Actually you should look up the info there, you actually don’t which is what a lot of fansubs rely on, they mostly only will own your translation if they chose to formally translate and publish commercially a translation in that country. If they don’t, you can distribute your translation for free. There is a lot of variability on this per country too, with very interesting laws in greece and germany in particular.
There is something I don’t entirely understand about psychedelic use. While it might end up being temporary, there is a lot of data that it alters neural structures in fundamental and relatively poorly understood ways. Consciousness itself is very poorly understood. Why take a chemical that is a bit like rolling the dice on how it’s going to modify fundamentally what you are? If you are struggling with severe depression or anxiety or otherwise, I get it… but in most other cases, why?
I post this as someone deeply curious about trying them, yet my mind and intellect are things I cherish when it comes to my enjoyment of life.
For sure there are some therapeutic effects when kicking someone who is stuck into totally unknown territory. But as far as I've seen most of these people want to get into a mode to understand something better (themselves, the world, spiritual things...). I think some drugs are good at creating the illusion of understanding something.
As a mathematician I can assure you that the feeling of understanding is an emotion. It's mostly disconnected from truth/false values. People can be emotionally happy, be exited and have a group feeling of understanding - but then you give them a counterexample and it turns out everything was just wrong.
A drug might be able to trigger the emotions, but the things about deeper understandings are most likely just illusions. I think I understood that when some guy who was a very simple mind (he was into sniffing glue - and bummed for alcohol) told me about his wonderful experiences of understanding the world.
For some people having a child fundamentally changes their definition of love and their belief in how it’s possible to relate to other human beings.
This is mostly disconnected from true/false values. The facts haven’t really changed. Yet it can be so powerful and rewarding few would trade it regardless of the risks/pain/hardships that can come with it.
Experiences can be profound and change perspectives in a way that’s so rewarding and wholistic it’s really impossible to describe.
Comparing such experiences to math doesn’t really work, apples and oranges.
But I think your concern about negative fundamental modification seems higher than the reports suggest it ought to be. There are thousands upon thousands of people who've used these drugs without serious consequence. I'd say that in general they're less of a concern than alcohol.
As others have said, some combination of perspective on realistic outcomes and risk/reward.
Every experience we have changes us; every job, every family interaction, every book we read and travel we enjoy (hopefully). Learning musical instruments of foreign languages changes neuronal connections. Is there a goal to maintain a static brain over time? (honest question, reasonable if some people think the answer is "yes").
I think there is a misunderstanding about the therapeutic effects of psychedelics. The drugs themselves may alter physical structure in your brain a little bit - but what they really do is temporarily give you a different perspective - they change your point of view. That skewing of perspective is (I believe) where the therapeutic effect from these drugs arises.
If you are deeply curious about these types of drugs, you need to remember that they all wear off eventually. Lots of very smart and happy people have taken these drugs and experienced no harm.
This is somewhere between "False" and "So misleading about an astronomically small risk that we should just treat it as False".
Driving or riding in a car is a more likely cause of PTSD - you might be involved in a horrific crash.
Nothing in this world is risk free, but if we dropped the cultural stigma and history, and these were just discovered by Pfizer today and went through regular FDA processes, this class of drugs would have a risk profile lower than SSRIs, benzodiazepines, and most other drugs used for psychiatric purposes.
Have you known at least a few people who have taken psychedelics, then had a chance to see how they are doing in the years afterwards?
The harm is much more apparent to observers than it is to the psychedelic user him or herself.
If I'm wrong about psychedelics, I'm wrong in my claim that they routinely cause PTSD specifically, not about the claim that they routinely cause some kind of long-term harm. I admit that they also often improve people, including people whose psychedelic use was unsupervised. I.e., I'm making a statistical claim, not a categorical one.
I get my PTSD claim from Dr K of the "Healthy Gamer" YT channel, who is a Harvard-train psychiatrist. I can provide a citation if there is interest.
Tales of a person's life and level of functioning steeply declining after taking a psychedelic, then staying that way for years, are common, e.g., on this web site over the years. Here is one example, and yes, I realize that in the same comment section are people who claim to have been helped by psychedelic use.
If we ignore what people say about their own experience with psychedelics and focus only on what people say about people they have known who have taken the drugs, the reports are overwhelming negative unless the reports are by researchers and clinicians reporting on psychedelic use in which the entire experience is supervised by a skilled therapist (which I do not criticize).
P.S., benzos and SSRIs are both bad drugs that do more harm than good, IMHO, so your assertion that psychedelics are better than them is not saying much.
long time lurker but created an account to reply here. i've taken plenty of psychedelics from around 18 y/o on a regular basis (once or twice every other month with frequent breaks of several months and then more intense periods of heavier usage) until i was about 29 and lost interest. i've tried DMT, LSD (my favorite. have done large doses of 800 microgram), different kind of shrooms...
drugs have repeatedly given me profound and connected experiences. it makes you feel connected with people and the world because your ego is reduced and you let everything in your surroundings fill you up instead. your mental barriers and preconcieved notions fall apart and you just accept what is happening around you.
I know several people with hereditary mental health disorders who's ailments have been trigger by drug use but i don't think you can blame the drugs here. a traumatic experience could trigger it too.
while i would not call my self and addict, i was a thrill seeker in my younger years for sure. today i'm a successful SWE, homeowner in a major western city and have a loving partner. plenty of my friends who were with me doing these drugs have similar lives today.
> I know several people with hereditary mental health disorders who's ailments have been trigger by drug use but i don't think you can blame the drugs here. a traumatic experience could trigger it too.
If they had a 50% chance of developing the disorder without taking the drug and an 80% chance of developing it with the drug (for example) of course you can blame it. There has to be some nuance here: these drugs are not nearly as dangerous as many make them out to be, but they are not without risk either. People can be seriously harmed by them, or, more likely, just have a bad time.
> these drugs are not nearly as dangerous as many make them out to be, but they are not without risk either
yes i agree. my girlfriend has never done any drugs except alcohol, weed (handful of times) and prescribed drugs from the dr. i have never recommend her to try psychedelics but I am always honest about what a massive positive impact it had on my life. i would consider myself depressed when i was in my teens. psychedelics (and meditation, philosophy books, and thought provoking conversations) helped me break out of my mental prison. if you treat drugs like a tool, like you would a sharp knife, you can unlock beautiful things -- but the knife might cut you.
just like with most things in life - leaving the safety of your home carries a certain risk. when you're swimming there is a risk you'll drown. bouldering, climbing can cause you to fall and break your neck. driving on the motorway has a relatively high chance of causing you a premature death. i can go on...
the people i know who's mental health issues have been excaberated by drugs are minimal compared to the ones i know who have used drugs and are perfectly normal people. some folks were heavy psychedelic / mdma users but you would never know that if you met them on the street or had a conversation with them...
You are overstating or overgeneralizing the strength of psychedelics as a class of drug. Most people who take them are not taking enough to produce a PTSD-level response.
I developed PTSD after my finding my 3yo son floating in a pool face down (I luckily saved and revived him - he's fine now) and it would take a very intense psychedelic experience to come anywhere close to that kind of emotional content.
Claiming the entire class of drugs are a potent cause of PTSD rings of reefer madness propaganda to me.
>the entire class of drugs are a potent cause of PTSD
That is indeed my claim. More precisely, it is my secondary claim that (like I say in a cousin comment) I am less confident of than my primary claim that psychedelics are a potent cause of some sort of long-term severe harm.
A person's having had PTSD does not automatically make the person an expert on what sorts of experiences can be traumatizing. There is more to it than the just the intensity of the emotions. PTSD is very complicated and difficult to understand (which is why many with PTSD have no clue that they even have it).
Dr K says BTW that it is the loss of the sense of self that can be traumatizing in psychedelic use.
Ehh. I've done mushrooms, lsd, etc. about once to three times a year pretty much my whole adult life (decades). I find it fun. I have a relaxed good time with like minded friends and that's it. I think the whole "mind awakening" nonsense is just as much nonsense as the PTSD or worse folks. Perhaps someone with underlying severe mental health issues might experience things differently. But for folks in a pretty healthy headspace, it's just a recreational drug with extremely low addiction potential and zero hang over. What's not to like?
PTSD is not usually what happens when taken without supervision either. I think there's a large chasm of experiences between lifelong healing and lifelong damage with regard to psychedelics.
I have pretty limited experience with it and came to the conclusion that it's not for me. But of the people I know who do them or have at one time, I don't think I know anyone whose life has been changed by them.
I think your definition of "understood" is too narrow and perhaps that is your challenge. People have been taking many of these substances (e.g. psilocybin, THC, DMT, etc.) for thousands of years. Their qualitative, long-term effects are extremely well understood by the cultures and peoples that use them. My assumption is that you are WEIRD (forgive me if I am wrong), and the tendency we have is to disregard any data that wasn't created in a Western lab.
The acronym WEIRD stands for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic, a term used in psychology and behavioral sciences to describe the populations that have historically been the subject of research.
It’s a shortcut to a wildly unique experience that you might otherwise struggle to achieve, or go a lifetime without finding. It also, in my experience, helps clarify what ‘normal’ is, by giving you first hand experience with something radically different by comparison. And this touches on every part of your being - your physical, mental, and emotional sensations can all be increased, decreased, blended, redirected, synthesized, or otherwise fundamentally altered in ways you might otherwise never even be able to imagine - or may have only previously experienced once or twice and never thought accessible again.
Marijuana makes me feel like im living inside of a badly written play where the script was written by a new hire at the last minute, none of the actors know their lines and the plot makes no sense. I dont like it. Alcohol gives me migraines and degrades your body.
But shrooms have low potential for addiction, no hangover and its a pleasant experience. So that's my vice of choice. I take them in moderation in social settings. I generally feel like my mood is lifted and my mind is sharp following a dose.
In my case, the people I looked up to generally had tried these things and reported them as valuable or interesting experiences. So I decided to ‘roll’ the dice and am glad I did.
Most of the people I know who are into them probably were just struggling with a mental health problem, the others are just impulsive and don't seem to consider their actions so carefully. Either way, they seem to be doing ...fine
For me, I'm not really curious at all, but otherwise feel the same way that you do. Pretty content, faults included.
Like anything in life, you can choose if the juice is worth the squeeze for you. But you have to decide. For me, it was a wonderful experience. I've done psychedelics a few times and do consider LSD one of the more important experiences I've ever had. That being said, I could also see the path where one arrives at reducing it to simply being a mechanism to shove serotonin up a receptor it's not supposed to go up, which screws up the brain.
Like an international vacation, it's really what you get out of the trip, and if you consider the ticket worth the price of admission.
risk vs reward. I've had a few psychedelic experiences, and in my case, they either didn't lead to any significant changes or ended up having positive outcomes. But what I've also learned is that my gut flora has a huge impact on how my brain works. Diet plays a major role in how I feel and think. So while I might still try psychedelics occasionally, I'll avoid certain foods because of the concerns you mentioned.
That's a little too existential, in my book. After ruminating on reality and existence _a lot_, I feel strongly that caring about consistency and "this" here, right now is the most important. Calling everything an "illusion" is just the body's defense mechanism to not engage something painful in one's life.
At the end of the day: it’s a one way door. That’s what is scary about it. It does change you in an un-reversible way, much like getting a tattoo or getting married or having a child. You will be a different person. Hopefully you like that person!
If something gets banned so heavily then it might be something good in it. Are there any reasons to trust some well-organized commies who bans anything for everybody for everybody's money for getting more everybody's money? Not all of users are Francis Crick and Paul Erdos kind of person but some of them... are.
If your default live model is going to school, then going to unviersity, partner, kids, work, work, living daily live, getting old, dying and you are happy and content, great!
But that image is not true for a lot of people for a lot of different rasons.
LSD gave me a lot of empathy for people who have some mental illness for example. MDMA gave me a very empathic experience i never had before.
And just getting old might be a goal for people, also something like not dying but again, thats just a default thinking not necessarliy what other people conclude for their lives.
It's fascinating that this particular comment was flagged (I vouched for it).
The reason I took psychedelics the first time was also some combination of curiosity, recreation, and frustration at feeling like I'd fallen into a local min. As a cousin comment mentions, their power is giving you a different perspective which you quite literally cannot conceive of in your current mental state.
Those who have been to therapy (and had a good therapist) know the value that an honest and different outside perspective can have on your life. But there's also a barrier between you and that other person - they don't really have the full context of what motivates or worries you. Psychedelics are a new perspective on the thoughts going through your head, the sensory experience you're having, the emotions you're physically feeling.
That's not to say it's all good and no bad, but I'll leave that to the droves of comments exaggerating their risks. If you're looking for an altered mental state, mushrooms / LSD / MDMA pose far less harm than alcohol or cannabis.
> you quite literally cannot conceive of in your current mental state.
I'm open to considering the possibility that I can't conceive of it in my current mental state if you're open to considering the possibility that I can.
The dogmatic way some people speak about the life changing potential of psychedelics is reminiscent of how other people speak of religion. It sounds compelling, but the more detail they go into, the more I grow suspicious that maybe this person just wasn't particularly imaginative in the first place.
I'm not saying that's the case! But it's difficult for me when people are asking me to be open minded (about the possibility that there are insights and truths that I'm literally incapable of accessing without psychoactive substances, which most people agree aren't capable of creating anything that isn't, to a greater or lesser extent, already present in your brain) but use language that categorically deny possibilities outside of their experience (there must be such insights, and no human is capable of arriving there without psychoactive aid, because they personally didn't).
I don't know, I know it's a bit childish for me to feel this way, but it also doesn't feel unreasonable.
Many people take moderate doses of psychedelics and find the experience unremarkable. They just don't feel the urge to post incessantly about it online after.
(A sufficiently high dose will probably get you experiences you "cannot conceive of", assuming you haven't gone through psychosis or delirium, but this is not recommended by most).
MDMA is very neurotoxic. It can be used safely, but should not be advertised as harmless. You certainly cannot be using it nearly as often as alcohol or cannabis.
The life path of "going to school, then going to unviersity, partner, kids, work, work, living daily live, getting old, dying" is, other than the kids part, utterly horrifying to me and feels like not living at all. Why even bother with life if driving to work and driving home is all youre going to do with it? I am fully of how pretentious this sounds but, the way most people live is an insult to the precious gift of the human spirit.
Of course for many there is no choice. But that only makes it more horrifying not less.
2 weeks ago I took shrooms with my friend, we went to the basement of an arcade and crashed a bdsm costume party, then i spent the night at her place. This weekend, I played music with 4 talented people for 15 hours, and we finally collapsed giggling and covered in sweat at 2:30am. Thats living life! These are the kinds of things you can do if you are willing to take risks. You think I want to retire to a life of watching wheel of fortune? Why???
Dude, most people go to parties and play music sometimes. Most people have friends and hobbies and are not the mindless NPCs you seem to think they are. This does not make you special.
I am not a psychonaught, only started tripping more recently, and I have only used mushrooms. That being said, I was always anxious about using them as I was very freaked out by the idea of something that can alter your mind instead of merely becoming intoxicated like weed or alcohol. I thought it makes you into antoher person and loose control but that is bullshit - you are fully aware. After my first go I have no fear of them.
The feeling is fantastic, nothing like weed or booze. You feel relaxed and warm in the sense that you want to be around people and talk to people. Like it fills you with love for humanity (I wanted to call my mother and tell her I loved her and so on.) BUT it makes you hyper aware of emotions so be sure your environment is relaxed if you're inexperienced. As you come down you will then start to wrestle with your own buried emotions which can really be a roller coaster. However, as long as the environment is relaxed you will feel safe and be able to handle them.
The trick is go slow for your first time, take a little and see how you feel as it take 30-45 min to kick in (for me 45 min like clock work almost.) Make sure you are in a good mental state. Had a bad week or something really bothering you? Not a good state. Don't trip. Make sure the environment feels safe and relaxed.
You wont encounter that type of change with mushrooms at a conventional dose. Normally when people talk about the change in neural structures etc, this comes from higher order psychedelics, or sometimes lower order psychedelics at heroic dosages. Think of it like electroshock therapy in the sense that enduring this large eustress, change is made.
I merely responded to someone who appears to have a fear of taking them because of the effects and shared my experience. Don't understand the downvotes.
I think the statement above and yours both seem to ignore “Turing complete” systems, which would indicate that a computer is entirely capable of simulating the brain, perhaps not before the heat death of the universe, that’s yet to be proven and depends a lot on what the brain is really doing underneath in terms of crunching.
This depends on the assumption that all brain activity is the process of realizing computable functions. I'm not really aware of any strong philosophical or neurological positions that has established this beyond dispute. Not to resurrect vitalism or something but we'd first need to establish that biological systems are reducible to strictly physical systems. Even so, I think there's some reason to think that the highly complex social historical process of human development might complicate things a bit more than just brute force "simulate enough neurons". Worse, whose brain exactly do you simulate? We are all different. How do we determine which minute differences in neural architecture matter?
> we'd first need to establish that biological systems are reducible to strictly physical systems.
Or even more fundamentally, that physics captures all physical phenomena, which it doesn't. The methods of physics intentionally ignore certain aspects of reality and focus on quantifiable and structural aspects while also drawing on layers of abstractions where it is easy to mistakenly attribute features of these abstractions to reality.
Not all of physics is relevant to a brain simulation. For example, humans appear equally conscious in free fall or in an accelerating vehicle, so a simulation can probably safely ignore the effects of gravity without affecting the outcome. We also know that at body temperature (so about 310K) there is a lot of noise, so we can rule out subtle quantum effects. There is also noise from head movement, pressure changes due to blood flow, slight changes in the chemicals present (homeostasis is not perfect). We won't be simulating at the level of individual molecules or lower.
To me it seems highly likely that our knowledge of physics is more than sufficient for simulating the brain, what is lacking is knowledge of biology and the computational power.
>also drawing on layers of abstractions where it is easy to mistakenly attribute features of these abstractions to reality.
Ok - I get that bit. I have always thought that physics is a description of the universe as observed and of course the description could be misleading in some way.
>the methods of physics intentionally ignore certain aspects of reality and focus on quantifiable and structural aspects
Can you share the aspects of reality that physics ignores? What parts of reality are unquantifiable and not structural?
I am from a European country with a long… very long history, some of the family heirlooms date back to Byzantium. I don’t live in that country anymore, and I live in terror of inheriting them… I could give them to a museum, yet asides from that feeling like a betrayal, I know it will mostly just sit in a box till it rots away. Maybe making it out to an exhibit once per 30 years.
I feel like we are all losing interest in our past.
How much of it can you mount on a wall? Wall mounted artifacts and art require trivial maintenance effort and don't clutter up the floor, while honoring those objects and making them visible and enjoyable.
This is the comment on here I most relate to myself. I'm also from a family with old roots, although our family heirlooms date back only to the Fourth Crusade at earliest. My mother passed away a few years ago, and I was made responsible for an awful lot of items that people would generally be surprised to find outside of a museum.
So, yeah, it's a lot of mixed feelings. There are certain things that it's easy to know what to do with. For example, I inherited a box, which is worth maybe $1k at most on the market, but which was part of a story which has been passed down in my family for 800 years. It's really nice to be able to finish that story with "and we still have the box." So, yeah, its easy to know I'm never getting rid of that one.
But there are other things that I kinda wish I didn't have to take care of. Now I have at least four more colonial dressers than I have room for. Marie Kondo would say that if it doesn't give me joy, I should get rid of it. And they don't give me joy. But getting rid of something that has been in my family for 300 years just because it doesn't fit in my house right now, that would give me guilt. I'm not sure that's healthy, but it's true.
I grew up in a house that was a lot like a museum, full of antiques, don't touch, hey that's older than the US, don't play on that. My mother did too. I don't know if that was always the best environment for a kid, but it did teach me a reverence for the past and for history.
So, I try to be a good custodian of the past. Visitors to my house might not know much about Ras Gugsa, Mother Seton, or Boudwyn of Constantinople, but I have interesting items on display that often prompt questions, so I can then tell stories. It's the other things, the dressers and silver chafing dishes, that are a burden rather than a privilege to have. I'm not sure how to have one without the other.
One thing that I've noticed is that a lot of the more guilt-burdensome items, not just for me but for people in general, are those things that used to be valuable and prestigious but aren't anymore. In 1920, a top hat or silver chafing dish showed you had class. Now, those things don't signify anything. But their importance to our ancestors of a previous time lingers on a bit. We feel like even though they are worth little that they should be worth more somehow. I suspect that in a few generations our grandkids' generation will be stressing over what to do with our Rolex watches and Coach bags.
Because human vision has very little in common with camera vision and is a far more advanced sensor, on a far more advanced platform (ability to scan and pivot etc), with a lot more compute available to it.
I don't think it's a sensors issue - if I gave you a panoramic feed of what a Tesla sees on a series of screens, I'm pretty sure you'd be able to learn to drive it (well).
Who cares? They don't need that. The cameras can have continuous attention on a 360 degree field of vision. That's like saying a car can never match a human at bipedal running speed.
The human sensor (eye) isn't more advanced in its ability to capture data -- and in fact cameras can have a wider range of frequencies.
But the human brain can process the semantics of what the eye sees much better than current computers can process the semantics of the camera data. The camera may be able to see more than the eye, but unless it understands what it sees, it'll be inferior.
Thus Tesla spontaneously activating its windshield wipers to "remove something obstructing the view" (happens to my Tesla 3 as well), whereas the human brain knows that there's no need to do that.
Same for Tesla braking hard when it encountered an island in the road between lanes without clear road markings, whereas the human driver (me) could easily determine what it was and navigate around it.
You might be surprised at how little of the body still functions without brain function, well, some bits of the brain, including basic homeostasis and immune system function.
Yeah, sure. There are probably going to be only a few tens of thousands "unknown unknowns" side-effects but hey, who cares? We will figure them out, we are out of the stone age cave now!
I often find my self conflicted over Gattaca, because I much prefer Ian banks vision of the future, “beauty and intelligence should be a basic human right through technology” yet Gattacas dystopian vision is much more likely what we are going to get thanks to capitalism.
Also with imperfect technology, options like these will also do a lot of damage to human genetic variability, till some fun pathogen comes and has words with us over the matter.
Humanity is getting better at combating pathogens to the point we wouldn't have to rely on genetic diversity for resilience, additionally such treatments could be given to those already born.
It's not like human variability would be lost forever, we can make and keep copies.
Gattaca's core message is that there is no gene for the human spirit, but in reality there probably is, behavior is highly genetic. Also consider that Vincent could have had a heart attack during the mission, that would put his actions into a rather selfish light.
My optimistic view is that an improved understanding of the mechanisms would lead to direct medical interventions, in such a world Vincent would have been able to have his heart properly treated.
I have ME/CFS from a genetic condition and I treat it by suppressing IL-1B cytokines with diet and medication. I was lucky enough to be able to figure this out and I would like more people to have this knowledge.
I don’t disagree, and I also have some unique genetic conditions that I won’t get into, they are depressing. However I will say that humanity is peppered with radical choices that did a lot of damage because we “thought” we understood, and we are barely scratching the surface of how life really works, epigenetics alone is barely explored. There likely is no gene for the human soul, there likely is an incredibly complex systemic interaction…
Think of how complex LLMs are and yet their emergent behavior is based on a few very simple rules and an easy to understand loss function. Due to the emergent behavior things can have the appearance of being far more complicated than they actually are. It is hyper-dimensional and granted humans are not good at that but computers are and some humans are capable of using computers as a tool in that way.
>> The Fourth Law of Behavior Genetics, as proposed by Chabris, Turkheimer, and others, states that a typical human behavioral trait is associated with many genetic variants, each accounting for a very small percentage of the behavioral variability.
I think a big part of this assumption is the use of Linear Regression in GWAS studies, the problem is that SNPs have a multicollinearity problem where the inputs are not independent from each other. That the results of these studies reflect that assumption should be of no surprise. I think using better math this stuff is more easy to detect.
So… I hope your version of trying to understand life is a fruitful path, however my understanding of the underlying biomechanics, messy, deeply “physics” based and 3d, leaves me with confused more often than not. The behaviour is emergent but not out of simplicity.
In a similar analog to machine learning there are fundamentalists approaches and there are empiricists approaches. Most medical researchers need to be able to defend their work and it’s easier to defend fundamentalist ideas - but they spend so much time arguing over minutia that they often miss the forest from the trees. Not to say that such work is unimportant but the academic environment is rather suboptimal in driving research direction. It’s hard to navigate uncertainty when deviations from what is formally known are heavily punished.
Take for example that we can read DNA and therefore have a list of every bioactive peptide that the body produces, we also have WGS so we can identify people with changes to these peptides. By using algorithms on these populations we can understand quite a lot about what these peptides do without understanding the mechanism by which they do it.
I'm thinking it will be a vaguely more Hyperion vision with different groups and different strategies. After a few centuries some humans which are barely recognizable and some humans who are highly conservative and probably a lot in between.
Basically I think humans taking our genetic code into our own hands intentionally is inevitable and the question shouldn't be whether it should be allowed or not but instead how do we do this wisely and when are we ready for which steps.
It interacts nearly like a human, can and does interrupt me once it has enough context in many situations, and has exceedingly low levels of latency, using for the first time was a fairly shocking experience for me.
I don’t mean to say Islam is perfect, very little is, but it does have a lot of due process and it hardly started as a death cult…
I’d spend some time researching due process in shariah and try to remember that in many ways Islam was highly innovative for its era in combining a legal code with its religion in a very integral manner. Now later Islam in particular othoman Islam was indeed somewhat warped and coupled with an expansionist empire, kinda like Christianity, and is another game altogether.
