Indeed. Although it's much easier to eat healthier in, say, Japan than the USA because of a different food culture and different food infrastructure (as mentioned in two videos I linked to in another comment).

BlueZones has supported initiatives to make healthier eating -- and exercise and other good things -- easier to do by default in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://albertlea.bluezonespro...
        "Blue Zones Project(r) is a community-wide well-being initiative that helps make healthy choices easier for everyone in Albert Lea and Freeborn County. When our entire community participates, small changes contribute huge benefits for all of us: Lowered healthcare costs, improved productivity, and a higher quality of life.
        While many traditional health initiatives focus on diet and exercise programs, we focus on changing our community's culture and environment so that individuals are nudged into making healthy choices. We take a systematic approach to improving well-being through policy, building design, social networks and built environment across all sectors of our community. By optimizing the places that we live, work and play, we can make the healthy choices the easy choices so we naturally adopt healthy behaviors and have the opportunity to LIVE LONGER, BETTER(r)."

The Suppers clubs described in "Logical Miracles" are another approach to make healthier eating more the default in the USA:
"Logical Miracles: 100 Stories of Hope and Healing" by Dor Mullen
https://www.amazon.com/Logical...
        "Why is it so hard to eat right? What does it take to turn around the habits that make us sick and fat? Logical Miracles is a collection of stories by people in The Suppers Programs who found their personal solutions by experimenting with whole food. In an environment of nonjudgment, we cook, taste, and feel our way to health, and we forge new friendships based on healthy living. For five years, pilot Suppers groups have been helping people with a range of food-related challenges find their path, especially people with depression, anxiety, learning issues, obesity, diabetes, and problems with alcohol. No special diets. No fees. No commercial messages. The only requirement for membership is the desire to lead a healthier life. Now we'd like to share our logical miracles, our road maps, our recipes, and especially our hard-earned wisdom related as stories of hope and healing. Welcome to Suppers."

Also tangentially related:
""Stop Moralizing Air Conditioning" -- How Institutions Shift Responsibility Onto Individuals: On Civilization, Responsibility, and the Ethics of Preventable Suffering"
https://jdjayne.substack.com/p...
        "In my first essay on responsibility, I argued that affirming existence means accepting responsibility for a world we did not create. We emerge into the world shaped by the generations before us, and bear the burden of responsibility for ourselves and future generations ahead. Civilization, then, is the organization of that responsibility at scales greater than any individual could achieve alone.
        As civilizations grow and gain more capacity to prevent suffering, preventing that suffering increasingly becomes a collective responsibility rather than an individual burden. My claim is that modern institutions often fail this responsibility by concentrating authority while displacing responsibility back onto individuals through moralizing, bureaucracy, and institutional incentives.
        By institutions, I mean the durable organizations through which societies coordinate responsibilities that no individual can bear alone; governments, markets, corporations, and other structures of collective action.
        By moralizing, I mean the habit of transforming practical and institutional problems into questions of individual virtue. Rather than asking how we should collectively organize to reduce suffering, we ask whether those who suffer deserve relief in the first place.
        The result is a culture that blames individuals for suffering that civilization has already acquired the capability, and thus the responsibility, to prevent. ..."

In this case, institutions collectively managing trillions of dollars a year in the USA between industry and regulatory-captured government agencies have successfully shirked any responsibility to help people be healthy -- and instead such institutions have displaced that responsibility onto individuals by essentially blaming individuals for lack of willpower to resist all the carefully engineered traps the organization have created for individuals including children (like via ultra-processed foods, constant food-related advertising, artificially low prices via government subsidies for animal products, "health" insurance that covers getting sick but not staying healthy, and so on).

An example of such institutional power in action and how ludicrous pushback is often made to seem (Coca Cola's response was to tell them to individually just stop drinking their product if they had concerns):
https://organicconsumers.org/w...
        "William Lamar, the senior pastor at D.C.'s historic Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, is tired of presiding over funerals for parishioners who died of heart disease, diabetes and stroke.
        So on Thursday, he and another prominent African American pastor filed suit against Coca-Cola and the American Beverage Association, claiming soda manufacturers knowingly deceived customers about the health risks of sugar-sweetened beverages -- at enormous cost to their communities. ...
        Obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and lower-extremity amputations are all far higher among people of color than among whites. These communities also drink more soda -- and are exposed to more soda advertising.
        "It's become really clear to me that we're losing more people to the sweets than to the streets," said Coates, who said he has seen members of his congregation give their infants bottles filled with sugary drinks. "There's a great deal of misinformation in our communities, and I think that's largely a function of these deceptive marketing campaigns." ...."

And the spin on how silly such concern about institutional failure is made to seem:
https://taphaps.com/delman-coa...
        "According to the pastors, it is because Coke's commercials often feature misleading images of young, slender people gulping the fizzy beverage, smiling and sharing good times. "It breaks my heart and I'm saddened by the way in which we're losing so many people. I'm losing more people to the sweets than to the streets," Delman Coates added, according to The Blaze. However, the pastors' claims aren't supported by available evidence. In fact, most surveys show people believe sugar to be harmful, but choose to consume it anyway, another article on The Blaze reported.
          This hasn't deterred the pastors from blaming the company, though. "Marketing for Coca-Cola is focused around health and fun and showing very sexy bodies in their advertising. You never see an obese person. If the people are consuming Coca-Cola at this rate, there is no way those bodies would look like that," William Lamar claimed. "It's almost as if they are selling joy. They are equating this product with the things that people are hoping for - joy, smiles, family. But, this product will not deliver that. It delivers the exact opposite. Silence around this issue is violence." ....
        "Our hope is that Coca-Cola will discontinue marketing these drinks as something that is healthful and healthy," William Lamar said, but instead, Coca-Cola dismissed the pastors' allegations, calling them "legally and factually meritless," adding that they "will vigorously defend against them."
        "America's beverage companies know we have an important role to play in addressing our nation's health challenges. That's why we're engaging with health groups and community organizations to drive a reduction in the sugar and calories Americans get from beverages," the American Beverage Association said in a statement defending the industry's conduct. "Unfounded accusations like these won't do anything to address health concerns, but the actions we're taking, particularly in areas where obesity rates are among the highest, can make a difference." ...."

(Obesity may actually be driven more by animal products than sugar, but they certainly overlap as problem areas, and they likely make the problems caused by each other worse.)

by Jeff Nelson, Veg Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "For years we've been told that if one study proves the Mediterranean diet is the healthiest way to eat, it's PREDIMED.
        Doctors cite it. Dietitians cite it. Influencers have built careers on it.
        The headline: Mediterranean diet cuts heart disease by 30%.
        So I sat down and opened the actual paper. Not the press release -- the supplementary tables, where almost nobody looks.
        In today's video I walk through the trial's own tables -- what that 30% actually means, where it came from, and why I think anyone with blocked arteries should be asking a different question entirely."

Spoiler: a low-animal-fat low-seed-oil-fat diet like Ornish, McDougall, Fuhrman and so on suggest actually reverses heart disease rather than maybe just slow it a bit like the Mediterranean diet.

One can then argue about whether fats from nuts, seeds, and avocado are a net benefit (and I am leaning more that way) or whether all fats are problematical (like, say, McDougall suggested). Related by Dr. Fuhrman:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/arti...
        "It is important to stand up to individuals who can hurt others with dangerous nutritional advice. We usually see such arguments coming from the meat-promoting nutritional gurus, attempting to find some flaw in a study that demonstrates the dangers of too much animal products in the diet. The number of studies corroborating that more animal products in the diet contribute to the development of chronic disease and premature death is deafening and indisputable at this time.
        However, a similar development is occurring in the denial of the harm that results from omitting nuts and seeds from the diet - and the attempt to bolster support for an extremely low-fat vegan diet, which is clearly dangerous. It has been brought to my attention that a series of videos has been posted and promoted on YouTube attempting to discredit the studies documenting the lifespan-extending properties of including nuts and seeds in one's diet. The individuals represented here want to try to protect their legacy of promoting an extremely low-fat vegan diets (nut and seed exclusion); unfortunately, according to a preponderance of evidence, this outmoded and disproven stance does lead to premature death. Unable to shut down the avalanche of evidence, they attempt to discredit the studies. The facts are: extreme low-fat vegan dieters are at higher risk of depression and dementia, as well as premature mortality, from all causes, and the evidence increases every year. ..."

Here are some arguments against Fuhrman's position on supplementing DHA/EPA though (Jeff is also in the very-low-fat camp overall it seems to me):
"The DHA Dementia Promise Just Took a Hit" by Jeff Nelson -- VegSource
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "Are Vegans Being Sold a Story on DHA? It seems so. For years now, vegans have increasingly been told that if they don't take DHA supplements, they may be putting themselves at risk for dementia or Alzheimer's disease. I've always been skeptical of how certain those claims sound, because the actual evidence has never seemed nearly that clear-cut to me. ..."

A big underlying concern is that arteries can leak (hemorrhagic stroke) and so they need to be repaired from the inside, which if it goes too far (too much animal fats, especially in the context of sugar also causing arterial inflammation) then you can get deadly blockage (an ischemic stroke or heart attack).

So that's why I think Fuhrman may be more right on that than, say, McDougall -- where nuts and seeds might help reduce the risk of hemorrhagic stroke among other benefits for vegans by helping with the repair process without it going to far to clogs -- and so might be preventing dementia resulting from many small hemorrhagic strokes? (My speculation.) And it is also maybe why vegans not eating nuts and seeds (or maybe avocados) might potentially benefit from a little animal fat to reduce hemorrhagic stroke risk? Although there might be other issues in play like some fat in the diet helping with neural growth or brain maintenance given the brain is mostly fat.

But Jeff Nelson raises good points on whether supplements for DHA/EPA are essential or create new risks in that and other videos. I'm still a bit on the fence about such supplements even though I currently take an algae-based one.

One reason nutritional information is so confusing -- beyond the complexity of the human body itself -- is because there is so much money on the line (literally trillions of dollars a year in the USA between animal agriculture and the medical system). So there are huge incentives to sow confusion (similar to some other big issues like smoking or climate change). A great movie on that is "What the Health" (mentioned in a previous post by me). There are also not many incentives to research simple unpatentable health-related things like eating better.

As is pointed out in that movie, the animal products industries learned from the cigarette industry that you don't have to win an argument with scientific proof to win in the marketplace; you just have to cause enough confusion by spreading conflicting-seeming information that people give up trying to make sense of things and just keep on with their bad habits (to their own long-term suffering and to someone else's profit).

Interesting. Thanks for the suggestion! Here is a nutritional comparison on the lettuce with frozen spinach and yes the spinach has a lot more of various things (although they don't mention oxalates in that comparison which spinach also has more of):
https://comparator.food-nutrie...

I was trying a McDougall-ish approach then which is why the fat is so low on purpose. In general I otherwise have some nuts and seeds (and occasionally avocados too) which also add micronutrients (and protein for the nuts and seeds). Here is the spinach & lettuce comparison against pumpkin seeds, almonds, and avocado, and also beans:
https://comparator.food-nutrie...

I was glad to find that specific nutrition site as otherwise some nutrition sites require a sign up (although those may also have other great features like scanning barcodes). I thought to look for one from a comment someone made that it is good to sanity check what you are eating to look for specific nutrient deficiencies. That's how I learned I am eating a lot less calcium then when I was eating Mozarella string cheese in lettuce wraps.
https://meal.food-nutrients-ca...

I still need to work on the calcium issue (whereas protein is not an issue for me). Maybe more sesame, chia, or flax seeds? I have a container of chia seeds just sitting in the cupboard, so maybe this will help motivate me to work them into something I eat. Spinach might also improve the calcium situation (except for the oxalates, which is an argument for cooking it). More beans might help with the calcium too.
https://vegfaqs.com/seeds-high...
https://health.clevelandclinic...

Yes, that statement should come with an asterisk proviso. If people get all their calories from table sugar, then yes, they won't be getting any protein (as you say). But if people get all their calories from a variety of whole plant foods, then they will essentially get enough protein. So yes, there is an assumption there that people are not eating some monodiet of, say, all fruit (which is low in protein).

But all fruit and sugar are the rare exceptions of being low protein. For example, eating just potatoes essentially gets you to the RDA of protein (but eating a variety of foods including beans is healthier).
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=prot...
https://www.eatthismuch.com/ca...
https://www.eatthis.com/potato...

Wild horses eat mostly grass and must get enough protein to be so big and strong. But, admittedly, they eat a lot of grass all day. Likewise gorillas eat lots of vegetation all day.

Related funny video on protein:
""Where do you get your protein?" The Ultimate Response 2025"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Where do vegans get their protein? Let's answer this with the newest data from recent trials, the logic, personal experience, and my friend TRENton."

As Mic the Vegan mentions there, "Fiber is the new protein". The more important question most US Americans should be asking is "Where am I getting my fiber?"

While this is not completely accurate (sodium is lower in the specific products I actually ate, and portions may not be exact, does not include supplements like for vitamin D or algae-based DHA/EPA, etc), here is an approximation of a day of plant-only food I ate a while back showing enough protein (even not eating any beans that day):
https://meal.food-nutrients-ca...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "Garth Philip Davis (born January 28, 1970) is an American bariatric surgeon, physician, and author. Davis specializes in weight management and is known for his advocacy of plant-based nutrition. ...
        Davis is a board-certified surgeon who specializes in bariatric surgery and Medical Weight Loss at Mission Weight Management Center in Asheville, North Carolina.[2][5]He is now back in Houston, Texas, working for Houston Methodist and Methodist West, and is serving as the medical director for the Comprehensive Metabolic Disease Management Center. ...
      Davis is best known for his book Proteinaholic: How Our Obsession with Meat Is Killing Us and What We Can Do About It, which argues that a high-protein diet of animal source foods causes people to be overweight and more susceptible to certain diseases, such as cancer and diabetes. Davis states that people can get all the protein they need from a plant-based diet. Davis has written that there is "a broad consensus that including plants and limiting animals in our diets is the single best thing we can do for our health"."

Personally, I question the value of bariatric surgery for most people compared to diet and lifestyle changes (like eating more beans), but it is different from plastic surgery.

Dr. Fuhrman -- who I also linked to a video from -- is an expert in nutrition and health (although he has his own conflicts by selling products, although he has claimed he donates all the profits from them to nutritional research).

Unfortunately, "captured" government policy and short-term profit maximizing make it hard to lose weight in the USA even when you want to. Some related videos:

* "I Investigated The World's Skinniest vs Fattest City" by Will Tennyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      "Little Rock, Arkansas, US vs. Tokyo, Japan"

* "How Japan escaped Obesity while America got Fat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

* "Why a Big Mac Costs Less Than a Salad"
https://archive.nytimes.com/ec...

* "What The Health - Full Documentary" (and criticism and response):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://informationisbeautiful...
"'What the Health' Now Debunked by Vox | REBUTTAL" by Mic the Vegan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here is a video that is hilarious (if very sad) when you think about it, as another example of calling out unnecessarily and risky medicine substituting for diet and lifestyle changes:
"This 99 Cent Food [a can of beans] Mimics Ozempic -- Here's How (And How to Use It): Weight Loss Doctor Explains"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.vrg.org/journal/vj...
        "In 2023 we reported a study that we conducted comparing the prices of meat-like veggie burgers and vegan ground meat to animal meat. We recently expanded our study to include canned and dried beans because these products are often less expensive sources of protein, iron, and other nutrients that are also supplied by veggie burgers and vegan ground meat. ... In both cities, dried beans cost the least per serving, followed by canned beans, then by animal meat, and then by veggie meat. Dried beans cost between 10 cents and 20 cents per serving, depending on the type of bean and the location of the store. Canned beans cost between 25 cents and 40 cents per serving. Compare that to 80 cents to over $2 for a serving of animal meat and 80 cents to $1.24 for a serving of veggie meat. It's clear that beans offer significant cost savings. When you're looking for a low-cost, nutritious, convenient food, remember beans!"

As Dr. Fuhrman, an expert in nutrition, said in the previously linked video at 2:54: "If you can remember anything from this podcast, it's said based on these cited studies] more animal protein shortens lifespan and more plant protein -- paying attention to it, and getting more plant protein, not overeating calories of course -- makes you live longer."

My grocery bill went down eating more the way people like Dr. Joel Fuhrman on recommends. Processed food and animal products -- especially organic ones -- can be expensive.

Killing Us and What We Can Do About It by Garth Davis M.D., Howard Jacobson: https://www.amazon.com/Protein...
====
An acclaimed surgeon specializing in weight loss delivers a paradigm-shifting examination of the diet and health industry's focus on protein, explaining why it is detrimental to our health, and can prevent us from losing weight.

Whether you are seeing a doctor, nutritionist, or a trainer, all of them advise to eat more protein. Foods, drinks, and supplements are loaded with extra protein. Many people use protein for weight control, to gain or lose pounds, while others believe it gives them more energy and is essential for a longer, healthier life. Now, Dr. Garth Davis, an expert in weight loss asks, "Is all this protein making us healthier?"

The answer, he emphatically argues, is NO. Too much protein is actually making us sick, fat, and tired, according to Dr. Davis. If you are getting adequate calories in your diet, there is no such thing as protein deficiency. The healthiest countries in the world eat far less protein than we do and yet we have an entire nation on a protein binge getting sicker by the day.

As a surgeon treating obese patients, Dr. Davis was frustrated by the ever-increasing number of sick and overweight patients, but it wasn't until his own health scare that he realized he could do something about it. Combining cutting-edge research, with his hands-on patient experience and his years dedicated to analyzing studies of the world's longest-lived populations, this explosive, groundbreaking book reveals the truth about the dangers of protein and shares a proven approach to weight loss, health, and longevity.
====

Also: "How Do You Prevent Protein Deficiency? Dr. Joel Fuhrman"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
        "In this informative discussion, Dr. Joel Fuhrman breaks down the importance of protein adequacy and optimal macronutrient ratios for longevity on a plant-based diet. Learn about the surprising fat content of meat, the risks associated with low-carb diets like keto and carnivore, and the science-backed approach of the Nutritarian diet. Discover the crucial role of nuts and seeds in promoting longevity, as demonstrated in the Adventist Health Study, and gain practical tips for fueling athletic performance with whole plant foods."

Meat has been marketed based on scaring people about protein.
Dairy has been marketed based on scaring people about calcium.
You can generally get enough of each if you eat a varied whole-foods plat-based diet especially one including beans and nuts and seeds etc.. Calcium is actually the harder one than protein (since if you get enough calories from whole foods you generally get enough protein):
https://www.worldofvegan.com/v...

As I say in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Or in more detail here: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
        "There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
        The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
        We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working").
        Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. ..."

I can't guaranty 100% that we survive AI by embracing an abundance perspective, but it is probably 100% certain that we will all be doomed if we keep our current scarcity perspective while using such powerful technology.

Kind of like if a teenager is given a muscle car and they drive it a top-speed everywhere while ignoring stop signs and traffic lights (and also drinking, while being sleepy, and texting, and not wearing a set belt, at night). A disastrous crash is almost certain if someone drives that way.
"Risk Factors for Teen Drivers"
https://www.cdc.gov/teen-drive...
      "Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and to allow shorter distances from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next. These risky driving behaviors appear to be worse when a male teenage passenger is present. 35% of male drivers and 18% of female drivers (ages 15â"20 years) who were involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time of the crash in 2020."

Of course, AI for self-driving vehicles might help with those teenager issues. Then sleepy teens can drink and text all they want while the AI chauffeurs them around at a safe speed. :-)

Although the teen may still be at a psychological risk of feeling dis-empowered and frustrated as described in regards to AI in 1947 in "With Folded Hands" depending on the specifics of how that all is implemented: :-(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/......
        "With Folded Hands ..." is a 1947 science fiction novelette[1] by American writer Jack Williamson (1908â"2006). In writing it, Williamson was influenced by the aftermath of World War II, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and his concern that "some of the technological creations we had developed with the best intentions might have disastrous consequences in the long run."

Other people with reasonable concerns about AI and how we will use it include:

* Tristan Harris, who gets that we need more compassion in our relation to technology and each other:
"Tristan Harris's New TED Talk, and "AGI Beyond the Buzz: What Is It, and Are We Ready?""
https://centerforhumanetechnol...

* Mo Gwadat, who gets that we have a problematical competitive perspective for developing and deploying AI:
"Ex-Google Officer: You Only Have 3 Years Left Before It Hits! - Mo Gawdat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

An interesting phrase here of "Sleep-racing into the machine":
https://www.theepochtimes.com/...
        "If we slow down, someone else wins. If we regulate, we fall behind. If we hesitate, another nation dominates the future.
        Humanity has heard this logic before.
        We once raced to build nuclear weapons under the same justification. But eventually the world understood that capability alone could not be the moral compass. At some point, nations realized that endless acceleration toward destructive power was not wisdom.
        Why are we incapable of having that same conversation about AI?"

From: "On Funding Digital Public Works" https://pdfernhout.net/on-fund...
====
What have funding policies in automotive intelligence wrought?

Consider again the self-driving cars mentioned earlier which now cruise some streets in small numbers. The software "intelligence" doing the driving was primarily developed by public money given to universities, which generally own the copyrights and patents as the contractors. Obviously there are related scientific publications, but in practice these fail to do justice to the complexity of such systems. The truest physical representation of the knowledge learned by such work is the codebase plus email discussions of it (plus what developers carry in their heads).

We are about to see the emergence of companies licensing that publicly funded software and selling modified versions of such software as proprietary products. There will eventually be hundreds or thousands of paid automotive software engineers working on such software no matter how it is funded, because there will be great value in having such self-driving vehicles given the result of America's horrendous urban planning policies leaving the car as generally the most efficient means of transport in the suburb. The question is, will the results of the work be open for inspection and contribution by the public? Essentially, will those engineers and their employers be "owners" of the software, or will they instead be "stewards" of a larger free and open community development process?

Open source software is typically eventually of much higher quality and reliability because more eyes look over the code for problems and more voices contribute to adding innovative solutions. About 35,000 Americans are killed every year in driving fatalities, and hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. Should the software that keeps people safe on roads, and which has already been created primarily with public funds, not also be kept under continuous public scrutiny?

Without concerted action, such software will likely be kept proprietary because that will be more profitable sooner to the people who get in early, and will fit into conventional expectations of business as usual. It will likely end up being available for inspection and testing at best to a few government employees under non-disclosure agreements. We are talking about an entire publicly funded infrastructure about to disappear from the public radar screen. There is something deeply wrong here.

And while it is true many planes like the 757 can fly themselves already for most of their journey, and their software is probably mostly proprietary, the software involved in driving is potentially far more complex as it requires visual recognition of cues in a more complex environment full of many more unpredictable agents operating on much faster timescales. Also, automotive intelligence will touch all of our lives on a daily basis, where as aircraft intelligence can be generally avoided in daily life.

Decisions on how this public intellectual property related to automotive intelligence will be handled will affect the health and safety of every American and later everyone in any developed country. Either way, the automotive software engineers and their employers will do well financially (for example, one might still buy a Volvo because their software engineers are better and they do more thorough testing of configurations). But which way will the public be better off:
* totally dependent on proprietary intelligences under the hoods of their cars which they have no way of understanding, or instead
* with ways to verify what those intelligences do, understand how they operate, and make contributions when they can so such automotive intelligences serve humane purposes better?

If, for example, automotive intelligence was developed under some form of copyleft license like the GNU General Public License, then at least car owners or their "software mechanics" would be assured they could have access to the software in source form to ensure safe operation. What might be "street legal" in terms of software modifications might be a different story -- in the same way people can't legally drive with a cracked windshield or a broken headlight. For example, software changes might need to first be proven safe in simulation before being provisionally "street legal". But, the important thing is, foundations or government agencies funding code development could insist on some form of free licensing terms for automotive intelligence as a matter of public policy.

There are many other areas of human activities that the exponential growth of technology will effect. Automotive intelligence is just one of them that is here now and which I am familiar with from tangential interactions at universities with people developing it. In enough time similar issues will arise for the software behind household robotics or intelligent devices that assist the elderly or handicapped. The IBOT wheelchair by Dean Kamen using complex software to balance on two wheels is just the beginning of such devices.

Note the IBOT wheelchair was developed entirely with private funds it seems, so the reasoning in this essay does not apply directly to it. Also, in general Dean Kamen is a role model of a socially responsible for-profit inventor. Still, the issue arises of whether "Johnson & Johnson" should be funding such development, as was the case, as opposed to, say, the "Robert Wood Johnson Foundation", as was not, given the public policy issue of whether individuals should be continually dependent for personal needs on proprietary software. In either case it would be worth it to pay billions for such innovation, and the public will pay that in the end as a toll on for such devices.

There is a real question here of how our society will proceed -- mainly closed or mainly open. It is reflected in everything the non-profit world does -- including the myths it lives by. The choice of myth can be made in part by the funding policies set by foundations and government agencies. The myth that funders may be living by is the scarcity economics myth. How does that myth effect the digital public works funding cycle?
====

Glad to see more people -- including also with Princeton roots -- taking up the cause!!! :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"One day, shortly before Christmas, an insect becomes jammed in a teleprinter, which misprints a copy of an arrest warrant it was receiving. This leads to the arrest and death during interrogation of cobbler Archibald Buttle instead of suspected terrorist Archibald Tuttle. ..."

By David Goodstein, then vice-provost of Caltech in 1994, pointing to a long need for systemic change: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
        "Let me finish by summarizing what I've been trying to tell you. We stand at an historic juncture in the history of science. The long era of exponential expansion ended decades ago, but we have not yet reconciled ourselves to that fact. The present social structure of science, by which I mean institutions, education, funding, publications and so on all evolved during the period of exponential expansion, before The Big Crunch. They are not suited to the unknown future we face. Today's scientific leaders, in the universities, government, industry and the scientific societies are mostly people who came of age during the golden era, 1950 - 1970. I am myself part of that generation. We think those were normal times and expect them to return. But we are wrong. Nothing like it will ever happen again. It is by no means certain that science will even survive, much less flourish, in the difficult times we face. Before it can survive, those of us who have gained so much from the era of scientific elites and scientific illiterates must learn to face reality, and admit that those days are gone forever.
        I think we have our work cut out for us."

That said, I am all for lots more funding of science and technological research (especially small-scale projects)!

Also on how this continues to play out, by Philip Greenspun:
https://philip.greenspun.com/c...
        "Pursuing science as a career seems so irrational that one wonders why any young American would do it. Yet we do find some young Americans starting out in the sciences and they are mostly men. When the Larry Summers story first broke, I wrote in my Weblog:
        "A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals, fly homebuilt helicopters, play video games, and keep tropical fish as pets (98 percent of the attendees at the American Cichlid Association convention that I last attended were male). Should we be surprised that it is mostly men who spend 10 years banging their heads against an equation-filled blackboard in hopes of landing a $35,000/year post-doc job?"
        Having been both a student and teacher at MIT, my personal explanation for men going into science is the following:
* young men strive to achieve high status among their peer group
* men tend to lack perspective and are unable to step back and ask the question "is this peer group worth impressing?"
        Consider Albert Q. Mathnerd, a math undergrad at MIT ("Course 18" we call it). He works hard and beats his chest to demonstrate that he is the best math nerd at MIT. This is important to Albert because most of his friends are math majors and the rest of his friends are in wimpier departments, impressed that Albert has even taken on such demanding classes. Albert never reflects on the fact that the guy who was the best math undergrad at MIT 20 years ago is now an entry-level public school teacher in Nebraska, having failed to get tenure at a 2nd tier university. ...
        It is the guys with the poorest social skills who are least likely to talk to adults and find out what the salary and working conditions are like in different occupations. It is mostly guys with rather poor social skills whom one meets in the university science halls.
        What about women? Don't they want to impress their peers? Yes, but they are more discriminating about choosing those peers. I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory. ..."

Frankly, as a science&technology-inspired once-upon-a-time mathnerd (i.e. similar to many here on Slashdot), who thinks our global society desperately needs better technology appropriate to small-scale locally-controlled sustainable living (while also needing better social sciences to support better ways of collaborating productively), this state of affairs saddens me. Bbut I can't deny the truth of a lot of what David Goostein and Philip Greenspun wrote.

Yes there is some demand for trained people in industry with PhDs. But technical workers in big corporations is not what the academic system historically is set up to produce. And the results are a lot of unhappiness and dissatisfaction all around.

Another piece of the unhappiness puzzle:
"Disciplined Minds"
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
        "Who are you going to be? That is the question.
        In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
        The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy.
        Schmidt details the battle one must fight to be an independent thinker and to pursue one's own social vision in today's corporate society. He shows how an honest reassessment of what it really means to be a professional employee can be remarkably liberating. After reading this brutally frank book, no one who works for a living will ever think the same way about his or her job."

But the whole work system in general is broken and full of needless suffering: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
        "It is now possible to abolish work and replace it, insofar as it serves useful purposes, with a multitude of new kinds of free activities. To abolish work requires going at it from two directions, quantitative and qualitative. On the one hand, on the quantitative side, we have to cut down massively on the amount of work being done. At present most work is useless or worse and we should simply get rid of it. On the other hand -- and I think this is the crux of the matter and the revolutionary new departure -- we have to take what useful work remains and transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes, indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes except that they happen to yield useful end-products. Surely that wouldn't make them less enticing to do. Then all the artificial barriers of power and property could come down. Creation could become recreation. And we could all stop being afraid of each other.
        I don't suggest that most work is salvageable in this way. But then most work isn't worth trying to save. Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkies and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes. ..."

Examples of sci-fi stories envisioning something better include The Skills of Xanadu, Voyage form Yesteryear, and Manna.

"Guaranteed income helps people leaving jail and prison, and that helps everyone"
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/b...
      "Upon coming home from prison, people face the same â" and rising â" costs of living as the rest of us. But they have to bear additional costs imposed by the criminal legal system as well, all while navigating additional and unique barriers to employment. The resulting financial insecurity makes it harder to succeed at reentry. Cash assistance (often called âoeguaranteed incomeâ) makes reentry easier by providing people with a monetary safety net, helping them get jobs, housing, and food, and fulfill any remaining court or parole obligations.
      In this piece, we explain how guaranteed income reduces recidivism and results in taxpayer savings. We highlight the work of the Just Income program in Alachua County (Gainesville), Florida as a concrete example that demonstrates cash assistance with no strings attached is a smart policy choice for supporting people in reentry. ..."

"Omega-3 and vitamin D supplementation to reduce recidivism: a pilot study"
https://link.springer.com/arti...
"These pilot data suggest that omega-3 and vitamin D supplementation, a simple and relatively cheap health intervention, could reduce 3-year recidivism by 16.6%."

You wrote: "Isn't it funny how the Republican Party always gets very concerned about spending and the reach of government when the Republican Party doesn't control government; but just as soon as they do have control they start spending like crypto bros and use government to interfere in literally everything that doesn't fit their questionable narratives?"

See also: "The GOP used a Two Santa Clauses tactic to con America for nearly 40 years; This scam has been killing wages and enriching billionaires for decades"
https://www.salon.com/2018/02/...
        "The Republican Party has been running a long con on America since Reagan's inauguration, and somehow our nation's media has missed it - even though it was announced in The Wall Street Journal in the 1970s and the GOP has clung tenaciously to it ever since.
        In fact, Republican strategist Jude Wanniski's 1974 "Two Santa Clauses Theory" has been the main reason why the GOP has succeeded in producing our last two Republican presidents, Bush and Trump (despite losing the popular vote both times). It's also why Reagan's economy seemed to be "good."
        Here's how it works, laid it out in simple summary:
        First, when Republicans control the federal government, and particularly the White House, spend money like a drunken sailor and run up the US debt as far and as fast as possible. This produces three results - it stimulates the economy thus making people think that the GOP can produce a good economy, it raises the debt dramatically, and it makes people think that Republicans are the "tax-cut Santa Claus."
        Second, when a Democrat is in the White House, scream about the national debt as loudly and frantically as possible, freaking out about how "our children will have to pay for it!" and "we have to cut spending to solve the crisis!" This will force the Democrats in power to cut their own social safety net programs, thus shooting their welfare-of-the-American-people Santa Claus. ..."

So it is not hypocrisy so much as a precisely-thought-out effective political strategy. Whether the majority of voters in the USA like the results or realize where those results come from is a different issue.

I just wanted to add that whatever the truth there, this idea that LLMs are not (by themselves) the way forward is increasingly appearing in various places. One recent example on Slashdot:
https://slashdot.org/story/25/...
"Project Prometheus is building AI systems that learn from physical experiments rather than just analyzing digital text."

Humans learn to speak usefully with just a few years of immersion in a social world and without reading the entire internet. My college advisor back in the 1980s (George A. Miller) though this suggested language had a partially genetically-wired component in the brain even as much was also learned.

Beyond reading Asimov robot stories as a kid, I first learned more formally about AI taking an independent study course in High School in the late 1970s based around Patrick Winston's first edition Artificial Intelligence textbook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Then in the 1980s, some of my college work was also related to AI as cognitive science and exploring triplestores and so on (which very indirectly helped inspire George to create WordNet as I was graduating, where WordNet lead to Simpli and Google AdSense). I spent about a year hanging around the CMU Robotics Institute after graduation (where I got to ride in the first "Autonomous Land Vehicle" or "ALVAN"). And then I was a research assistant co-managing a robotics and expert system lab for a time. I also made one of the first simulations on a Symbolics of kinematic self-replicating robots (presenting that work at a conference on AI and simulation, where I commented on the total surprise to me when I saw emergent behavior of unexpected cannibalism of offspring in it until I kludged in a virtual sense of smell to avoid eating creatures that smelled the same). As a grad student later I learned a bit about neural networks related to self-driving vehicles.

I later worked for a time in IBM's speech research group in the late 1990s (mainly using existing tools to build implementations, aspects of which were forerunner to Apple's Siri as IBM's "Personal Speech Assistant" and also an interactive speech-operated display wall I built mostly for fun which was intended to in-theory eventually support advanced design and also patent writing).

Anyway, with that for context, I think LLMs are pretty amazing, but they just don't seem like how humans learn to think and speak. Not saying they can't be useful as part of a larger system though. But fundamentally, even if neural networks are involved, humans think in concepts (or word senses, as in WordNet) which they mostly learn by inference from just a relatively few examples. And that learning tends to have a precise aspect to it related to the actual experience and some notion of "truth" (as in actual experience even if the experience is hearing or reading about what someone else experienced or said they experiences).

So the idea proposed here by "Cringely" makes some sense (as part of this trend to seeing the limits of LLMs) -- although whether or not he can pull it off is a different issues.

But there remains a concern of whether or not such a thing (making powerful self-taught AIs) is worth doing right now given a competitive economic system and also the existential risk of creating essentially a new intelligent species (one without all the evolved safeguards humans have as a social species, limited as they may be as demonstrated by various tech-bro behavior). Anyway, such concerns is why I mostly left the AI research field in the 1980s (other than to kibitz about it from the outside).

This YouTube comment was not posted by me but it almost could have been in some ways:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      "@Jenkkimie 2 weeks ago
      Former AI developer here. Hear Mo Gawdat's message to heart. I regret my past, regret that I helped companies to build AI's at all. I can't undo history but I left the AI industry when I saw companies were starting to plan on using AI in unethical ways that I could not stand by. I've lost a lot of money over the years but as far as I am concerned that is the sacrifice I made because I don't want to be part of the destruction of humanity and the world.
      There has got to be better ways to use AI than pure greed, and we need to do better than this. To remember ethics, not just our bank accounts. So I've joined among many other former and current AI developers in advocating for regulations, change of how we think about economies and the role of money in our world and what is our place in it. Maybe we are fighting a losing battle but all of us should do what we can to steer and orient this world to a better tomorrow rather than submit to the will of the oligarchs evil desires. The fight is not over yet, we can still change the direction of it all."

Mo Gawdat (interviewed in the video that comment is posted on) is the only major AI executive who so far I see seems to get the main idea my sig in relation to AI: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Whatever AIs we build, unless we (or they) understand that irony, it seems unlikely that there will be a happy result for humanity of such work.

Wow. Thanks for posting this, A.C.. In trying to verify any of what you posted (which was all news to me), I found this:
"The cost of lies: A Mineserver story" by Jeremy Reimer
https://jeremyreimer.com/rocke...
      "Creating and shipping a brand new product is insanely difficult. It takes a ton of money, sweat, and time. Even people with tons of experience can underestimate timelines and encounter unexpected difficulties. So telling the story of a failed Kickstarter is not especially interesting.
      This is not that story.
      This is a story about what happens when someone builds up a reputation over decades of work and then destroys it in a couple of years. Not because they failed, but because they lied about it. Over and over again. Until the lies got too much to handle, and they had to create newer, even larger lies to cover them up.
      Why would anyone do this? We'll get into that at the end. But first, the story. ..."

I can still wonder on the use of the word "lie" in that article by Jeremy Reimer versus, say, "irrational exuberance" especially if his kids were involved in making the Minecraft server project happen? But the article does make it sounds like a larger pattern. Ironically, the behavior even sounds a bit like an overly-people-pleasing LLM hallucination?

Having read many Robert X. Cringely articles in InfoWorld and so on way back when, I would be sad if this was all true. Kind of like losing faith in a celebrity of computing from my younger days.

Related (although in general I have not found it that true about most computing people):
"Never Meet Your Heroes: What It Means & If You Should Meet Them"
https://www.wikihow.com/Never-...
        "Itâ(TM)s a proverb that suggests meeting your idols can lead to disappointment. âoeNever meet your heroesâ is a piece of advice that means people shouldnâ(TM)t meet their heroes because they may be disappointed by the heroâ(TM)s true personality. This happens because people tend to idealize people they look up to instead of viewing them as multifaceted humans with flaws, and they may have unrealistic expectations about what will happen when they meet their hero.
        The hero might not have the time, energy, or interest in meeting their expectations, destroying the perfect image that person has built in their head.
        The logic behind this proverb is that many celebrities craft public personas, and the image they portray online or on camera may be vastly different from how they act in real life.
        With that being said, some people say that meeting your heroes can be a positive experience and serve as a reminder that heroes are no different than normal people. ..."