Every writing must be comprehensible to at least the author, regardless of whether it has commercial value or not. If I hit the keyboard a few times, I've created writing, but it doesn't mean anything. It is just gibberish and without meaning, so there is nothing to try to comprehend. So if there is something to be comprehended, then at minimum the author should know it.

Therefore what you keep claiming is the only refute of your argument of "an [...] incomprehensible [...] writing" is actually a paradox, and cannot be disproved itself. However "humans comprehending things" is not a paradox, which means that your specific request to beat your paradox is not actually related at all.

His examples disproving the non-paradox version of your challenge (writing incomprehensible to folks other than the original authors) are sufficient to disprove your statement, as he gave examples of both people not comprehending human made and 'God' made writing (the universe/gravity)

When I went to college, I met friends with dramatically different experiences in their schools than I had, and that was the first time the idea that school was more than just a babysitting camp had crossed my mind. My school was safe from exterior threats, and they took the bomb threats and jail breaks very seriously, even holding us in our classrooms late into the day until the perpetrator was caught, but internal threats caused by kids would always outnumber the teachers capacity to thwart. My parents choose where we lived based on the school having the least violence in the area so I know my experience wasn't even on the extreme end.

Edit: I realize I didn't address education. In short, in successful because my mom put a lot of work trying to educate me and ensure I took homework seriously. Even though I hardly attended my classes, I graduated top 10% because submitting homework was all you needed to do to surpass your peers. Any kids whose only educational influence was school itself, at least where I grew up, didn't receive much of an education.

Maybe they are hoping robots will replace human interaction, connection and intimacy like in some of those future distopian movies

I want to say /s but I'm sure lots of people are looking forward to this because they are already lonely

If I could summarize your argument, it sounds like you are saying that we can't understand the algorithm because we can't predict the output as it grows in size. While I agree that the larger the algorithm, the less predictable the output, I don't think this negates understanding of the algorithm itself.

I can build a slot machine, know how it works, but still not be able to reliably know who to cut in line so I can guarantee that I'll get the next winning pull. Just because I can't predict the output, doesn't make something not understandable. Same with all statistical behaviors. Quantum physics limits what we can measure but we still have math for it and understand why we can only measure speed or position, but not both, no mystery here if you look at the math behind it.

My slot machine doesn't hack other companies though, but only because it isn't connected, just like AI currently can't hack my mechanical dishwasher. If my slots were connected to the internet, could make api calls, and further had agentic capacity in some way, adding these features but being no different in stochastic attributation, it would be no different.

You do bring a good point that I ignored, which is the larger the scale, the more difficult it is to represent or understand the math in DL. I did find some neat site that helped a little bit that I can edit this and link to if I find them again, but I would be lying if I said I believe that the SOTA models could be as easily explained to be easily understood by the common person

Like any class, it was confusing at first, but when I eventually grasped the math behind what we were doing, and of course the visual representations of different elements to show lots of iterations of this math, it grounded the science for me, and I would hardly say people don't know what is going on. It only began to feel that way when it got a ton of hype and people jumping on the bandwagon who truly didn't understand it were trying to explain it to others, not to mention all the SOTA models put great effort into ensuring their methodologies stay trade secrets, going as far as effectively trying to ban people from learning the math by lobbying for the outlaw of open models.

Granted, "AI" has gotten way better than it was when I took that class, but the principles are the same, with different tooling and additional filters and algorithms thrown in there, as well as letting it determine the most appropriate statistically viable path forward for a particular prompt.

My daily driver is GrapheneOS. I don't know if android has a similar feature, but I assume not because my GrapheneOS phone only supports fully greyscale, and the difference is so stark that I can't keep it on. The most addictive apps I have on it are my Hacker News client and NewPipe (the nonaddictive YouTube), so I am not too concerned though

I don't wasn't to kill parents idea. It's neat, and Im sure there's use cases that my solution doesn't meet

Edge has it in edge://flags no extension needed. Firefox & brave requires settings and extension like chrome. I haven't used opera or Vivaldi in ages to help with them, but they will have an option because customizability is a key part of their selling points

I still use 2 Google services, of which neither would crumble me if lost (YouTube, and my old email which now acts as my spam inbox). I have lost accesses before, when I was still partially dependent, and had to give up my privacy to get access again, long enough to get off. It sucks but I do consider myself lucky that I was able to prevent the life crushing consequences that some people have had. Such a terrible company.

Adapt or die is the way of life.