Looks like it is, from the paper:
Popper is named after Karl Poppper, whose idea of falsification [53] inspired our approach, as it did Shapiro’s MIS approach [61]. In fact, one can view our approach as Popper’s idea of falsification, where a failure is a refutation/falsification. In other words, in our approach, a learner deduces what hypotheses cannot be true and prunes them from the hypothesis space, leaving only hypotheses not yet refuted.
I don’t think so. They’re still making the exact same revenue per sale on average. The cost isn’t relevant here, another way of looking at it is in the case the customer pays nothing they’ve lost the cost of the goods and the profit they would have otherwise made, so it evens out.
It works out well for the seller if, by providing the option to gamble on the product, they increase sales, which I would guess it would (at the expense of being morally grey).
They said not generally intelligent, which is a specific and important property of AGI, not AI. In the tic tac toe example, the AI is intelligent (can play tic tac toe), but this intelligence cannot be generalised to playing chess, appreciating art, whatever the general measures may be.
I can’t pay my taxes in rupees, but that’s a legitimate currency.
I won’t speak to the purification aspect (though I suspect purification is quite trivial), but helium released into the atmosphere is wasted. Saying it’s not destroyed is by the by, we aren’t going to recover it from space as it rapidly escapes the atmosphere.
It’s to hawk, to sell out in the open as a hawker would. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_(trade)?wprov=sfla1
Snooze