Consensus view is that they were shielded by those who did invest in it.

I've written more about Y2K at https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zvQdgfFEDFQQhDDuS/y2k-successful-practice-for-ai-alignment

Small historical nit: China was actually ruled by the Mongols for most of the 1300s.

Am I the only one who finds parts of the early story rather dystopian? He sounds like a puppet being pulled around by the AI, gradually losing his ability to have his own thoughts and conversations. (That part's not written, but it's the inevitable result of asking the AI every time he encounters struggle.) 

I made the grave error of framing this post in a way that invites a definition debate. While we are well familiar that a definition debate is similar to a debate over natural categories, which is a perfectly fine discussion to have, the discussion here has suffered because several people came in with competing categories.

I strongly endorse Ben's post, and will edit the top post to incorporate it.

definitional gimbal lock

I really like this phrase. :)

Mostly agreed with what you say about the word "capitalism." But with the NYSE example, I think it would be natural to say that the company did something not particularly capitalist. Is the CCP-owned Air China a capitalist entity? It's certainly less capitalist than Southwest.

I think there's at least two ways meanings can be combined. The easy one is words with multiple meanings. For example, "capitalist" has two meanings: someone who believes in free markets, and someone who owns a lot of capital. Some rhetorical tricks are played by trying to dance from one to the other, usually by denouncing libertarians as greedy corporates who benefit from the system. The second is concepts that include multiple constituents. For example, "capitalism" is a major concept that includes the things you brought up. 

Inasmuch that capitalism is a centuries-old concept with a lot of philosophy behind it, I think it's worth keeping "capitalism," in its sense as an organization of political economy, to its broader meaning which contains both freedom of labor and market-based allocation. They are correlated enough to be a sensible cluster. We can use other terms for the constituents.

For comparison, "security" contains many concepts, such as integrity (untruster party can't influence trusted output) and confidentiality (untrusted party can't read input from trusted party). But we can talk about security as a whole, with other terms for its individual dimensions.

I had the movie version in my mind, where the disbelieving parent comes around on seeing the kid's success (c.f.: October Sky, Billy Elliott). I myself felt a version: my parents were very against me applying for the Thiel Fellowship, up until it became clear that I might (and did) win.

A gap in the proposed definition of exploitation is that it assumes some natural starting point of negotiation, and only evaluates divergence from that natural starting point.

In the landlord case, fair-market value of rent is a natural starting point, and landlords don't have enough of a superior negotiating position to force rent upwards. (If they did by means of supply scarcity, then that higher point would definitionally be the new FMV.)  Ergo, no exploitation.

On the other hand, if the landlord tried to increase the rent on a renewing tenant much more than is typical precisely because they know the tenant has circumstances (e.g.: physical injury) that make moving out much harder than normal, then that would be exploitative per this definition.

I really like this thinking. I don't necessarily like the assignment of labels to concepts in this post. E.g.: I use capitalism in a manner mutually exclusive with slave labor because it requires self-ownership. And I don't think a definition of "exploitation" should require a strategic element; I would say that not allowing an employee to read mystery novels when customers aren't around is exploitative. But this idea of using an asymmetry of power to deepen the asymmetry is a clearly useful concept.

My intended meaning of the wording is that the "infliction" is relative to a more Pareto-optimal trade. E.g.: in the ultimatum game, us splitting a dollar with 99 cents to me and 1 cent to you is a positive-benefit trade, but is still inflicting a cost if you assume the negotation begins at 50/50.

The idea of the subtrade is an interesting thought, but I think any trade needs to be considered an atomic agreement. E.g.: while I might physically hand the convenience store clerk a dollar before they give me the candy bar, it can't be broken down into two trades, because the full agreement is there from the outset.

But if they demand an extra $1 bribe in the middle, giving me the choice "Pay another $1 and get candy bar, call authorities and waste a lot of time, or pay $0 and get no candy bar," then that's a new trade

A trade is exploitative when it decreases a society's wealth generating ability.

Suppose my son really wants to be a circus performer, but I want him to go to college; he says that, if he couldn't be a circus performer, he'd be a doctor. My son is about to enter a big circus competition, and I tell him that, if he wins, I'll give my full blessing and financial support for him to attend circus academy instead.

By that definition, it sounds like my offer to let him pursue his dream is actually exploitative!

if you are twice as good at wealth-creating than me, you should have about seven times as many dollars

This is for me the most interesting part of your comment. I want to know how this was derived.

I see. So the maximalization is important to the definition. I think then, under this definition, using Villiam's pie example from another thread, the person taking 90% of the pie would not be exploiting the other person if he knew they could survive with 9%.

I think this definition would also say that a McDonald's employee who puts me into a hard upsell is exploiting me so long as they never physically handle my credit card and don't have the capacity to trap me or otherwise do more than upselling. But if they handle my credit card and don't steal the number, then they're no longer an exploiter.

That is to say:

1. The maximization criteria is unstable
2. There needs to be some condition about the manner in which they extract value; otherwise, plenty of ordinary business transactions in which one side does its best would be considered "exploitation"