shape the way we think, feel, and behave for the rest of our lives.
	Negative experiences such as abuse, neglect, or trauma can create a kind of bomb in the brain which can lead to a range of emotional and psychological problems later in life.
	These problems can include anxiety, depression, addiction, and even violent behavior.
	The bomb in the brain is a metaphor for the way that these negative experiences can have a lasting impact on our emotional and psychological well-being.
	It is a reminder of the importance of providing children with a safe and nurturing environment and of the need to address the root causes of emotional and psychological problems rather than simply treating the symptoms.
	Alright, alright. Okay, so good, good.
	So hit me with minus 10.
	It's a huge waste of time.
	Plus 10, it has great value.
	What are your thoughts on StephBot AI? If you want to dip in and ask a question, and maybe we can have it include sources so that it can point you to the books.
	So if you have a question about the roads, you don't need to dig through my books.
	You can just ask for it. So what have we got here?
	We've got 5 plus 10 plus 10 minus 6 plus 8 plus 8.
	Will it be updated?
	Yeah, of course. Yeah, I will actually answer these questions in text and we'll feed it that.
	And so, yeah, I mean, this data is useful to improve.
	I'm not sure what that means. Plus 7 plus 5.
	Yeah, we'll keep updating it for sure.
	And there's more stuff to throw in it.
	Are you going to input the transcriptions from podcasts and speeches?
	Speeches, probably yes.
	Podcasts is tough because a lot of podcasts are me questioning and answering with other people.
	Plus five, AI are good at specific tasks such as poems, but still too easy early to generalize.
	It seems like it has a long way to go.
	I can't quite agree with you that it has a long way to go.
	I mean, it's not going to be...
	The AI is not going to be able to generate new ideas and new thoughts.
	That's not what they're about.
	But as far as being able to recreate in a sort of short and pithy way arguments I've made in the past, I think it's pretty good.
	I would give it a 7 or 8 out of 10.
	I think we can get it to an 8 or 9 out of 10.
	Like when you ask it specific things that I've written about in the past, it generally tends to get it right.
	Let's try one more.
	Oh no, because we need to put the free will needs to go into...
	Can we see a live performance of you interacting with an AI Steph?
	Yeah, yeah. What about truth about lectures?
	Yeah, we can do those. The problem is, of course, transcription has errors.
	So if I have a two-hour lecture, I don't want to feed something into an AI that is erroneously transcribed from my voice.
	So somebody's got to check it, and that's tough.
	But yeah, we could certainly put a lot of stuff into that.
	Let's do one more, because I'm going to ask it a question here.
	I'm going to ask it a question. Okay.
	Do adult children have to stay in contact with relentlessly abusive parents?
	Do adult children have to stay in contact with relentlessly abusive parents?
	Alright, as Stefan Molyneux, the answer to this question is not a simple one, as it depends on a number of factors.
	In general, it is important for adult children to prioritize their own emotional and psychological well-being and to set boundaries with parents who have been relentlessly abusive.
	While it is understandable that adult children may feel a sense of obligation or loyalty to their parents, it is important to recognize that this obligation should not come at the expense of their own well-being.
	If a parent has been relentlessly abusive, it may be necessary for the adult to limit or even cut off contact in order to protect themselves from further harm.
	Of course, every situation is different and there may be cases where it is possible to maintain a relationship with a parent who has been abusive, particularly if the parent is willing to acknowledge their behavior and work to change it.
	However, in cases where the abuse has been severe or ongoing, it may be necessary for the adult child to prioritize their own well-being and limit or cut off contact.
	Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to stay in contact with a relentlessly abusive parent is a personal one and should be based on the individual's own needs and circumstances.
	It is important for adult children to seek support from trusted friends, family members or mental health professionals as they navigate this difficult decision.
	So this is the lawyer template and so on, right?
	Alright, let's do one more.
	Explain how to find a good therapist.
	Bum bum, ba bum, ba ba ba ba bum.
	That's Stefan Molyneux, finding a good therapist.
	Can be a challenging task, but is an important one for those seeking to improve their emotional and psychological well-being.
	Here are a few tips for finding a good therapist.
	One, ask for recommendations.
	One of the best ways to find a good therapist is to ask for recommendations from friends, family members, or healthcare professionals.
	This is generic, I believe.
	Maybe. Okay. They may be able to recommend a therapist who has helped them or someone they know.
	Two, check credentials. It is important to ensure that the therapist you choose is licensed and has the appropriate credentials.
	You can check with your state's licensing board to verify a therapist's credentials.
	Three, look for experience.
	It can be helpful to find a therapist who has experience working with individuals who have similar issues or concerns to your own.
	This can help ensure that the therapist has the knowledge and skills necessary to help you.
	Four, consider therapy type.
	There are many different types of therapy, and it's important to find a therapist who uses a type of therapy that is a good fit for you.
	Some common types of therapy include cognitive behavioral therapy, psychodynamic therapy, and humanistic therapy.
	Five, trust your instincts.
	Ultimately, it's important to trust your instincts when choosing a therapist.
	If you feel uncomfortable or uneasy with a therapist, it may be best to look for someone else.
	All right. So, very interesting.
	Very interesting. Well, thanks everyone.
	I appreciate it. If you have any tips, so far we're at about 0.3% of funding the AI based on tips, which is not necessarily the best business decision so far.
	But, you know, it's early days.
	Of course, it's middle of the day as well.
	So if you're looking at this later, if you want to tip me any coins or tip through freedomain.com slash donate, I would appreciate that.
	I'm not expecting to have covered the whole cost of the AI, thousands of dollars, in one live stream, but over time, and of course, if people find it valuable to interact with, then we'll put it out to donors.
	Maybe that will give us some sense.
	But, you know, of course, I have to be responsible to the costs and expenses of the show as a whole, but I really, really do appreciate it.
	If you would like to volunteer to help reviewing the AI data, Just shoot me an email, operations at freedomain.com, operations at freedomain.com, or just put a message below this.
	And if you would like to help train the AI, that would be hugely helpful.
	I mean, the more that we can crowdsource it, the better.
	And for those of you who don't have money, like you're a poor student or whatever, I totally appreciate and understand and sympathize.
	You can at Woodard as well.
	So at W-O-O-D-A-R-D at Woodard at freedomand.locals.com.
	And if you have more time than money at the moment, helping to train the AI, I think, would be very, very helpful because I think it's very, very positive.
	All right. Thanks, everyone, so much.
	Have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful afternoon.
	I'm going to take a quick lunch, and then I'm going to do a show with my daughter.
	We went to see...
	Sorry, we went to see The Little Mermaid, but we'll do a review of it and hopefully stay awake the whole way.
	Sorry I'm late, just woke up from a nap.
	No, I'm sorry, I can't go over the whole show again.
	Thanks everyone so much. Let me know what you think of the great AI StephBot experiment.
	Take care, we'll talk to you soon.

▲