To me, the basic level of "goodness" is roughly "do no harm on offense", or "do not go against others will on offense" to others. (This level of goodness is actually much needed for humans to survive as well.)

Same here. I am Chinese Chinese who lives in the US. Never recall anyone celebrating (both in China and here).

I am Chinese; I grew up in China, moved to the US when I was 15. Nobody(Chinese) around me ever celebrated the event (including school teachers, elder adults) and usually talk about this as a tragedy. This includes both my friends and circles in China, and my Chinese circles in the US. I was still in China when 9/11 happened.

I also just asked my Chinese Canadian friend by my side (grew up in China, moved to Canada, now Canadian Citizen) if she ever recall any Chinese celebrating 9/11, or if this was a thing at all. I said the word celebrating in English. Initially she thought “celebrating” means taking this day as a Memorial Day to remember and mourn the loss. Then I explained by “celebrating” I meant being actually really happy about the event itself, and she seems to be really confused. 

Since I was quite young (elementary school) when this happened, I also asked my mom if this was a thing. She said nobody she knows of felt happy about 9/11, and only saw once on a social media, which she was quite angry about.

Agreed on both points. I had to say, without reading the news occasionally, I do not realize how much I don’t know about things going on in the world. It does help me to stay informed, and deep concrete stories in particular, help to understand full pictures. Though many times, I also need to do a bit of digging to find more information to avoid bias, but if one stick to news sources that have better quality, this issue will be better. It is very likely the choice of news sources, matters. 

The OP had a strong assumption that whatever reported in the news are going to be mainstream; I think it is only partially true, and have some doubts; for “old” news, it is also/very possible they are getting attention bc nothing has been done about them. Things do not have to be new, to be underfunded/under resourced etc.

Terminology question - does adversarial filtering mean the same thing as decontamination? 

Could make this a report-based system? If the user reported a potential spam, then in the submission process ask for reasons, and ask for consent to look over the messages (between the reporter and the alleged spammer); if multiple people reported the same person it will be obvious this account is spamming with DM?

edit: just saw previous comment on this too

Thanks, I was thinking of the latter more (human irrationality), but found your first part still interesting. I understand irrationality was studied in psychology and economics, and I was wondering on the modeling of irrationality particularly, for 1-2 players, but also for a group of agents. For example, there are arguments saying for a group of irrational agents, the group choice could be rational depending on group structure etc. On individual irrationality and continued group irrationality, I think we would need to estimate the level of (and prevalence of ) irrationality in some way that captures unconscious preferences, or incomplete information. How to best combine these? Maybe it would just be just more data driven.

I am not sure if it needs to be conditional on if the event is unusual or not, or if would happen again or not in a forward looking sense in reality. Could you explain why the restriction there? Especially on <We do not call any behavior or emotional pattern ‘trauma’ if it is obviously adaptive.>

How do we best model an irrational world rationally? I would assume we would need to understand at least how irrationality works?

Sharing an interesting report of the state of ai https://www.stateof.ai/

This includes multiple aspects of the current state of AI, and is reasonably good on the technical side.