Suggestions for places to publicise this talk would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶n̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶l̶o̶ ̶e̶f̶f̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶d̶s̶?̶ ̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶"̶O̶v̶e̶r̶d̶r̶a̶f̶t̶ ̶P̶r̶o̶t̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶"̶.̶

EDIT: I am specifically referring to Debit Card Overdraft p̶r̶o̶t̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ service

EDIT 2: I have been made aware that I am using the wrong term, overdraft service is the term most commonly used by major banks to refer to the "service" they offer on debit card overdrafts. If you see me refer to something as Overdraft Protection please assume I am referring to the service banks give you on debit card use

If you are from the States I am willing to bet that you have opened a bank account at some point in your life and was presented with the option to have Overdraft Protection. Say No. For most people saying no is the right answer. I think many people when asked about this on the spot don't have enough time to think through what Overdraft Protection really is. Just because someone decided to name something "Protection" doesn't mean it protects you from anything. It might even feel silly to opt-out of something that is offered for "free", which is why I think a lot of people fall for this poor decision. Let me explain why you should opt-out.

If you pay for something that you do not have the funds to pay for, the bank will lend you the money or help you transfer the money from a linked account to cover your purchase. They charge anywhere from $12 to $34 dollars or more for this service. Chase is a major bank and they charge $34. If for example you forgot to deposit your paycheck and bought a $3 latte with only $1 in your checking account, Chase will "protect" you from having the purchase be declined for a fee of $34.

If you knew that you didn't have enough money would you agree to pay $34 for chase to loan you the money? The answer is no. You would rather have your purchase be declined. There is no fee to being declined a purchase. In fact the real protection is to be declined the purchase and not borrow money at insane amounts of interest.

These fees stack per transaction. Most people are hit with fees because they were not aware they were lacking the funds, this means that usually multiple transactions are made the same day thinking everything is OK. So if you buy a latte for breakfast, lunch and dinner, Chase will charge you $102 ...because you know, they are protection you from the embarrassment of being declined. Lucky you.

Too many people have Overdraft protection when they don't need it and the problem isn't that most people are to stupid to do simple math, it's because they never really thought about the implications. They were rushed into agreeing to something with out thinking about it. Well, now you have thought about it, so you don't have an excuse. If you don't need overdraft protection, go and opt-out now. Please avoid the trap of thinking that you don't ever overdraft so it doesn't matter, that is a bad decision. Even if it were true that you rarely overdraft, why would you deliberately keep a potential landmine of fees under your feet?

When is overdraft protection appropriate? Very rarely it can come in handy when writing important checks for a mortgage or loan other than that, most people do not use checks to pay bills any more. I used to be a poor university student and as such we are the prime targets of these bank scams, so get smart and get rid of it today.

Let me see if I can put that in my own words; if not, I didn't understand it. You are saying that humans, who do not operate strictly by PA, know that a proof of the existence of a proof is itself a proof; but a reasoner strictly limited to PA would not know any such thing, because it's not a theorem of PA. (PA being just an example - it could be any formal system, or at least any formal system that doesn't include the concept of proofs among its atoms, or concepts.) So such a reasoner can be shown a proof that a proof of A exists, but will not know that A is therefore a theorem of PA. Correct?

To me this seems more like a point about limitations of PA than about AI or logic per se; my conclusion would be "therefore, any serious AI needs a formal system with more oomph than PA". Is this a case of looking at PA "because that's where the light is", ie it's easy to reason about; or is there a case that solving such problems can inform reasoning about more realistic systems?