I think you might be overcomplicating the problem in a way that actually makes it harder to solve, not easier. AI governance and optimizing business processes sounds cool and all, but we don’t need to "engineer" a way to address poverty. We already have a simple, effective, well researched solution...just give people money.
We need to be careful of this notion that social ills caused by prioritizing "growth" over people are intractable problems that require us to throw technology at them. It's often a convenient smokescreen from those that don't want the problems addressed at all. And we do their work for them if we play along.
Perhaps, but the distribution of said funds has always been rought with fraud. I suppose you do have a point but if it were that easy, why is it not done? I am simply proposing another way, and honestly its a pretty said day where proposing and idea on a forum is met with such vitriol. I'm also working on https://crohns.ai/ and have had some really good feedback, should this also just be done by handing out money? The approach I am hearing from everyone here is that the world should just STFU and allow Trump and Musk to handle it because they are the big boys so everyone else should shut up. While agree that you all have the right to feel that way, it's simply not a reality the rest of us have to blindly accept. Also pretty said that simply "Trying" has become so uncool on a site like HN.
One can understand hyperbole and still not know that you were being emphatically hyperbolic instead of literally hyperbolic. Sometimes the hyperbolic statement is also literally true. This is a place of academic types who are used to being careful with hyperbole for this very reason. (In this particular case, the contention is also with the use of the word "only", which suggests a factual basis rather than opinion, so it's not necessarily an issue with hyperbole. But... meh, people can read better, too.)
Not trying to say the point you intended to make is invalid or even that your word choice is invalid, just that the literal interpretation of your writing is also a valid one. Especially among people who don't know you personally. That said, I also believe that the other commenter could and should have read a stronger interpretation of your words (such as if "only" was replaced with "best" or "my most preferred") and replied to that or not replied at all.
Really, OK; I digress because at the point you imply that: "Yes. The only solution is magic. Well done." is such a high brow and intellectual comment and I a'm just too dumb to I understand it - this obviously is a waste of both our time.
> you imply that: "Yes. The only solution is magic. Well done." is such a high brow and intellectual comment and I a'm just too dumb to I understand it
My friend, I think that comment was utter trash and they shouldn't have posted it.
That said, interpreting a comment literally, as they did, is a valid way to interpret a comment. I disagree with how they chose to respond to your comment, not strictly with how they interpreted it.
Lastly, you are not too dumb to understand anything, let alone what I've written. Do whatever you normally do to unwind and read my comments again tomorrow if you don't believe me. Anyone who tells you that you are inadequate in any way is being abusive.
