Not surprised. This summer I had a conversation with a senior staffer at OpenAI who had smoke coming from his ears due to Sam's incompetence. Contrary to his public image, he doesn't have the skillset of a CEO. He was a failed founder who was hired to head YC because he's smart and likeable. He was in a similar role at AI - a brainy media mouthpiece. Real work being done by senior staff. OpenAI's massive scale-up requires a new leadership style.
Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but the authors seem preoccupied with airing their own frustration with the views of Deepak Chopra. Using such an author as a data source is distracting because he writes about a sort of spiritual thinking that - based on the tone of the article - the authors presumably do not practice themselves.
I would be interested to expand the author's definition of bullshit to account for instances where the 'bullshitee' has insufficient knowledge about a topic. In the same way a true statement about theoretical physics would be indistinguishable from bullshit to anyone not trained in the subject.
I found this paper close to touching on a method for understanding truthiness in generated text, but falling short into comedy.
In my opinion, the implied framework of morality is bit too simplistic to arrive at a meaningful answer. Good and Bad are not objective outcomes that can be 'caused' by OKRs. Why not try to recognize the inherent balance of good / bad in all things and then focus on being a better person?
Advertising: Bad to advertise lies, good to advertise truth
E-commerce: Bad to sell consumption, good to sell solution
Crypto: Bad for the environment, good for personal empowerment
Finance: Bad for irresponsible spenders, good for people with low assets relative to cashflow
Drugs, gambling, etc: Bad for the long run, good for the short run.
Even God, a construction meant to represent pure goodness, is bad to half of yall
Things are always changing. In the early days it wasn’t possible to record music so it made sense to monetize indirectly. When it became possible to actually record music it was hard to distribute it until radio. Later the digital revolution made recording and distributing music so easy it collapsed the market value of recordings. Today, decentralized networks are the next technology poised to shape society and it seems that those who can create digital assets are leveraged to succeed
This makes a lot more sense when you consider that the vast, vast majority of accumulated wealth over the last 100 years is corporate wealth.
To depoliticize ... I would interpret this statistic as an indication of the correlation between wealth and corporate stock ownership, which is almost tautological. If you own or help run a public company you are probably very rich.
And even in the hypothetical case where more of the "90%" are benefiting from stock ownership than ever, this statistic will always simply highlight the reality that running or owning a business makes you money.
