Re: AI 101
> they all seem to feed off each other ... new "facts" shortly afterwards
Interestingly, and even more worryingly, if you closely read the published research in any virtue-meme-related area, you will see precisely the same pattern. Eg, build a model better fitted to the meme, then declare it as "data", which secondary researchers then use as their own basis. Then off the lakhs of tertiary researchers go, ringing the corollaries on a fiction.
The result is a cloud of "research", all very solid and internally consistent, which can take days plowing your way up the reference tree before you get to the primary work, at which point it all comes apart in your hands. Problem then, is that everyone else sees only this massive cloud of agreement, and trying to communicate the fundamental problems meets massive resistance/disbelief.
And some areas do even cite "inevitable consequences" in their conclusions which are straight out of SF.
> these type of sites
I will say that THIS site stands head and shoulders above the rest, so could be worth you taking another look at. It's somewhere between awesome and hair-raising to see the sheer thoroughness and logicalness and internal consistency, with no ranting, just a simple setting out of "facts". The only problem is the "facts" are decoupled from reality.
It stands as an excellent example for others of how to set out bodies of knowledge. And it stands as an psychiatric example of how intelligence and major conscientious effort can be profoundly discontiguous with reality.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
