I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not really concerned with the label, more the function. I don't agree that gaslighting oneself is sufficient to solve physical problems.

This.

Additionally, there are some people in the comments here who are straight up inventing things in order for the story to make any sense.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was yet another medical startup where there's an aim and a goal and a business plan that involves the technology coming into existence or gaining capabilities surreptitiously due to the business plan having a need for it.

The fact it's running on a statistical system doesn't automatically mean it knows which of the token interactions it has represent, for example, fractions. There's no reason to believe it'd be better at actually performing deductive statistical analysis any more than to to believe it's using actual integers to perform arithmetic.

That is to say... even if it is incidentally ok at it, there are going to be some absolute financial disasters in the foreseeable future that are due to humans making bad decisions on the back of inferred data that they believe is deduced.

In summary, no. You aren't missing anything.

What constitutes 'amounted to anything' here?

Seems suspiciously like a goalpost you're going to move if someone actually looks and provides any counterexamples (e.g. Slay the Spire 2, Cassette Beasts, Brotato, Cruelty Squad).

Sadly he's right, and you can see the beginnings of it in these very comments.

Folks who reduce everything to a dichotomous battle aren't going to see nuance here, they're going to see "scientists think they are better than god". The fact no scientists needed to consult with or even think about an authority on their god anywhere through this process just makes it worse.

It might be a ridiculous claim that shows their hand, but they're already in denial about the relevance of their religion too.

Did you... not read the comment you responded to...?

Sadly it is referencing the same article

You should probably look up the name "Paul Benioff" by the way.

And be thankful that some other people are less critical of minor mistakes than you are.

Depends what you mean

The 'health' portfolio was bundled into an old Thompson Reuters brand and sold off unceremoniously. It's now called Merative L.P, it's basically a company that builds medical research and diagnostic pipelines with limited real world success... This was after the actual funders, a group of cancer research centres in the US, pulled the plug on ~7 years of promises that never eventuated about training models to do analysis of diagnostic images...

That is... the models and pipelines existed. They just didn't meet the sales pitch of "better, faster and cheaper than a real oncologist".

The rest of the brand they still have kicking around in the back, and sometimes wheel it out so people can remember when they spent 9 months training it to work out how to respond in the form of a question.

what ARE you talking about

why would 'left leaning' or 'right leaning' sources be the ones I'd favor?

why are those concepts anything other than constructs. I don't live in your country. What if there's something you've missed?

I'm not in the target audience for your right wing media, I'm a foreigner. What do you think that means for how those messages are intended to be received? You want my experience of my own life to be silenced so that only one of two corporate endorsed sets of talking points can be entertained when both of those perspectives cast America as the center of the world? Find someone else to buy your domestic entertainment product.

Yeah this

there's a definite sense, from an abstract systems perspective, where a corporation is just a form of mobile government that doesn't have to worry about silly things like 'territorial defense' or 'population growth' or 'persistent environmental damage'.

If you don't hear people who want to wedge so they can continue to raise points that have been settled using a phrase like this, I don't know what to tell you...

Considering that we're talking about Fox news here, and the subjects given as example are "flat earth, climate change, evolution"... Yeah sorry I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Can you please explain why there's a choice here between 'left' and 'right'?

Do you even understand that you're explaining that the evidence doesn't support your philosophy, and to cope with that you're trying to claim the evidence must be politically motivated... when you don't actually understand how the evidence was produced...?

There's nothing 'left' about empirical evidence being used to determine veracity. Claiming that opposition to your philosophy must be politically motivated without appraising it, or demanding that it be considered purely by a political, moral or emotional metric is explaining the size of the world you're capable of engaging with.

Sorry, that's simply incorrect.

Please take it from someone who actually lives in one of the countries that describe themselves as socialist instead of trying to reinterpret things.