My initial reaction was essentially a mix of “sorry to this man” and “well I don’t really expect psychology today to publish anything approaching meaningful on tech/ai” so I wanted to see if those reactions were justified. Well…
This makes PT look like a total rag. The author, John Nosta, bills himself as “The World’s Leading Innovation Theorist and Keynote Speaker” which really just sounds like “lecture circuit grifter” to me. Let’s take a look at the rest of his front page:
STRATEGIST
Driving change that is changing the world. John’s informed voice has become a beacon of insight to help dissect and define innovation in health, medicine, and technology.
INNOVATOR
Not just a simple observer, John is directly engaged with top companies, thinkers and initiatives. His perspective is from the inside out and provides an “insiders” view of a complex and changing world.
THOUGHT LEADER
John is consistently ranked among the top names in health technology and innovation. Beyond simply an influencer, he is also defined as “most admired” to “top disruptor” in technology, life sciences and medicine.
So yeah if you asked chatGPT to come up with the profile for an AI lecture circuit grifter, it’d probably look like the above.
Looking through his contributions to PT you might think he is just recycling armchair AI philosophy to make a quick buck and honestly I’m having a hard time thinking otherwise.
You say that as if just anyone could end up serving on the board of Google health. I’m sure they have a rigorous vetting process to ensure that only thoughtful and experienced health and technology professionals are on tha-- naaah I’m just messing with you, I bet you just need the right connections.
Oh yeah sorry, sometimes I forget that board members and execs are the core contributors to human innovation, and that Google spends all its money on hiring the best and brightest think tank people. It’s why they only make good and ethical decisions that no one gets mad at, ever. /s
To be completely fair it appears he has experience in medical research, with some publications in the 80’s. That being said his LI plots his trajectory from just some guy to thinker tanker grifter guy.
My initial reaction was essentially a mix of “sorry to this man” and “well I don’t really expect psychology today to publish anything approaching meaningful on tech/ai” so I wanted to see if those reactions were justified. Well…
This makes PT look like a total rag. The author, John Nosta, bills himself as “The World’s Leading Innovation Theorist and Keynote Speaker” which really just sounds like “lecture circuit grifter” to me. Let’s take a look at the rest of his front page:
So yeah if you asked chatGPT to come up with the profile for an AI lecture circuit grifter, it’d probably look like the above.
Looking through his contributions to PT you might think he is just recycling armchair AI philosophy to make a quick buck and honestly I’m having a hard time thinking otherwise.
His LinkedIn has no background in tech beyond serving on the board of google health. He’s essentially just some guy!
You say that as if just anyone could end up serving on the board of Google health. I’m sure they have a rigorous vetting process to ensure that only thoughtful and experienced health and technology professionals are on tha-- naaah I’m just messing with you, I bet you just need the right connections.
Oh yeah sorry, sometimes I forget that board members and execs are the core contributors to human innovation, and that Google spends all its money on hiring the best and brightest think tank people. It’s why they only make good and ethical decisions that no one gets mad at, ever. /s
To be completely fair it appears he has experience in medical research, with some publications in the 80’s. That being said his LI plots his trajectory from just some guy to thinker tanker grifter guy.