> I say "should" because I want to be able to judge an agent on how good it is on its own terms. Again, not standard use of language, but unobjectionable once

> I say "should" because I want to be able to judge an agent on how good it is on its own terms. Again, not standard use of language, but unobjectionable once it's explained. (That's also how I like to use the word, but it's not often understood by those around me.) > I haven't read the sequences Oh, then pretend I referenced later Wittgenstein instead. (He made the point better.)