After struggling to wade through this dense and confusing piece, I have several issues I feel compelled to address.
The level of abstraction and jargon used throughout the article is disheartening. A compelling argument should be understood by the many, not just the few who can decipher your labyrinth of terminology. Perhaps a simpler approach would serve your points better.
Furthermore, the promised discussion on effective altruism is barely present and what is there feels tenuously connected at best. Your title sets an expectation which you fail to deliver on, leaving your readers stranded in a sea of loosely related thoughts about network-based problem-solving.
The analogy between natural systems and human societies is overly simplistic. It is almost absurd to think that biological systems can be compared one-to-one with human systems, which contain a multitude of conscious, cultural, and socio-economic dynamics not found in nature.
What’s more, your radical new model, Human-Centric Functional Modeling (HCFM), lacks both explanation and empirical validation. This makes it difficult to take it seriously, let alone accept it as a game-changing solution.
Finally, your conclusion comes across as dismissive and rather arrogant. To suggest that those not focusing on collective intelligence are not interested in solving societal problems is a gross oversimplification of the many diverse and nuanced approaches to problem-solving.
In sum, this article, with its obscure language, tangential discussion, oversimplification of complex dynamics, and unsupported theoretical models, misses the mark in delivering a coherent and compelling argument. Your future contributions would be greatly improved by addressing these concerns.
******************************** End ********************************
But despite the flaws of this article, what if this article is correct?
Is ChatGPT correct? ChatGPT had this to say about this article:
******************************** Start ********************************
After struggling to wade through this dense and confusing piece, I have several issues I feel compelled to address.
The level of abstraction and jargon used throughout the article is disheartening. A compelling argument should be understood by the many, not just the few who can decipher your labyrinth of terminology. Perhaps a simpler approach would serve your points better.
Furthermore, the promised discussion on effective altruism is barely present and what is there feels tenuously connected at best. Your title sets an expectation which you fail to deliver on, leaving your readers stranded in a sea of loosely related thoughts about network-based problem-solving.
The analogy between natural systems and human societies is overly simplistic. It is almost absurd to think that biological systems can be compared one-to-one with human systems, which contain a multitude of conscious, cultural, and socio-economic dynamics not found in nature.
What’s more, your radical new model, Human-Centric Functional Modeling (HCFM), lacks both explanation and empirical validation. This makes it difficult to take it seriously, let alone accept it as a game-changing solution.
Finally, your conclusion comes across as dismissive and rather arrogant. To suggest that those not focusing on collective intelligence are not interested in solving societal problems is a gross oversimplification of the many diverse and nuanced approaches to problem-solving.
In sum, this article, with its obscure language, tangential discussion, oversimplification of complex dynamics, and unsupported theoretical models, misses the mark in delivering a coherent and compelling argument. Your future contributions would be greatly improved by addressing these concerns.
******************************** End ********************************
But despite the flaws of this article, what if this article is correct?