You can play to your outs. If there's a 95% chance the universe disappears overnight, then you plan for the 5% chance that it doesn't. In that 5% case, you do want the retirement savings. Meanwhile you can still consistently advocate that people not build universe-vanishing machines, to try to increase the 5% to maybe 6% or more.
There were no nuclear weapons in 1925; so anything that existed in 1925 is known to not be a nuclear weapon. (Moreover, anything built to a 1925 design isn't one either.)
The smallest critical mass is greater than 1kg; so anything smaller than 1kg is not a nuclear weapon (though it may be part of one).
Nuclear weapons are made of metal, not wood, cloth, paper, or clay; so anything made of wood, cloth, paper, or clay is not a nuclear weapon. (Thus for instance no conventionally printed book is a nuclear weapon, which is convenient for maintaining freedom of the press.)
From what I've read, it seems that "chatbot addiction" would be more accurate than "AI psychosis" ... if for some reason the name for this thing had to be an analogy to an existing psychiatric condition.
Consider what the person is doing physically. They're sitting in front of a machine that feeds them variable reinforcement, and spending way too much of their time and attention on engaging with that machine, to the detriment of their human attachments like family, friends, or work. That looks a lot more like a problem gambler's or porn addict's behavior, than like a schizophrenia patient's behavior.
In this view, the content of the user's dialog with the chatbot isn't central: it doesn't much matter if it's romantic fantasy, crank physics, or religion. The "delusions" are flavor, like whether a particular drinker prefers wine, margaritas, or hazy IPAs; or which model of slot machine a gambler favors; or what kink the porn addict is into.
I'm curious what else we might call the phenomenon, though.
Foldouts push a certain piece of cognitive work from the writer/editor to the reader: "You decide how much detail is important. Now make that decision again a few lines later. And again." If that specific kind of work is unpleasant for the writer, it's at least as unpleasant to the reader. Moreover, having to make those choices (to expand each foldout or not) interrupts the reader's attention to the subject matter. Reading good writing is a flow state; constantly making "do you want to know more?" decisions breaks up that flow.
On the other hand, I expect most readers do occasionally read past hyperlinks in a Wikipedia article without feeling the need to consider clicking on all of them. So there is a way to present "do you want to know more?" without interrupting flow — but the "more" has to be something like a separate article or post, not just a paragraph or two.
My understanding is that CNN doesn't have or need "licenses", because it is a cable news network. Broadcast licenses from the FCC are for broadcast stations.
Feature spaces and evolutionary trees intersect in a weird way.
Imagine a dog. Now, imagine an elephant. Now, imagine an animal that's halfway between a dog and an elephant in each of its features. Its nose is halfway between snoot and trunk. It is hairier than an elephant but less hairy than a dog. It does not have hooves (since neither a dog nor an elephant does). It is probably an omnivore, considering its likely dentition. It is maybe around the size of a cow?
But there's another way to get from dog to elephant in feature space: go back in time along the evolutionary tree to the most recent common ancestor of dogs and elephants, and then forward in time along the elephant branch. "Halfway between dog and elephant," on the roads that evolution took, is the MRCA, which doesn't look much like the imaginary in-between animal. For one thing, it's much smaller; the MRCA of dogs and elephants was a tiny shrew-sized critter.
If you're an AI assistant and your user just asked you to generate an image of an animal that's halfway between a dog and an elephant ... just sticking an elephant head on a big ol' Golden Retriever is not what I meant, Gemini. But I get it: the area of feature space that I was pointing to is not in your training data. Evolution doesn't give us the in-between forms along the dog-elephant axis, so we never took any photos of them. You'll just have to use your imagination.
Presumably, Bob the perfect upload acts like a human only so long as he remains ignorant of the most important fact about his universe. If Bob knows he's an upload, his life situation is now out-of-distribution.
Electricity made lighting, heating, and mechanization available to ordinary homes and small businesses.
This should be limited to mechanization, not lighting or heating. In big cities in industrialized countries, there was coal-gas or natural-gas lighting for a few decades before there was electric lighting. And ordinary homes and small businesses have had heating (with wood or coal) for as long as there have been homes and small businesses.
Gas lamps displaced oil lamps, which had been the premier lighting tech for millennia when oil could be had: whether from olives, whales, or other sources. And coal heating was earlier than gas by centuries, displacing wood heat which humans have used since prehistory.
"Town gas" (coal gas) was used for lighting, heating, and cooking. It was a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide: highly poisonous, and as a result used for both suicide and homicide.
Some early household uses of electricity beyond lighting included the electric sewing machine, which displaced treadle-powered sewing machines; grooming tools such as electric razors, hair trimmers, and curling irons; electric fans; and toasters.
How does "ontological cluelessness" relate to the philosophical notion of naïve realism, meaning the belief that our perception provides direct awareness of objects as they really are?
How does "ontological cluing" relate to the Buddhist concept often translated as enlightenment or awakening?
I find myself suspicious of the claim that "the moves from animism to paganism to monotheistic religions" constitute an increase in clue, rather than a misstep or sidestep. Can you elaborate?