Religion

  • The Most Common Words In Each Religion …

    The World seems very “Us” versus “Them”…  But are we really that different?

    The six largest religions in the world are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. 

    If you stripped away doctrine, what patterns might emerge in the world’s great sacred texts?

    Similarity in Diversity.

    We often think about the differences between religions. However, a deep review of their sacred texts shows striking similarities (and may be indications of a more integral “truth”).

    Below is a word cloud for each of those religions based on their primary religious text. A word cloud is a visual map of language where the size and boldness of a word reflect its frequency in the text. In this case, the image spotlights the most frequent words across different religious texts (e.g., Jewish Bible, Christian New Testament, Quran, Hindu Vedas, Buddhist Tripitaka, Sikh Guru Granth Sahib).

    Each panel highlights high-frequency terms like Lord, God, man, people, Israel, Indra, Agni, Allah, fortunate, Guru, etc., with the most frequently used words appearing larger and bolder. A visualization, like this, makes it easy to identify the recurring themes or focal points of each tradition.

    So, here is a closer look at what a word cloud of the world’s religions reveals if we strip away doctrine and focus only on frequency. 

     

    Q04t0id427v61

    teddyterminal via Reddit

    On one level, this post explores both the similarities and limits of religious texts via word clouds.

    As historian Yuval Harari notes, “Humans think in terms of stories, not statistics.” Those word clouds are the beginnings of narratives that go beyond the numbers. For example, shared words don’t mean shared values. The word ‘love’ in one tradition may imply obedience, while in another it means self-transcendence.

    The Power and Pitfalls of Translation

    Likewise, translating sacred texts into English makes them more accessible, but can distort meaning and nuance. As an illustration, if you noticed the name “Keith” at the bottom of the Hinduism word cloud, it’s because that was the translator’s name. You might also have seen the word “car” in the Hinduism cloud, that is not an anachronism or prophecy… it is just another old-fashioned word for “chariot”.

    It’s also worth acknowledging that this word cloud is from the English translations, so some words that may mean slightly different things in other languages can be all translated to one word in English. For example, it’s very common in Biblical Hebrew to see different words translated into the same English word. Examples include Khata, Avon, and Pesha – three different “ways of committing a wrong” that may all be translated to the same English word.

    Distortions like these occur across many texts and cultures. In other words, similarities in word usage do not always reflect shared values. Recognizing this helps us navigate between the boundaries of certainty and uncertainty.

    This brings to mind an ancient parable …

    The Parable of Perspectives – Lessons from the Elephant

    I’ve always loved the parable of the blind men and the elephant. While there are many versions, here’s broadly how it goes:

    A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear. 

    This parable highlights that even when everyone is “blind” to the whole truth, each perspective still holds real insight. Recognizing that partial views are still valuable can drive innovative, integrative thinking.

    The blind men and the elephant parable also reminds us of the limitations of individual perspectives and the value of integrating multiple viewpoints. Interestingly, that integration is one of the things large language models are best at … and helping humans access a perspective of perspectives might be a step towards enlightenment.

    Future societies may see it as obvious that synthesizing perspectives (religious, cultural, strategic) can be done by advanced AI at scale, transforming how we resolve complex disputes.

    Hope that helps.

    Oh, and as a thought experiment … What would the word cloud of your own guiding beliefs look like?

  • Faulty Logic & Logical Fallacies: A Brief Lesson

    I have a poster hanging in my office that says: “Artificial Intelligence is cool … Artificial Stupidity is scary.”

     

    20250810 AI vs Artificial Stupidity
     

    The point is that we like the idea of automation and real-time decision-making, but only if the answers are correct.

    Speed amplifies truth and error. AI makes you smarter faster—or wrong at scale. Sometimes, the systems we build to make better decisions also multiply our mistakes. Several core tensions create that paradox.

    • Velocity vs. Veracity: Pressure to move fast conflicts with the need to verify causal logic, not just correlation.
    • Persuasion vs. Truth-Seeking: Organizations reward confidence and narrative; reality rewards calibration and evidence.
    • Automation vs. Accountability: As decisions become machine-mediated, ownership blurs—who is responsible when logic fails and who is supposed to catch the error?
    • Simplicity vs. Completeness: Leaders want short answers; complex realities resist neat categories and invite fallacies.

    The problem isn’t just with automation. I’ve come to understand that an answer is not always THE answer. Consequently, part of a robust decision-making process is to figure out different ways of coming up with an answer … and then figuring out which of those serves your purposes best.

    That distinction is essential in automation and designing agentic processes, but it’s also important to think about that as we operate on a day-to-day basis.

    That’s the point of today’s post. It’s about some of the common logical errors that prevent us from getting better results.

    Several times this week, I used a simple framework that says if the outcome isn’t right, start by looking at the people,  the process, and the information. Meaning, when troubleshooting outcomes, investigate whether you are using the right resource, the best method, and whether you have enough complete and accurate information to make an informed decision.

    Because AI is an amplifier of existing decision quality, it is also a good practice to add a “precision gate” before automation: meaning, don’t automate a process until you can articulate the decision criteria, known error modes, and the top 3 fallacies likely to occur in that context.
     
    Understanding is often more complicated than it seems.
     
    Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist, was also well known for making complex things simple. He believed that if you couldn’t explain something simply, you didn’t truly understand it yourself. He stressed that it’s crucial to be honest with oneself, as self-deception is a common pitfall that hinders genuine understanding. Feynman said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
     
    So, before you automate something, state the rule in plain words. Then list the top three ways it could fool you. If you can’t explain the rule, don’t automate it.
     
    Likewise, with ideas and beliefs, ask yourself, “What would prove me wrong?” 

    With that in mind, here is a quick primer on logical fallacies.

    A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. In other words, logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought. As you might suspect, politicians and the media often rely on them. Recently, we discussed the Dunning-Kruger Effect … but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 

     

    Oxford Learning via InFact with Brian Dunning (Part 2, Part 3)

    It is fun to identify which of these certain people (including yourself) use when arguing, deciding, or otherwise pontificating. To help, here is a short list of TWENTY LOGICAL FALLACIES:

    They fall into three main types: Distraction (10), Ambiguity (5), and Form (5).

    A. Fallacies of Distraction

    1. Ad baculum (Veiled threat): "to the stick":
    DEF.- threatening an opponent if they don’t agree with you; EX.- "If you don’t agree with me you’ll get hurt!"

    2. Ad hominem (Name-calling; Poisoning the well): "to the man":
    DEF.- attacking a person’s habits, personality, morality or character; EX.- "His argument must be false because he swears and has bad breath."

    3. Ad ignorantium (Appeal to ignorance):
    DEF.- arguing that if something hasn’t been proved false, then it must be true; EX.- "U.F.Os must exist, because no one can prove that they don’t."

    4. Ad populum: "To the people; To the masses":
    DEF.- appealing to emotions and/or prejudices; EX.- "Everyone else thinks so, so it must be true."

    5. Bulverism: (C.S. Lewis’ imaginary character, Ezekiel Bulver)
    DEF.- attacking a person’s identity/race/gender/religion; EX.- "You think that because you’re a (man/woman/Black/White/Catholic/Baptist, etc.)"

    6. Chronological Snobbery
    DEF.- appealing to the age of something as proof of its truth or validity; EX.-"Voodoo magic must work because it’s such an old practice;" "Super-Glue must be a good product because it’s so new."

    7. Ipse dixit: "He said it himself":
    DEF.- appealing to an illegitimate authority; EX.- "It must be true, because (so and so) said so."

    8. Red Herring (Changing the subject):
    DEF.- diverting attention; changing the subject to avoid the point of the argument; EX.- "I can’t be guilty of cheating. Look how many people like me!"

    9. Straw Man:
    DEF.- setting up a false image of the opponent's argument; exaggerating or simplifying the argument and refuting that weakened form of the argument; EX.- "Einstein's theory must be false!  It makes everything relative–even truth!" 

    10. Tu quoque: "You also"
    DEF.- defending yourself by attacking the opponent; EX.- "Who are you to condemn me! You do it too!"

    B. Fallacies of Ambiguity

    1. Accent:
    DEF.- confusing the argument by changing the emphasis in the sentence; EX.- "YOU shouldn’t steal" (but it’s okay if SOMEONE ELSE does); "You shouldn’t STEAL" (but it’s okay to LIE once in a while); "You SHOULDN’T steal (but sometimes you HAVE TO) ."

    2. Amphiboly: [Greek: "to throw both ways"]
    DEF.- confusing an argument by the grammar of the sentence; EX.- "Croesus, you will destroy a great kingdom!" (your own!)

    3. Composition:
    DEF.- assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole; EX.- "Chlorine is a poison; sodium is a poison; so NaCl must be a poison too;" "Micro-evolution is true [change within species]; so macro-evolution must be true too [change between species]."

    4. Division:
    DEF.- assuming that what is true of whole must be true of the parts; EX.- "The Lakers are a great team, so every player must be great too."

    5. Equivocation:
    DEF.- confusing the argument by using words with more than one definition; EX.- "You are really hot on the computer, so you’d better go cool off."

    C. Fallacies of Form

    1. Apriorism (Hasty generalization):
    DEF.- leaping from one experience to a general conclusion; EX.- "Willy was rude to me. Boys are so mean!"

    2. Complex question (Loaded question):
    DEF.- framing the question so as to force a single answer; EX.- "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

    3. Either/or (False dilemma):
    DEF.- limiting the possible answers to only two; oversimplification; EX.- "If you think that, you must be either stupid or half-asleep."

    4. Petitio principii (Begging the question; Circular reasoning):
    DEF.- assuming what must be proven; EX.- "Rock music is better than classical music because classical music is not as good."

    5. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False cause): "after this, therefore because of this;"
    DEF.- assuming that a temporal sequence proves a causal relationship; EX.- "I saw a great movie before my test; that must be why I did so well."

     

    I like reading lists like that … but how can you use the insights? Here is an idea: pair each fallacy with a “counter-check” question. For example, for Red Herring: “Did we change the topic because the original claim was uncomfortable, or because new data was material?”

    For more on that, here is a fun and informative infographic by The School of Thought.

     

    Logical Fallacies-1via School of Thought

    We must use logic as a spam filter: Fallacies are the junk mail of thought—fast, flashy, and costly when clicked.

    Hope that helps.

  • The Future of Biohacking

    Today’s my birthday. I woke up on the right side of the dirt, in America, grateful for the opportunities ahead. 

    So far, so good.

    For me, birthdays also invite a moment to pause and reflect on where I am, where I want to go, and what it’ll take to get there.

    On the health front, I’m reminded of a simple truth: A healthy person has a thousand dreams, while an unhealthy one has only one.

    Thankfully, I still have many dreams.

    We’re lucky to be born late enough in human history that medicine isn’t just about fixing what’s broken—it’s about regeneration and life extension. The real promise isn’t just living longer, but living well longer.

    That’s a future worth investing in.

    So today, I’m dusting off some notes from a meeting I had years ago—lessons that feel more relevant than ever.

    A Chat With The Father of Biohacking  

    In 2018, I was in Alaska at Steamboat Bay for a CEO retreat. I was spending time with a friend, Dave Asprey, a successful serial entrepreneur, author of several great books, and a thought leader in biohacking. In many ways, he’s the father of modern biohacking. 

    We recorded a video where Dave did a great job of relating his world to the world of Capitalogix and trading. I share it in part so you can experience his wide range of interests and expertise. It holds up well. I encourage you to watch it.

     

    Via YouTube.

    In the video, Dave explains that life evolves through a series of algorithms operating at microscopic levels. Your body and brain are made of tiny parts working like clever little computers. These parts constantly talk to each other, sense what’s happening around them, and change their behavior to keep you alive and thriving.

    Nature has been running this amazing program for billions of years, constantly improving through trial and error (that’s evolution).

    Dave points out that there are striking similarities between genetics/epigenetics and modern digital algorithms. Markets and businesses make numerous small decisions and adjustments to achieve significant outcomes.

    In a sense, Markets and industries function like biological environments where algorithms continuously evolve and adapt.

    So really, life and business aren’t magic—they’re just lots of tiny choices happening at once. If you learn how to listen to these choices and guide them wisely, you become better at playing the game. And that’s how evolution, biology, and even markets all tie together.
     
    The lesson? Build systems and habits that are flexible and adaptable, like living things.

    It helped me reframe my perspective on my business. But it also got me thinking more about my health and how I wanted the next 20 years of my life to look. As a result, I started taking care of my health and paying more attention to preventive care. 

    Health is the foundation that gives all ambitions a place to stand.

    Focusing on the positive is important, but extending your healthy lifespan starts by being honest with yourself and identifying what you and your body struggle with the most.

    A doctor friend gave me some advice. He said it doesn’t matter if you’re on top of 9 out of 10 things; it’s the 10th that kills you.

    The goal isn’t just to stay alive longer; it’s to live life to its fullest for as long as possible.

    I recently joined a fantastic mastermind group called DaVinci 50, run by Lisa and Richard Rossi. It brings together a remarkable collection of medical professionals and entrepreneurs focused on the latest research, treatments, and opportunities in health and longevity.

    Another great tool I rely on is Advanced Body Scan. Early detection is crucial, but so is tracking the history of your scans to monitor changes over time. In my opinion, the most valuable scan is always the next one.

    Additionally, I utilize a growing list of trackers and biometric devices to monitor my heart rate, along with various apps and tools for mindfulness, breathwork, and journaling. It is essential to recognize that the mind, body, and spirit work together to shape how you live your life.

    Where Biohacking Fits In 

    It’s not surprising that biohacking has become as popular as it has. In a society that encourages (and perhaps even necessitates) an impossible balance between work, responsibilities, and self-care, it makes sense to want to increase efficiency and effectiveness. 

    Biohacking helps you do more with less. Biohacking is popular because it promises to help you achieve peak performance via the path of least resistance.

    Having trouble with sleep, but don’t want to stop using your phone before bed? Wear blue-light blocking glasses. 

    Not getting enough results at the gym? Work out “smarter,” not harder, by using cryotechnology and intelligent lifting machines. 

    While biohacking started as tricks like that – nootropics to help your mind, light and sound machines to decrease stress – it’s becoming increasingly tech-centric and augmentation-based. 

    In Sweden, thousands of Swedes are having microchips inserted under their skin to speed up their daily routines. They use chips to open locked doors, store contact information, and access the train. 

    The Future of Biohacking

    Long-term, it’s likely you’ll see it moving toward exoskeletons, AR/XR experiences, and, unsurprisingly, sex toys. It’s also being used to create artificial organs and counteract memory loss. Companies leading this movement are Neuralink,  Biohax International, and Digiwell. While it’s currently being adopted primarily by fast movers and technocrats, it’s pragmatic to think that more widely adopted versions of this will emerge as technology becomes standardized and protections are put in place. 

    For all the excitement, it’s necessary to remain skeptical and patient. DIY biohacking raises several ethical concerns, particularly regarding data protection and cybersecurity. As a reminder, when it comes to cybersecurity, you, the user, are the biggest weakness.

    There’s no stopping this train, but there’s still time to ensure it stays on track.

    If you’re looking to get started, here’s an hour-long conversation with Dave Asprey about his favorite optimizations. 

    Here’s to having a thousand dreams, leveraging the best of today’s medical advances, and investing not just in years added, but quality within those years.

    Onwards!

  • How Long You Have Left

    We only have a limited time on this earth … and a lot of it is spent on frivolous activities. 

    How much time do you think the average millennial spends on their phones … or a baby-boomer sits in front of the TV?

    The answer is a lot.

    Although this chart hasn't been updated recently, it still provides a helpful glimpse of the bigger picture. 

     

    How-much-time-we-have-infographic (1)via Anna Vital

    Nine years in front of entertainment devices – another 10.5 years spent working. You get the idea.

    If you have goals you want to accomplish, places you want to go, and lifestyle aspirations to experience, this puts the idea of finding and living your passion into perspective. 

    Do you have the time to waste it?

    VisualCapitalist put together a chart projecting longevity based on 2020 mortality rates.

     

    OC_Life-Expectancy-by-Age_1600px_Oct31

    via visualcapitalist
     

    According to this calculator, since I'm over 60, I only have about 20 years left.   I expect more!

    There are some interesting statistical facts in this; for example, an average American baby boy can expect to live until 74 … but if that boy turns 21, his life expectancy jumps to over 75. 

    While these numbers appear high, there are two key considerations. First, COVID-19 heavily reduced these numbers because mortality rates increased. 

    Also, remember that these numbers are based on 2020 averages, which may differ from your own (specifically considering your race, income, location, etc.). These numbers also don't take into account expected medical and technology advances, etc. 

    Ultimately, I believe Purpose is one of the most significant catalysts of longevity. People often die when they retire … not because they're done working, but because they're done striving. 

    If you're not growing, you're dying!

  • Trying to Understand Happiness …

    I am often amazed at how little human nature has changed throughout recorded history.

    Despite the exponential progress we’ve made in health, wealth, society, tools, and understanding … we still struggle to find meaning, purpose, and happiness in our lives and our existence.

    Last month, I shared an article on Global Happiness Levels in 2025. Here are a few bullets that summarize the findings: 

    • We underestimate others’ kindness, but it’s more common than we think.
    • Community boosts happiness—eating and living with others matter.
    • Despair is falling globally, except in isolated, low-trust places like the U.S.
    • Hope remains—trust and happiness can rebound with connection and a sense of purpose.

    Upon reflection, that post didn’t attempt to define happiness. This post will focus on how to do that.

    While it seems like a simple concept, happiness is complex. We know many things that contribute to and detract from it; we know humans strive for it, but it is still surprisingly challenging to put a uniform definition on it. 

    A few years ago, a hobbyist philosopher analyzed 93 philosophy books, spanning from 570 BC to 1588, in an attempt to find a universal definition of Happiness. Here are those findings.

     

    Ktn23nkt45n81

    via Reddit.

    It starts with a simple list of definitions from various philosophers. It does a meta-analysis to create some meaningful categories of definition. Then it presents the admittingly subjective conclusion that:

     

    Happiness is to accept and find harmony with reason. 

     

    My son, Zach, pointed out that while “happiness” is a conscious choice, paradoxically, the “pursuit of happiness” often results in unhappiness. Why? Because happiness is a result of acceptance. However, when happiness is the goal, you often focus on what you’re lacking instead of what you already have. You start to live in the ‘Gap’ instead of the ‘Gain’. 

    So, it got me thinking – and that got me to play around with search and AI, a little, to broaden my data sources and perspectives. If you would like to view the raw data, here are the notes I compiled (along with the AI-generated version of what this article could have been, had it been left to AI, rather than me and Zach).

    Across centuries, philosophers have wrestled with a deceptively simple question: What does it mean to live a good life?
     
    As entrepreneurs, investors, and leaders, we often chase performance, innovation, or edge — but underneath it all, there’s a quieter inquiry: Am I living well?
     
    Happiness aside, across 93 influential philosophical texts spanning two millennia, one word consistently reappears: Eudaimonia. This is not happiness in the modern sense of pleasure, but a richer concept of human flourishing — a life filled with purpose, virtue, and meaning.
     
    • Ancient thinkers saw happiness not as a mood, but as a life aligned with purpose and virtue.
    • Some prioritized inner character; others emphasized harmony with the divine or nature.
    • Debate endures over the role of external goods — wealth, luck, friends.
    • During the Renaissance, the conversation shifted toward subjective experience.
    • Across eras, the thread remains: Happiness is cultivated, not consumed.

     

    Contradictions and Tensions

    Thoughts on happiness contain paradoxes, contradictions, and tensions. Examining the boundaries between what you are certain of and what you are uncertain of is where insights occur. Here are a few to get you started.
     
    • Virtue vs. External Goods: Aristotle acknowledges external goods (wealth, friends) as necessary for complete happiness, while Stoics claim virtue alone suffices. This tension challenges the simplicity of virtue-based happiness, suggesting a nuanced balance between inner character and outer circumstances.
    • Subjective vs. Objective Happiness: Ancient philosophers often defined happiness as an objective state (living virtuously or intellectually flourishing), whereas modern definitions more often emphasize the subjective satisfaction varying by individual. This tension probes whether happiness is a universal or personal experience.
    • Happiness as Pleasure vs. Happiness as Duty/Struggle: Epicureanism equates happiness with pleasure (absence of pain), but Cynics and Stoics emphasize enduring hardship and discipline as the path to happiness, which presents a paradox between comfort and resilience.

     

    Three Metaphors To Help You Think About Happiness

    Metaphors help make abstract ideas more concrete, memorable, and easier to grasp. Here are three to consider.
     

    The Ship Captain (Stoicism)

    • Metaphor: You can’t control the ocean (external events), but you can steer your ship (your mind). 
    • Clarification: Highlights control over internal states despite external chaos.

    The Team Soul (Plato’s Tripartite Soul)

    • Metaphor: The soul is a team where reason is the coach, spirit is the player, and appetite is the goalie. Happiness is achieved when the coach directs the players well. 
    • Clarification: Demonstrates the importance of internal harmony and self-governance.

    The Garden (Aristotle’s Life Cultivation)

    • Metaphor: Happiness is like tending a garden over time — it requires continuous effort, nurturing virtues (soil quality), and sometimes external help (sunlight, rain). 
    • Clarification: This shows happiness as a process, not a momentary state.

    Reach out – I’m curious to hear what you think!

  • AI: We’re Not Just Prompts!

    AI’s trajectory isn’t just upward—it’s curving ever steeper. From DeepMind’s groundbreaking models to Flow’s democratization of filmmaking, people are becoming used to how quickly AI technology improves.
     
    Breakneck doesn’t even seem adequate to explain the scale of the movements. Because it isn’t just about the rate of change – even the rate of change of the rate of change is accelerating … and the result is exponential progress.
     
    Here is a simple example. Remember when you mocked AI-generated videos on social media for obvious flaws (e.g., six fingers, unnatural blinking or movement, etc.). Over the past few months, AI media quality has improved so much that spotting fakes is now difficult, even for tech-savvy people.
     
    Well, we just took another giant leap.
     
    This week, Google’s DeepMind unit released three new core AI models: Imagen for image generation,  Lyria for music generation, and Veo 3 for video generation.

    It only takes a quick look at Veo 3 to realize it represents a significant breakthrough in delivering astonishingly realistic videos.

    I’m only including two examples here … but I went down the rabbit hole and came away very impressed.

    Take a look – Everything in the clip below may be fake, but the AI is real.

     

    via Jerrod Lew

    The era of effortless, hyper-real content has arrived.
     
    One of the big takeaways from tools like this is that you no longer need content creation talent other than your ideas.
     
    An example of this comes from Google’s new AI filmmaking tool, Flow. 

    What Is Flow?

    What if creating professional-grade videos required no cameras, no crew, and no weeks of editing?
     
    Flow can imagine and create videos just from your ideas. Kind of like telling a friend a story and having them draw or act it out instantly.

    How Does It Work?

    Think of Flow as a giant box of movie Legos. You can bring your own pieces (like pictures or clips) or ask Flow to make new pieces for you. Then, you snap them together to build scenes and clips that look like real movies.

    Why Is This Cool?

    It is becoming easier for almost anyone to create the type of content that only a specialist could produce before. The tool makes it easy in these three ways.

    1. Consistent: The videos stick together well, so your story doesn’t jump around confusingly.
    2. Seamless: It’s easy to add or change things without breaking the flow.
    3. Cinematic: The videos look high-quality — like something you’d see on TV or in theaters.

    If you want to play with it, it’s available to Google Ultra subscribers through the Gemini app and Google Labs. 

    Ok, but what can it do?

    Redefining “Real”

    Don’t skip this next part. It’s what gave me the idea for the post.
    To set the stage, imagine you’re watching a video of a person talking. Typically, you think, “This is real — someone actually stood in front of a camera and spoke.” But now computers can make a video that looks and sounds so real, you can’t tell it’s fake.
     
    Anyway, this week, I saw a cool video on social media. At first, I thought it was cool simply because of the idea it expressed. But the video gets even more interesting when you realize how it was created.
     
    “Prompt Theory” is a mind-bending exploration of artificial intelligence brought to life. The premise examines what happens when AI-generated characters refuse to believe they’re not real. From stunning visuals to synced audio, this video showcases AI’s new immersive storytelling power while examining some pretty trippy concepts.
     

    Hashem Al-Ghaili via X

    I predict you will see a massive influx of AI-generated content flooding social media using tools like this. 

    Meanwhile, digital “people” with likenesses and internal objectives are increasingly going to become persistent and gain the ability to influence our world. This is inevitable. Yet, it’s still a little disorienting to think about.
     
    As digital agents gain persistence and purpose, we face profound questions about reality, ethics, and human creativity.
     
    And that is only the beginning!
     
    Perhaps we are living in a simulation?

  • Global Happiness Levels in 2025

    Are you Happy?

    What does that mean? How do you define it? And how do you measure it?

    Happiness is a surprisingly complex concept comprised of conditions that highlight positive emotions over negative ones. And upon a bit of reflection, happiness is bolstered by the support of comfort, freedom, wealth, and other things people aspire to experience. 

    Regardless of how hard it is to describe (let alone quantify) … humans strive for happiness.

    Likewise, it is hard to imagine a well-balanced and objective "Happiness Report" because so much of the data required to compile it seems subjective and requires self-reporting. 

    Nonetheless, the World Happiness Report takes an annual look at quantifiable factors (like health, wealth, GDP, and life expectancy) and more intangible factors (like social support, generosity, emotions, and perceptions of local government and businesses). Below is an infographic highlighting the World Happiness Report data for 2025.

    Screenshot 2025-05-11 at 9.59.45 PM

    World Happiness Report via Gallup

    Click here to see a dashboard with the raw worldwide data.

    I last shared this concept in 2022. At the time, we were still seeing the ramifications of COVID-19 on happiness levels. As you might expect, the pandemic caused a significant increase in negative emotions reported. Specifically, there were substantial increases in reports of worry and sadness across the ninety-five countries surveyed. The decline in mental health was higher in groups prone to disenfranchisement or other particular challenges – e.g., women, young people, and poorer people. 

    Ultimately, happiness scores are relatively resilient and stable, and humanity persevered in the face of economic insecurity, anxiety, and more.

    While scores in North America have dropped slightly, there are positive trends. 

    The 2025 Report

    In the 2025 report, one of the key focuses was an increase in pessimism about the benevolence of others. There seems to be a rise in distrust that doesn't match the actual statistics on acts of goodwill. For example, when researchers dropped wallets in the street, the proportion of returned wallets was far higher than people expected. 

    Unfortunately, our well-being depends on our perception of others' benevolence, as well as their actual benevolence. 

    Since we underestimate the kindness of others, our well-being can be improved by seeing acts of true benevolence. In fact, the people who benefit most from perceived benevolence are those who are the least happy. 

    "Benevolence" increased during COVID-19 in every region of the world. People needed more help, and others responded. Even better, that bump in benevolence has been sustained, with benevolent acts still being about 10% higher than their pre-pandemic levels. 

    Another thing that makes a big difference in happiness levels worldwide is a sense of community. People who eat with others are happier, and this effect holds across many other variables. People who live with others are also happier (even when it's family). 

    The opposite of happiness is despair, and deaths of despair (suicide and substance abuse) are falling in the majority of countries. Deaths of despair are significantly lower in countries where more people are donating, volunteering, or helping strangers. 

    Yet, Americans are increasingly eating alone and living alone, and are one of the few countries experiencing an increase in deaths of despair (especially among the younger population). In 2023, 19% of young adults across the world reported having no one they could count on for social support. This is a 39% increase compared to 2006. 

    Takeaways

    In the U.S., and a few other regions, the decline in happiness and social trust points to the rise in political polarisation and distrust of "the system". As life satisfaction lowers, there is a rise in anti-system votes.

    Among unhappy people attracted by the extremes of the political spectrum, low-trust people are more often found on the far right, whereas high-trust people are more inclined to vote for the far left.

    Despite that, when we feel like we're part of a community, spend time with others, and perform prosocial behavior, we significantly increase perceived personal benefit and reported happiness levels.

    Do you think we can return to previous levels of trust in the States? I remember when it felt like both parties understood that the other side was looking to improve the country, just with different methods. 

    On a broader note, while we have negative trends in the U.S., the decrease is lower than you might expect. The relative balance demonstrated in the face of such adversity may point towards the existence of a hedonic treadmill - or a set-point of happiness.

    Regardless of the circumstances, people can focus on what they choose, define what it means to them, and choose their actions.

    Remember, throughout history, things have gotten better. There are dips here and there, but like the S&P 500 … we always rally eventually. 

    Onwards!

  • Are Your AI Fears Valid? What Experts Say

    It's no surprise that there is often a disparity between what experts believe and what the average adult feels. It's even more pronounced in industries like AI that have been lambasted by science fiction and popular media.

    Even just a few years ago, many of my advisors and friends told me to avoid using the term "AI" in our materials because they thought people would respond negatively to it. Back then, people expected AI to be artificial and clunky … yet, somehow, it also reminded them of dystopian stories about AI Overlords and Terminators. An incompetent superpower is scary … so is a competent superpower you can't trust!

    As AI integrates more heavily into our everyday lives, people's hopes and concerns are intensifying… but should they be? 

    Pew Research Center surveyed over 5,000 adults and 1,000 experts about their concerns related to AI. The infographic shows the difference in concern those groups had regarding specific issues.

     

    This graphic by Statista shows the biggest concerns of experts and regular adult users about AI.

    Statista via VisualCapitalist

    Half of experts (47%) report being more excited than concerned about AI’s future. Among U.S. adults, just 11% say the same.
    Instead, 51% of adults say they’re more concerned than excited — more than triple the rate of experts (15%).

     

    The most common—and well-founded—fears center on misinformation and the misappropriation of information. Experts and the average adult are in alignment here. 

    I am consistently surprised by the lack of media literacy and skepticism demonstrated by otherwise intelligent people. Images and articles that scream "fake" or "AI" to me are shared virally and used to not only take advantage of the most susceptible but also to create dangerous echo chambers. 

    Remember how bad phishing e-mails used to be, and how many of our elderly or disabled ended up giving money to a fake Prince from various random countries? Even my mother, an Ivy League-educated lawyer, couldn't help but click on some of these e-mails. Meanwhile, the quality of these attacks has risen exponentially.

    And we're seeing the same thing now with AI. Not only are people falling for images, videos, and audio, but you also have the potential for custom apps and AI avatars that are fully focused on exploitation. 

    AI Adoption Implications

    Experts and the average adult have a significant disparity in beliefs about the long-term ramifications of AI adoption, such as potential isolation or job displacement. 

    I'm curious, how concerned are you that AI will lead to fewer connections between people or job loss? 

    I often say that technology adoption has very little to do with technology and much more to do with human nature.

    That obviously includes AI adoption as well. 

    Career growth often means abandoning an old role to take on something new and better. It's about delegating, outsourcing, or automating tasks so you can free up time to work on things that matter more.

    It may sound like a joke, but I don't believe most people will lose jobs to AI. Instead, they'll lose jobs to people who use AI better. The future of work will be about amplifying human intelligence … making better decisions, and taking smarter actions. If your job is about doing those things – and you don't use AI to do them – you will fall behind, and there will be consequences.

    It's the same way that technology overtook farming. Technology didn't put people out of work, but it did force people to work differently.

    Innovation has always created opportunity and prosperity in the long term. Jobs may look different, and some roles may be phased out, but new jobs will take their place. Think of it as tasks being automated, not jobs. 

    Likewise, COVID is not why people have resisted returning to the office. COVID might have allowed them to work remotely in the first place, but their decision to resist going back to the office is a natural part of human nature.

    When people found that technology enabled them to meet expectations without a commute, opportunities and possibilities expanded.

    Some used the extra time to learn and grow, raising their expectations. Others used that time to rest or focus on other things. They're both choices, just with different consequences.

    Choosing to Contract or Expand in the Age of AI 

    AI presents us with a similar inflection point. I could have easily used AI to write this article much faster, and it certainly would have been easier in the short term. But what are the consequences of that choice?

    While outreach and engagement are important, the primary benefit of writing a piece like this, for me, is to take the time and to go through the exercise of thinking about these issues … what they mean, what they make possible, and how that impacts my sense of the future. That wouldn't happen if I didn't do it.  

    I often say, "First bring order to chaos … then wisdom comes from making finer distinctions." Doing work often entails embracing the chaos and making finer distinctions over time as you gain experience. With repetition, the quality of those results improves. As we increasingly rely on technology to do the work, to learn, and to grow, the technology learns and grows. If you fail to also learn and grow, it's not the technology's fault. It is a missed opportunity.

    The same is true for connection. AI can help you connect better with yourself and others… or it can be another excuse to avoid connection.

    You can now use an AI transcription service to record every word of an interaction, take notes, create a summary, and even highlight key insights. That sounds amazing! But far too many people become accustomed to the quality of that output and fail to think critically, make connections, or even read and process the information.

    It could be argued that our society already has a connection problem (or an isolation epidemic), regardless of AI. Whether you blame it on social media, remote work, or COVID-19, for a long time, how we connect (and what we consider "connection") has been changing. However, many still have fulfilling lives despite the technology … again, it's a choice. Do you use these vehicles to amplify your life, or are they a substitute and an excuse to justify failing to pursue connection in the real world?.

    As said, actions have consequences … and so do inactions.

    I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these issues. Are you focused on the promise or the perils of AI?

  • Why Don’t We See Aliens?

    So, if the math says it's likely that there are aliens … why don't we see them?

    In 2020, I mentioned Israeli officials who claimed they had been contacted by Aliens from a Galactic Federation – and that not only is our government aware of this, but they are working together.

    There are many stories (or theories) about how we have encountered aliens before and just kept them secret. Here are some links to things you might find interesting if you want to learn more about this.

    So, while some may still believe aliens don't exist – I think it's a more helpful thought experiment to wonder why we haven't seen them. 

    For example, the Fermi Paradox considers the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and the various high-probability estimates for their existence. 

    To simplify the issue, billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (which is only one of many galaxies) are similar to our Sun. Consequently, there must be some probability that some of them will have Earth-like planets. It isn't hard to conceive that some of those planets should be older than ours, and thus some fraction should be more technologically advanced than us. Even if you assume they're only looking at evolutions of our current technologies, interstellar travel isn't absurd. 

    Thus, based on the law of really large numbers (both in terms of the number of planets and length of time we are talking about) … it makes the silence all the more deafening and curious. 

    If you are interested in the topic "Where are all the aliens?"  Stephen Webb, a particle physicist, tackles that in his book and this TED Talk.   

    via TED

    In the TED talk, Stephen Webb covers a couple of key factors necessary for communicative space-faring life. 

    1. Habitability and stability of their planet
    2. Building blocks of life 
    3. Technological advancement
    4. Socialness/Communication technologies

    But he also acknowledges the numerous confounding variables, including things like imperialism, war, bioterrorism, fear, the moon's effect on climate, etc. 

    Essentially, his thesis is that there are numerous roadblocks to intelligent life, and it's entirely possible we are the only planet that has gotten past those roadblocks. Even if there were others, it's entirely possible that they're extinct by now. 

    E23

    What do you think?

    Here are some other links I liked on this topic. There is some interesting stuff you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand or enjoy. 

    To Infinity and Beyond!

  • Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading – April 20th, 2025

    Today's editorial cartoon

    Here are some of the posts that caught my eye recently. Hope you find something interesting.

    Lighter Links:

     
     

    Trading Links: