nednobbins

The question is typically described as "the historicity of Jesus". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

There are similar debates for other famous ancient figures.

The general academic consensus on Jesus (and many similar figures) is that they did exist and many of the details have been fictionalized.

"Worse than expected," depends largely on the individual and what they were expecting. It comes down to expecting one thing and being disappointed in the outcome.

People who expected him to be an ally of immigrants are disappointed in his border policies.
People who expected him to fix Trumps "easy" trade wars are disappointed in his trade policies.
People who expected him to support labor are disappointed in his ban of the railroad workers strike.
People who expected him to champion human rights are disappointed in his support of the IDF.

He may have met your expectations and the expectations of the majority of Democrats. Biden's 2020 victory depended on several groups who only showed up because they hoped that he would address their specific concerns.

FOIA requests generally don't involve hackers or leaks. The act exists because citizens insisted that government provides visibility into its inner workings.

What is the equivalent for Google, or any other private company?

It's hard to draw meaningful conclusions form a single 4 year period. There have been several instances of corruption (and significant externalized costs) in private firms that went on for much longer than 4 years.

I agree that there is a lot of corruption in government but there's a long gap between that and no accountability. We see various forms of government accountability on a regular basis; politicians lose elections, they get recalled, and they sometimes even get incarcerated. We also have multiple systems designed to allow any citizen to influence government.

None of these systems and safeguards are anywhere close to perfect but it must be better than organizations that don't even have these systems in the first place.

If we're going by current usage rather than historical precedent, it doesn't matter that "antisemitc" was originally coined to refer to hatred of Jews.

In that case we would look to the very common usage that includes hatred of all the other speakers of Semitic languages.

Or we could use the extremist definition of, "Any criticism of Israel." If we go by that definition a whole lot of people (including many Jews) would also qualify.

What makes governments any more susceptible to corruption than a private organization?

I'm not actually talking about governments having absolute control. That's a pretty extreme scenario to jump to from from the question of if it's better for a private company or a government to control search.

Right now we think Google is misusing that data. We can't even get information on it without a leak. The government has a flawed FOIA system but Google has nothing of the sort. The only way we're protected from corruption at Google (and historically speaking several other large private organization) is when the government steps in and stops them.

Governments often handle corruption poorly but I can rattle of many cases where governments managed to reduce corruption on their own (ie without requiring a revolution). In many cases the source of that corruption was large private organizations.

That's fine. If we don't want to use the word we don't need to. If we're going to use it then let's use it in a non-racist way.

It's kind of bizzare to say claim that we shouldn't use the term "Semite" because it's outdated but then continue to use "antisemite" and claim it's only about a tiny subsection of the people that "Semite" used to refer to.

There are approximately 330 million Semitic people in the world. Around 15.7 milllion (around 4.8%) of them are Jewish.

If the common usage of "anti-semitic" excludes the vast majority of Semitic people, it's an outdated, racist term.

We should either drop it from our vocabulary or use it in an inclusive way.

It would depend on how well we can control it.

Ideally the material would be completely nonreactive for as long as you're using it and then instantly degrade into component elements.

The faster things degrade, the higher the chance that they'll degrade when you don't want it to.

Why is that better? It may not be ideal but governments have at least some accountability.

A bunch of scientific papers are probably better data than a bunch of Reddit posts and it's still not good enough.

Consider the task we're asking the AI to do. If you want a human to be able to correctly answer questions across a wide array of scientific fields you can't just hand them all the science papers and expect them to be able to understand it. Even if we restrict it to a single narrow field of research we expect that person to have a insane levels of education. We're talking 12 years of primary education, 4 years as an undergraduate and 4 more years doing their PhD, and that's at the low end. During all that time the human is constantly ingesting data through their senses and they're getting constant training in the form of feedback.

All the scientific papers in the world don't even come close to an education like that, when it comes to data quality.