So you think it's more than "not much." How much exactly? A 10% increase in userbase at peak-lawsuit?
It's obviously a function of product design. If they made a celebrity fake nudes generator they might get more users. But within the confines of the product they're actually making, I doubt they could budge the userbase by more than a couple percent by risking more lawsuits.
OK, it seems like a nitpick argument, but I'll refine my statement, even if doing so obfuscates it and does not change the conclusion.
The AI was trained to maximize profit, defined as net profit before lawsuits (NPBL) minus lawsuits. Obviously the null AI has a NPBL of zero, so it's eliminated from the start. We can expect NPBL to be primarily a function of userbase minus training costs. Within the training domain, maximizing the userbase and minimizing lawsuits are not in much conflict, so the loss function can target both. It seems to me that the additional training costs to minimize lawsuits (that is, holding userbase constant) pay off handsomely in terms of reduced liability. Therefore, the resulting AI is approximately the same as if it was trained primarily to minimize lawsuits.
My reading is pretty much the same as yours. I think of it in terms of tuples:
{ parents, child, AI_character, lawsuit_dollars }
The AI was trained to minimize lawsuit_dollars. The first two were selected to maximize it. Selected as in "drawn from a pool," not that they necessarily made anything up.
It's obvious that parents and/or child can manipulate the character in the direction of a judgment > 0. It'd be nice if the legal system made sure it's not what happened here.
This particular statistic has a ton of problems. It's impossible to disassociate the various causative pathways that land you at a BMI below 25. A ton of them involve diseases and chronic conditions.
Unfortunately, it's very hard to impossible to RCT this. And if a study has no RCT, take it with as much salt as your diet allows.
You definitely don't want to intentionally gain weight on the basis of this. If weight control is easy for you, I would personally strive for a lower BMI.
If losing weight below 25 is hard for you and your body just seems to refuse to do it, then you might be OK at 25.
Sad news IMO. "We're not cut out for the future. We're all in on the dying business." Dunder Mifflin level stuff.
Cruise cars were way more numerous around SF, although the service was worse than Waymo's. That stupid October 2023 accident really snowballed, and it wasn't even their (primary) fault.
IOW, older heuristics (meant to screen out below par human work) no longer function. Newer AI-specific heuristics are needed. Which is precisely what we're all developing, often without realizing.
Unfortunately there's a bit of a perverse feedback loop in that Pinocchio wants to be a real kid.
The ideal heuristic is to only deduplicate towards more orthogonality.
Suppose you started from first principles and navigated down the ontology tree taking one of the shortest paths (well, shortest-ish since it's a hard problem that'll burn up too much time otherwise.) Would you encounter your deduplicated function on the way? If not, it's making it worse.
What would fix the model IMO are mutually exclusive achievements, and the ongoing addition thereof. Only travel down the achievement paths that are fun to you. Avoid the others or you might get locked out of some future fun ones.
GJ! Insulin resistance is much more a function of total caloric load and expenditures than composition. It's called metabolic syndrome, not high glycemic index syndrome. You reworked your lifestyle and metabolism and came back into the "zone" before you fell off the cliff.