My sister is the only one and she is 1 in 100 000 in terms of intellectual ability. Doubt I will ever have such a good time with anyone else. For what it's worth, it's really not that different from voice chat. If you know the other person well and your conversation has natural shifts in topic and in who is speaking, then you are basically getting the same experience as discussing things IRL.
As for IRL discussion, it's nice and fulfilling but the lack of it is nothing to die over.

>>25375510
I have a sister who knows but we also don't get along much so it creates problems.

I feel for the guy in OP's pic but he also comes across like an insufferable blowhard. Dropping your IQ in the first line is really not a good sign nor is describing yourself as profoundly capable at something.

File: image-great-minds-talk-ab(...).png (107 KB, 640x640)

107 KB PNG

I have never found anyone that wanted to talk ideas. Everyone just wanna gossip about other people.
I am miserable. I have to bottle up all my thoughts and pretend I enjoy talking about this or that coworker or person's girlfriend or about what this politician did or stole.

>I have a profound capability for psychology and linguistics
Clearly.

>>25375530
Stop being such a dick to her.

>>25375534
in my experience the problem with people like that is that they're usually looking for somebody to agree with them. The most interesting people imo are people entirely different from myself. I get more out of talking to crackheads than I do somebody with all the same opinions as me. Crackheads are always saying the coolest shit

>>25375493
Then where does your benchmark for a decent conversation come from?

>>25375545
People love talking about ideas when there's something at stake. They will split hairs over ethics when they feel their political party is challenged, they will conduct an array of thought experiments when someone cuts them in line and they will never shut up about abstract hypotheses if their livelihood demands they anticipate the next big theory.
People most often refuse to discuss ideas when there's much more at stake for the other party than for them. And if that stake is needing to feel clever, they bail at the speed of light. Not saying it's your case, but definitely check that possibility. Many amateur philosophers never do.

>>25375545
She was really quoting herself with her beliefs not put in proper "order". I know next to nothing about this obession over this normie quote. It's because of how there is need for bullying there wil clearly always be a need for 4chan or Outer Heaven.

>>25375545
Get into a PhD program or something. You mostly discuss your research and that's about it.

how old is this image? ill talk to him

>>25375545
Like what? It's because most idea talks aren't deep and are annoying as fuck and are like middle school level

>>25375545
I find people love talking about ideas if you give them a chance but they don’t often have more than surface level (podcast, dude science books like Sapiens) ideas to talk about. This is in uni btw so there are no real excuses. More than that they want back to familiar ground of tv shows and movies and gossip about people and I don’t care. These are GenZers talking about fucking terrestrial TV shows, reality slop. So much for the uni IQ hurdle.

>>25375545
I do all three.

>>25375590
They're probably more willing to speak about ideas if they get the feeling they know more than you. A lot of people really resent feeling like they're less knowledgeable and it only gets worse with age. It's why Zizek appearances are so funny because he dominates conversations purely by his massive amount of knowledge and even boomer fags like Piers Morgan have to tolerate it.

>>25375563
>they will conduct an array of thought experiments when someone cuts them in line
I used to do that all the time when I was 18-22.

File: 1778232312846435.png (6 KB, 222x227)

6 KB PNG

>>25375493
My IQ is 189. You're literally cannot imagine what it's like to be so intellectually removed from the rest of the human race.

>>25375633
No I get you bro. I bench 770. The loneliness that comes with being so hecking strong is off the charts. How could I ever relate to the pilates twinks?

>>25375582
For example, the implications and consequences of using AI on the mind. Whenever I bring it up at work (codemonkey) everyone just shrugs like using AI is some predestined fact of life that is completely unavoidable.

I used to think the same way too until I realized it's actually not because I'm smart but because I'm extremely obnoxious, self-righteous and possibly mentally ill too. And recently I've also come to realize I'm in fact worse off than the goycattle I despise because they're actually happier than me. I hope I'm not actually smart because it would just be extra-embarrassing being smart but miserable and it's tiring having to cope that I'm so miserable specifically because of how smart I am.

>>25375664
>no one takes my schizophrenic AI fearmongering seriously :(
go to /g/ they gobble that shit up

>>25375684
ok dario

>>25375510
>voice chat
I doubt OP has that either.

>>25375664
Well, it is likely because they personally enjoy the use of AI (regardless of a potential negative effect that AI has on their mind), and people don't like negative discussions of things that they enjoy. If you were to talk about the positives of AI, they might be more receptive to you.

>>25375530
It can help to ask her about her views and opinions. If she is intelligent, they will be interesting, even if they are wrong. I am a chud and my sister is a feminist but we still get along and often discuss feminism and even make various jokes about feminism, misogyny and misandry. It's just stuff said from a more neutral ground that could be funny to anyone, so they work. It helps if both people are intelligent and independent thinkers.
>>25375534
For me the reason I immediately feel revulsion towards such people is that they drop an IQ number without specifying the SD which means they know pretty much nothing about IQ testing and means they are probably retarded while believing themselves to be intelligent.
>>25375664
IMO discussing AI is low hanging fruit coded because there are so many AI fanboys and anti-AI circlejerkers, if someone says something anti AI I automatically assume they are going to say some banal shit.

>>25375493
I'm too intelligent to talk to normies, but too dumb to be equal to intelligent people. You've never suffered being intelligent but at the same time not intelligent enough to be able to put it into words, your thoughts eternally trapped in yoru own head even if you did have someone to talk to they can't be translated into accurate words

>>25375726
I think talking with a more intelligent person is all you need to remedy this. Theyre usually familar with words and concepts that you arent historically because these things have been thought about a lot. After all thats how like 90% of human intelligence developed. Smart people talking to other smart people who had read alot of smart people or talked to even more smart people.

>>25375702
>>25375716
Normies in my country are overwheimgly pro AI, but when you start talking about AI not from an utilitarion perspective but from a philosophical one, they stare at you in silence like a deer on the road, then change subject

>>25375664
>everyone just shrugs like using AI is some predestined fact of life that is completely unavoidable
Because it is. Read McLuhan. Technology can't be resisted but has to be understood and controlled. Once the cat's out of the bag you can't put it back in. Luddism, while understandable, is not possible. But you're right that people should do more than simply shrug it off. The same goes for any and all forms of technology.

>>25375510
that's because sexuality is completely removed interacting with your sister.
It's also not seen as masculine to discuss literature in depth, which is why men do it anonymously or at a digital remove.
That makes it hard for men to have any discussions of meaningful literature irl at all outside of very expensive programs

>>25375664
Are you intelligent enough to come up with reasons why these conversations don't go far with your colleagues, anon? Or does your intelligence stop entirely once it leaves the perspective of your person?

>>25375604
Jargon heavy neurotism is not knowledge. Knowledge is fact. Anybody who is having an IRL discussion outside of classroom textbooks and workplace manuals is not discussing knowledge.

>>25375684
Just proving his point.

>>25375716
Both you and your sister sit solidly at the median.

>>25375817
I know you're trying to sound intelligent and pre-empt specific criticism by applying them first, but it paints exactly the picture he described. If you find AI useful, you are over-employed. The dumbest of my students have identical worldviews to yours on AI usage, because they lack the ability to see that even their use of it as a tool they guide and carefully check the output of is insufficient. The AI itself is already producing output beyond their innate ability, so they are not in a position to ever claim they can check it. Naturally, this correlates to being impressed with AI enough to see value in it as a tool.

>>25375553
She actually started it, so no

>>25375716
Her personality is the off-putting part, not her intelligence

>>25375795
>It's also not seen as masculine to discuss literature in depth
Depends where you are from.

>>25375716
> low hanging fruit coded
105 IQ "codes">>25375702

A serious discussion of literature just becomes more literature. Reading and writing are a sort of self-contained world which can be recalled mutually in conversation but it cannot be entered into by conversation, and it is really a more or less solitary activity, a kind of engagement between the self and the remnants of mostly dead minds.

>>25375973
Wow I fucked up the formatting bad, 95 IQ behaviour

>>25375963
>incorrectly inferring my position simply because I challenged yours
>calling me unintelligent
lol

Anyways, as for the whole AI thing, I was initially impressed while I was still in the honeymoon phase of using it. The novelty of generating so much "good" writing and analysis with so little input was wild. But the more I used it, the more I realized how bad it was: both for its output, but also for how I was affected by it.

Its writings were wrong, not detailed enough, always overstated and embellished ideas, and had the telltale signs of AI writing all over the place. And I felt myself slowing down. Whenever I got a new piece of work, I immediately gravitated towards an LLM instead of trying to work it out on my own. This was partially because the work I was doing wasn't particularly stimulating, so I seemingly wanted to offload the mental load that I didn't care for onto something else. But I could tell it made me duller.

An odd side effect I noticed was how it prevented me from enjoying anything online. I was seeing the signs of AI writing everywhere. And where I wasn't, I was skeptical of it regardless. Anything on twitter with animals was now fake, even when it wasn't. It slowly sucked the joy out of things for me.

The silver lining is that I've now been enjoying reading quite a lot more and I find myself just talking to people about books and concepts and philosophy that I otherwise would have not shared.

>>25375493
>writing
>video games
>existentialism

>>25375972
Are you from somewhere like that or just relaying a tale of it being done?

>>25375963
Dumb take. You are not seeing it as a high output but relatively clueless assistant that a meticulous manager can utilize to produce significantly more volume of work than one could on its own. You are stupidly conflating some kid cheating on his homework with all potential use cases. That is why you are never going to be successful, in AI or anything at all really.