I think Woz didn't make any advances at a fundamental level.

lol troll

Yeah but radio ads are generic and not 2 way conversations. They are not an asking what you are saying and twisting it towards explaining why you need product X.

It will be as reliable as asking a used car salesman for advice. Somehow it's gonna be advice about how a car would for me

Damn. You're right. That article doesn't say it, and I didn't find the one I originally read, which was about bacteria living deep in the earth where the radiation generated ionization states that they used. IIRC it was about bacteria living in a granite based low-level uranium source. And they were living a lot deeper than previously detected bacteria. (This was about 3-4 decades ago, so it's not surprising that I can't find that article. I think it was in Science News, but possibly it was in New Scientist. In any case, what I read was a magazine article. And it was rather explicit...though of course not detailed.)

Google's idea at the time was to use their pull to improve content on the internet, and they started issuing SEO guidelines. They regularly update the guidelines to match whatever they think will be better for the internet, and the SEO consultants follow it like a flock.

It's not entirely wrong, if you have two articles, the longer one is more likely to have more information. As a metric it's easily gamed, and they need to stay on top of that somehow but didn't.

None of those people made advancements at the fundamental level. They all paid someone (or stole from someone) who had a college degree to do the advancements.

Websites were already getting ridiculously verbose (like recipe websites having a long story before the actual recipe) because Google favored pages like that. If you wanted your page to show up in the search results, it had to be nonsensically verbose.

Interesting, how was the corruption of the '12 Olympics involved in the Crimea invasion?

That's an optimistic prediction about the capabilities of AI.

It does all the work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Yeah that's true, I agree.

How can you be so certain? Strong AI algorithm could be invented/discovered any time.

Here's one reference, though not the orginal one I read.
https://academic.oup.com/ismej...

Note that this is not DIRECTLY eating radiation, but that's still its energy source, as that's where the H molecule comes from. So to simplify, saying it eats radiation is not wrong.

It's quite plausible that it eats radiation. There are bacteria that live inside rocks and eat radiation. That it would be a shield is, however, very implausible.

If they end up somehow building strong AI, then the investment will pay off in huge multiples and will absolutely be worth it.

If they don't manage to create strong AI, but manage to create a better search engine that somehow replaces Google, then it will be worth the investment (for comparison, Google profit is on the order of $100 billion per year).

There are a lot of other potential products that could bring heavy revenue, even without strong AI. AirBnB has $2billion a year in net profit, which isn't great but it's conceivable that even with the current crappy AI product, OpenAI could make a reasonable amount of revenue. With billions of potential customers, they don't need to make a lot of money off each person.