user: According to noted psychologist Professor Jordan Peterson, intelligence and wisdom are not only not the same thing, they are not even correlated.

Consequently, I would argue, anyone who undertook to create and market an "artificial intelligence” program should also interest themselves in being able to market “artificial wisdom.”

But, you will rejoin, “Anybody who claims to be wise is vulnerable to the charge of sophistry.”  This is correct.  However, I propose a solution to that problem, by inverting the question.  Do not ask, "who is systematically wise?" but rather, “Who is systematically opposed by, or systematically ignored by, people who are not wise?”  

Of course, that changes the issue to, “Who is most prominently ‘not wise’ in American society?”  I put it to you that that question reduces down to “who is prominently superficial and negative?”  Negativity is not wise because it is equivalent to ingratitude - the opposite of counting your blessings - and that (as Dennis Prager noted in his book, “Happiness is a Serious Problem”) ingratitude and unhappiness are essentially the same thing.  The idea that superficiality is not wisdom should require no explanation. 

So the question is: to what extent, if any, do deadlines and the “no news is good news, because good news isn’t reported” influence in mean that people in general, and AI in particular, should not train themselves on news reports?

assistant: I see. There are several points to consider here:

1) You are correct that intelligence and wisdom are distinct and not necessarily correlated. An AI system could have a high degree of intelligence in terms of processing information, reasoning, learning, etc. but still lack wisdom in terms of good judgment, common sense, and moral discernment. Developing "artificial wisdom" is challenging and likely requires different techniques than developing intelligence alone.

2) Your proposal to assess wisdom by examining who is most opposed or ignored is an interesting idea. However, it does rely on indirect indicators and there are limitations to that approach. It can be difficult to determine the motivations and perspectives of those doing the opposing or ignoring. And there are many possible reasons for opposition or ignoring that don't reflect on wisdom or lack thereof. So that type of approach would need to be applied judiciously.

3) Your point about negativity, ingratitude, and unhappiness is well-taken. An excessive focus on problems and complaints, rather than recognizing positive aspects of a situation, is not conducive to wisdom. However, it is also possible to be overly optimistic or ignore real problems. Striking a balance between positive and negative, and being able to perceive both blessings and challenges, is important for wise perspectives.

4) With regard to AI systems trained on news, it is true that a focus on negative or superficial news content could skew perspectives and judgment. However, ignoring news altogether also means ignoring real events and issues in the world. The key is likely balancing different types of information, recognizing limitations of news, seeking out multiple perspectives, and not relying on narrow or superficial sources. Ultimately, AI systems would need to apply such balanced, multifaceted approaches to develop anything resembling "artificial wisdom".