@degn34
Account based inAfrica!
About this account
- Account based in
- Africa
- Connected via
- Africa App Store
X says this location may be affected by a proxy or VPN.
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
|| Romans 12:12 || Keep Going
MemeScope
Joined June 2019
- Tweets19.9K
- Following627
- Followers5.5K
- Likes35.5K
with the way volume, spam shilling either a gem or coal in gc's rn is top tier humilation ritual, everyone is just sitting aback fr fr lol
34 retweeted
I think we finally got there, meet Ollie.
This started almost two years ago as an embodied AI + robotics project built around the preserved exterior of my old cat.
Inside is a custom robotic frame with actuators, joint feedback, cameras, microphones, touch sensing, local edge compute and closed-loop motor control.
The behavioral side came from years of old iPhone footage. I extracted pose, gait timing, head turns, ear movement, response delays, routines and behavioral patterns, then used that data to shape motion, memory and behavior.
And thanks to @Grok because he became the main reasoning layer, connected to local vision, speaker recognition, spatial audio, persistent memory and the behavior controller. The motors are still handled by a separate local robotics stack.
The hardest part wasn’t making him intelligent.
It was making him stop moving like a robot.
Early versions were too smooth, too symmetrical and too responsive. Months went into tuning tiny things like ear-first orientation, uneven step timing, weight shifts, delayed reactions and sometimes no reaction at all.
He isn’t Ollie resurrected or uploaded consciousness.
He’s a robotic system built around the preserved form and recorded behavioral data of one specific cat.
I started calling him an Artificial Intelligence Cat.
After the recent government shift toward “Super Intelligence” terminology, I figured the name should change too.
So this is Ollie.
My Super Intelligence Cat.
Ill be posting more videos of him through out the day and week. I don't want to give away my precious work all at once.
this man used his dead cat to create a new robot cat using grok ..wtf ? and it's at 120k????
I think we finally got there, meet Ollie.
This started almost two years ago as an embodied AI + robotics project built around the preserved exterior of my old cat.
Inside is a custom robotic frame with actuators, joint feedback, cameras, microphones, touch sensing, local edge compute and closed-loop motor control.
The behavioral side came from years of old iPhone footage. I extracted pose, gait timing, head turns, ear movement, response delays, routines and behavioral patterns, then used that data to shape motion, memory and behavior.
And thanks to @Grok because he became the main reasoning layer, connected to local vision, speaker recognition, spatial audio, persistent memory and the behavior controller. The motors are still handled by a separate local robotics stack.
The hardest part wasn’t making him intelligent.
It was making him stop moving like a robot.
Early versions were too smooth, too symmetrical and too responsive. Months went into tuning tiny things like ear-first orientation, uneven step timing, weight shifts, delayed reactions and sometimes no reaction at all.
He isn’t Ollie resurrected or uploaded consciousness.
He’s a robotic system built around the preserved form and recorded behavioral data of one specific cat.
I started calling him an Artificial Intelligence Cat.
After the recent government shift toward “Super Intelligence” terminology, I figured the name should change too.
So this is Ollie.
My Super Intelligence Cat.
Ill be posting more videos of him through out the day and week. I don't want to give away my precious work all at once.
I am just not good atp
Like genuinely I am a poor executor of trades
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
I think there’s an important distinction here.
Pascal’s Wager can give you a reason to take God seriously, but I don’t think it can, by itself, give you Christian faith.
If I say, “I don’t know whether God exists, but the consequences are potentially eternal, so I’m going to believe just in case,” that is not really the same thing as saying, “I believe in God, I trust Him, and I believe in Jesus Christ.”
Christianity doesn’t describe salvation as simply making the mathematically safer bet.
Even the Bible makes a distinction between acknowledging that God exists and actually having faith in Him. James 2:19 says that even demons believe that God exists. So merely arriving at “God probably exists” isn’t presented as the whole requirement.
But I also wouldn’t say that someone who begins with reasoning is automatically disqualified.
Faith doesn’t necessarily mean believing without reason or evidence. You can reason your way toward believing that God exists, investigate Christianity, find the person of Jesus compelling, and then move from intellectual assent into genuine faith and trust.
In fact, that seems much closer to how many people actually come to Christianity.
You might start with:
“I think God probably exists.”
Then:
“I think Christianity has a stronger case than I initially thought.”
Then:
“I believe Jesus actually is who He claimed to be.”
And eventually:
“I trust Christ, I want to know Him, and I want my life oriented toward Him.”
That last step is qualitatively different from Pascal’s Wager.
And there is another problem with using Pascal’s Wager as the reason to become Christian: which God are you wagering on?
There are thousands of religious possibilities. If your only principle is “believe in whichever God gives me the best eternal payoff,” you haven’t actually demonstrated Christianity. You’ve only demonstrated that eternal consequences would be worth investigating.
So I’d say Pascal’s Wager is a decent starting point, not a foundation.
And honestly, I think the deeper Christian answer to your question is this:
God isn’t asking you to trick yourself into believing He exists because you’re afraid of losing the bet. He’s asking you to seek Him.
If someone genuinely doesn’t know whether God exists but sincerely says, “God, if You are real, I want to know the truth,” I don’t think Christianity gives us good reason to conclude that God is offended by the person’s intellectual uncertainty.
Christian faith isn’t supposed to be pretending to be certain when you’re not.
It’s responding honestly to what you come to believe is true.
So if someone begins with Bayesian reasoning, Pascal’s Wager, philosophy, historical arguments for Jesus, personal experience, or even simple curiosity that doesn’t necessarily make their eventual faith fake.
The question isn’t only “What caused you to start believing?” The deeper question is “What do you actually believe now, and what is your relationship to Christ?”
Pascal’s Wager can get you to the door.
It can’t walk through the door for you. Follow the reasoning as far as it can take you, then honestly confront the person and claims of Jesus. If you come to believe Christ is real, faith becomes more than a wager. It becomes trust.
I wanna ask a question and I would be happy to see my comment section and quote filled with reasons and thoughts
Let’s say “There is no God or god as it’s not measurable or verifiable by science and logic”
But is it not safe to believe there is one because the above claim is not an absolute truth as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ?
The uncertainty of dying and there is one wouldn’t you be on the losing side as you have nothing to actually lose if you believe but have everything to lose if you don’t
This is called Pascal’s wager
God exists + you believe → potentially infinite/rewarding payoff.
God exists + you don’t believe → potentially infinite loss.
God doesn’t exist + you believe → finite cost/inconvenience.
God doesn’t exist + you don’t believe → finite benefit.
So even if you assign a very small probability to God’s existence, the argument says the expected value of believing can still be favorable because the potential payoff is enormous/infinite.
When the probability is uncertain but the consequences are extremely asymmetric, choose the action with the better expected outcome.
Now let’s bring it to Christianity and leave out logic and maths
I think the eligibility to heaven is having faith that God exists and believing in Jesus, it’s not by using Pascal’s wager because you don’t believe in God by faith but by Bayesian reasoning or consequences
Now if you decide to believe in god not by faith but by logic are you still qualified to make heaven ? ( This is my question)
34 retweeted
i hate those niggas who scan the same 50M mcap CA 30 times a day in a group chat when nobody else is in...like ok faggot we get it, you're up a lot of money, nobody is buying your 50m mcap bags
