I think you are using the word revenue when you mean profit.

They had a tiny fraction of the content. They didn’t know what an atom was, not a galaxy, nor a continent, a complex number, etc.

They may have had wisdom about how to run their societies, live a good life and live in their local environment, but that is not the same as having vast global knowledge.

Both. They had neither the content of Wikipedia nor the technology to store it.

When wood is burned, water is a byproduct?

Replying to yourself doesn't get anyone's attention.

> occasionally beat a much stronger player

We might occasionally win a battle against SkyNet? I actually don't understand how this is comforting at all.

> The world we live in is one of chance and imperfect information, which limits any agent's control over the outcomes.

I might win a single game against a Poker World Champion, but if we play every day for a week, the chances of me winning are infinitesimal. I still don't see this as very comforting.

Proactive seems like a useful word to me. What’s a less middle-brow word with a similar meaning?

I agree with every individual sentence you say, but in a philosophy subreddit I am queasy about saying we can only evaluate an idea by looking at where the idea came from.

These are two separate issues. You could demolish the idea intellectually and then say “and in case you wonder why such a weak idea was proposed, here is the answer.” But going directly to the ad hominem is sus.

And yes I agree that the NAP is incredibly weak, because it depends on a skewed definition of “aggression” which privileges the rich and makes poor people simply trying to stay alive “aggressors.”

The first bitter lesson was "people who focused on 'more domain-specific algorithms' lost out to the people who just waited for massive compute power to become available." I think the second bitter lesson is intended to be Robotics-specific and it is "people who focus on 'robotics-specific algorithms' will lose out to the people who leverage large foundation models from non-robotics fields, like large language models."

How many team members would it take ChatLawGPT and feed it tons of Hebrew content? Isn't the whole point that it can learn domain knowledge?

I think marketers have really influenced the definitions. Calling a linear regression house price estimator "AI" seems like a stretch unless you're trying to get venture capitalists excited. But today, most business people probably will.

Is the Amazon product recommender system "AI"? Is it ML?

It’s weird that you say they are failing. If you asked a human to highlight the face In that picture they would do the exact same thing!

Your application might need something different but don’t call this “failing.” It’s succeeding at what it was designed to do, which is find faces.

What is your application by the way?

I haven’t played the game but I assume that the role of deception is to allow one to simultaneously join two mutually exclusive alliances at once?

> No one explicitly has the aim to impoverish people ....

Yeah that’s what I said before you contradicted me and then contradicted yourself.

> ... but we set up systems to allow us to do it while obfuscating the guilty.

Sometimes the guilty are pre-obfuscated. When America set up its highway system rather than a decent train system, nobody knew they were contributing the flooding of Tuvalu. The world is hella complex and only a tiny minority of problems are caused by identifiable “bad guys” and a much smaller minority of those “bad guys” are capitalist CEOs, as opposed to warlords, authoritarians and others who get power outside of democracy or capital markets.

> And when we fail to obfuscate the guilt, we give charity! Charity was invented to relieve us of our guilt.

No. Charity was invented to help people.

But yes it does also assuage guilt. Another way to assuage guilt is to say that charity does nothing. Then you can do nothing and feel justified.

I don’t think anyone knows which is more likely to work at a global system level. But it is demonstrably easier for a single individual to dramatically change the life of another individual through charity (I have done it several times). For me to achieve the same through politics is incredibly diffuse and difficult to prove, especially if I eschew electoral politics as many Jacobin writers would probably suggest.

Obviously I’m happy that some people work on behalf of the poor through politics, and I vote for them. But I could spend my whole life without accruing any evidence whatsoever that I had actually improved anyone’s life. It’s almost a faith based activity, whereas the fruits of my charitable work are obvious,

The other issue is that in politics, the harder you work, the harder your opponents are motivated to work. In charity there are seldom opponents. Hardly ever is there a person who makes it their life goal to re-impoverish people.

Which particular other viruses are you concerned about?