There are several Lisp implementations (including fully-fledged operating systems) which are implemented in Lisp top to bottom.

He certainly meant an "SMT line", because phones assembled on a manual station in the USA (outside of shit quality) would cost well in excess of $2000.

There is familiarity aspect for sure but also that living conditions don't change that dramatically over human lifespan. Life two generations ago was different but not so terribly different as to be uncomfortable to a modern human. However getting used to lifestyles of some centuries ago, let alone back to neolithic would be substantial complication.

It was not an aesthetic issue alone. People were getting cut and had their shoe soles destroyed fairly routinely.

You read too much into it. Trump is manipulating the market for personal enrichment, in the most mundane manner.

Productivity since 2000 had only increased by some 30%, which can not account for structural changes in job market.

Lenat in his talks emphasised the infeasibility of building a universal ontology. From what I understand later Cyc modus operandi was a bunch of self consistent micro-theories but not a one huge theory of everything.

Yes, but I'm not sure he fully took in the lesson. Did they really build a bunch of separate domain-specific ontologies? Or, given that it's one system, did they build a universal ontology that's just a big mess?

The lesson I take from the fact that universal ontologies are untenable is that human cognition isn't driven by ontology, so the quest to make a thinking thing out of pile of symbolic logic is one that has no guarantee of succeeding. I think Cyc's whole project is roughly similar to the Frankensteinian notion that if you just put together the right parts and provide a vital spark, you'll get a living being. It might work and it might not, but either way it's not science; it's sympathetic magic with the trapping of science.

Well that's how LLMs got going: a critical mass of context until it ignited from its own gravitational pull.

And yes Cyc ontology wasn't consistent. Lenat's point was that it is impossible to have an ontology consistent. Which makes sense given how there is no consistence across human society or even every individual human.

I wouldn't say that LLMs have "ignited". I think they've gotten steadily better at autocomplete, but I don't think they've crossed any important threshold on the way to the sort of autonomous intelligence that Lenat was after.

I also don't think it was Lenat's original point to have an inconsistent ontology, as evidenced by his early projects. I agree that he eventually had to admit that. What I'm saying is that when he admitted that he should have recognized that it cut at the heart of what he was up to. Something I think borne out by the fact that he spent his whole life on something that didn't succeed on its own terms.

You can run EURISKO yourself these days tho.

Too little, too late

No, just like gas figures don't account for 100% overhead in rectification process.

Taxpayer-funded public television that's already a thing in many European countries could be a decent model. No ads and much better incentive alignment. When you pay for it you are the customer not the goods.

What incentive alignment? In my country the publicly founded TV that I'm obligated to pay for each month is completely biased.

Tax founded/public != real/useful.

Also: I am NOT a "customer": since it's tax founded I am EXTORTED to pay for it.

A customer is someone who has the option to CEASE buying it. I do not have that option.

In my country public TV is decent with good programming and neutral political tone.

When we speak of dominant social networks today however they are runaway adtech cesspools, outright owned by malicious actors, or a combination thereof. That recurring "good stuff becomes shit stuff when getting popular" effect that people lament so much is in no small part caused by adverse profit seeking incentives. There is no dopamine, addiction and hence money in keeping your timeline chill, unpolarized, attached to median human reality rather than freak circus and not riling you up with ragebait.

And naturally anything created by man can be undone and subverted and it can be done to public media as well. This risk however does not outweigh a demonstrably pathetic status quo of the fiery pits of existing social media platforms.

So that prevents censorship? Seems like anything critical of the government would not be allowed.

Depends on whether they are reasonably independent. This works pretty well for e.g NRK, YLE, DR etc. Government can’t have a say in short term (less than an election cycle) funding, or who’s leading the Public Service company or similar. There can be no possible leverage from politicians, that’s the key. . The job of public service like any media is to be critical of power. The first sign of a country sliding towards being a non-democracy is political tampering with public service.

Depends on the government. Poland for example was ok with criticising the government on the national tv for many years, until the last swing to "law and order".

So there are no guarantees even if it works without censorship currently.

("law and order" means PiS, the previous rolling party) I think this is the biggest issue - the temptation and the power to take over the national media is always there, and all it takes to dismantle all the checks and balances is one determined filling party.

In the other hand, the US manages to control it's completely privatized media, so maybe being publically funded is not the issue.