The author addresses a very interesting and appealing topic in science, namely info-dynamics, i.e., the study of the interconnection between energy and information. This is a review paper that gathers several contributions on the meaning of info-dynamics in order to reflect on its relevance. The applications of these ideas to science are abundant, and it is certainly worthwhile to explore the topic in detail. Although the contents are meaningful and deserve the attention that is given to them, the presentation of ideas can be greatly improved: the abstract is not focused and does not indicate with clarity the purpose of the essay; the paper lacks a proper introduction; it also misses a coherent structure (instead of a fluid text, the manuscript presents a long list of short definitions and short references to work in the field, which is not the structure of a scientific paper one should expect to find).

This essay is an interesting reflection on the concept of equilibrium. I agree with the author that there is much more that needs to be explored and debated beyond the concept of neoclassical equilibrium associated with rational thinking and optimal decisions. Though, as an economist, I see some of the presented arguments as problematic and needing to be reassessed. I give a few examples: In the abstract, the author claims that algorithmic equilibrium can replace all other kinds of equilibria; this seems exaggerated and overly ambitious.In the beginning of the Introduction, it is stated that “Equilibrium means a position in economics where human intelligence has reached its maximum. “ Not necessarily; e.g., underlying the trivial decentralized market equilibrium is simply the idea of people’s reaction to prices and not necessarily some superintelligent reasoning.In section 2, second paragraph, what does the author mean by “an equilibrium achieved in this way would be “general”, more or less”? In the same paragraph, what are “thoughts relating to the globe”?In section 4, the following sentence is also problematic; I see in it no economic meaning: “Thoughtful entities endogenize money and financial phenomena. All goods are unnecessary to instantly sell out because assets, inventory, innovation, and many other measures can be taken to mitigate the necessity and difficulty of market clearance.”Two additional points:The manuscript is about a notion of equilibrium (algorithmic equilibrium) that the author apparently has approached in other studies, but in this study, it is not duly formalized. A short rigorous formalization of the concept would be helpful.The author omits any reference to the voluminous literature on economics that has extended the concepts of rationality and equilibrium and that apparently is closely associated with the arguments in this essay. I’m referring to the extensive literature on behavioral economics, complexity economics, and agent-based economic models.

This article offers an interesting and eclectic reflection on the potential advantages and perils of the use of artificial intelligence methods for socio-economic purposes. The manuscript is well written, it raises relevant issues, and it is adequately grounded in the existing literature. Overall, it is a meaningful piece of research on the epistemology of artificial intelligence and machine-assisted organization of work.There is room for improvement, though. Below, I list some of the points that, in my view, would benefit from a careful additional consideration:a) The paper is excessively dispersed and lacks focus. This becomes evident when one reads the introduction or the conclusion: it begins by addressing the socio-economic impact of AI; then it jumps to etymological issues; it proceeds to the discussion of education, business, and funding models; a more technical section on fuzzy logic and optimization then follows; and, in the end, we are back at the socio-economic impact of AI. This dispersion is also evident in the abstract: by reading the abstract, the reader is unable to understand what the article is truly about.b) Emphasis is placed in semantics. The author considers urgent to establish precise concepts and definitions to replace the current notions of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, which the author classifies as buzzwords and mythical expressions. I admit that designations are important, but in this case, I do not believe that this is the most important issue (in the sense that not much would change in the evolution and implementation of automated processes if the designations were others). I raise the same question that the author at some point expresses: is it really necessary to invent new names for old things or is it a waste of time and energy?c) From an economic point of view, some arguments raised in the text are problematic. Saying that firms are usually uninformed, that they ‘get convinced’ to replace men by machine in a way that may not be rational for business, or that companies frequently take decisions that may not be well founded, are all assertions that are hardly compatible with what empirical evidence demonstrates (if there is an economic agent that most closely pursues rational behavior, this agent is undoubtedly the firm). Throughout the text, other arguments raise doubts concerning their economic reasonability; e.g., the author claims that, in what concerns AI, firms should be independent and, thus, not depend on external agents. While this may be true in some specific circumstances, the norm in contemporaneous societies is the division of labor and the pursuit of the benefits that comparative advantage brings.d) Section 4 appears somehow out of context. It introduces some analytical content on a paper that is essentially a discussion essay on the pros and cons of artificial intelligence. It is not clear, as well, how the mentioned analytical techniques directly link to the issues being discussed about the organization of AI activities.With the hope that the above considerations can be used to further improve the manuscript, I offer my best regards.