> describing something as wrong is easier than saying what's right This 1000x. This problem you also see with education of children. You have 2 problems: 1) t

> describing something as wrong is easier than saying what's right This 1000x. This problem you also see with education of children. You have 2 problems: 1) there's a VERY large number of possible depictions. Let's say 10 million. Of those, a VERY small number are correct/acceptable. Let's say 10. Then it's easy to see. A correct example has 1/10 = "10%" of all information so to speak. If 100% is what you need to be guaranteed a correct classification of all possible depictions. Yet a negative example has 1/10,000,000= "0.000001%" of the information you need to classify all examples correctly. If you attempt to create correct behavior by giving wrong examples ... it'll be a long day. A positive example, telling an AI (or a child/student) what to DO has ~10000 times more information than telling them what NOT to do, in this example. In practice, you'll find the difference is even more extreme. 2) BUT there is a problem, that's also always brought up with wikipedia. Giving positive examples requires that there are examples that everyone agrees with. And we all know there are rather serious problems with that. A positive example HAS to be in the intersection of what all groups find acceptable. And ... well easy examples are always wars: Who is right? Who started the war? Is it justified? Applied to Russia, Ukraine, Israel, India, Sudan, ... but in practice a lot of issues, some not at all that controversial (which word is correct "New York" english? Bupkis or bupkez?)