Ethically, if you extend this reasoning, are we not obligated to find a position in the most morally repulsive organization we are aware of, and then coast?

yes, this is called 'effective altruism'

I think there is an implied "given the company you joined turns out to be nonethically aligned"

Yes, that's what I'm addressing with my comment above.

One could find a position in the most morally attractive organization they are aware of, and then work really hard.

well not coast, the intent is sabotage

Coasting you're already using resources that could be used more effectively.

If you actively slow other people down as well it's even better though.

If you show revenue, people will ask "How much?" And it will never be enough, but if you have no revenue, you can say you're pre-revenue. You're a potential pure play. It's not about how much you earn, it's about what you're worth. And who's worth the most? Companies that lose money.

> And who's worth the most? Companies that lose money.

This is a fairly new phenomenon and we don't actually know if it works. It's entirely possible this exact mentality blows up the economy.

Yes, we know it works. Just ask the knowledgeable crowd over on r/wallstreetbets. They have the answer: just turn your phone upside down! Voila, line is going up again!

Actually, companies that make a shitload of money are worth the most.

My gut instinct is that this would be a hugely underperforming investment strategy on both an absolute and risk adjusted basis. I would welcome empirical evidence contradicting my gut.

There's SPXT (S&P 500 excluding tech sector), +79% in 5y, vs full S&P +110% in 5y.

Obviously, in tech/AI bull market it can't be not underperforming.

I'd rather cross to international (including. US) than to that, for a less performing but more Black Swan proof fund.

I directionally agree with you. But there are plenty of examples of scientists being extremely petty, political or egotistical further back in history. Newton and Leibniz. Gauss withholding publication of non-Euclidean geometry presumably due to fear of Kant.

I wonder if there is any empirical analysis of what has historically funded/supported scientific work (private funding vs. academic systems).

I also wonder whether a lone genius in it for the "love of the game" could make much progress in cutting edge science nowadays, given the cost of experiments and the specialization of fields.

Really interesting food for thought.

You don't have to be a genius to make way more progress on the latest equipment compared to PhD's in their environment, with their constraints and encumberment, plus their survivor bias based on "dramatically" different things other than progress.

You could even do it as a complete gentleman without ruffling any feathers at lower cost than most well-paid corporate workers waste, and get more done if you set your mind to it. Sometimes even in your spare time.

So I definitely wouldn't sell the lone genius short.

Could very well be an even better bet.

The article has several paragraphs addressing these points...

He almost certainly didn't read it....

You can just sell the options. You don't need to exercise.

Yeah, that's actually what I meant, sell the option. I misspoke.

Dan Simmons' books often include AI plot elements and contemplate the consequences of humans becoming overly reliant on AI such that they lose basic competencies.

Isn't that just the observable universe?

Yes although that's all we observe from the point of view of the fermi paradox so is very relevant.

Ah, that makes sense. Given your original comment, I was considering unevenly distributed life across an infinite universe. But you're right of course, that is irrelevant to the fermi paradox.

With AI, there can be more content, produced faster and probably more cheaply, that is tailored to individual users.

Do you think every business owns the land and building it operates in? Real estate is expensive. Maintaining a building is expensive. There are plenty of businesses that rent to avoid the capital requirement and headache of property ownership.