Capitalogix

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.

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!

Choosing To Be More Human in the Age of AI

Last week, I asked, “What do you do when AI gets better than you?” One of the key takeaways from that post was that AI is freeing you up to be more human.

My son (who helped write it) said he wished we used more examples and stories that dealt with “the future of being human” rather than “the future of work”. So, we decided that would be the “seed” idea for this post.

It’s funny, but when I started to gather my thoughts about it ... I felt a rush of emotions. 

Emotions and Logic

Emotions have frustratingly little to do with logic. Humans are driven by impulse and often by those that don’t represent our best nature. History shows that we’re driven by fear, greed, scarcity, and self-preservation. And, truthfully, that’s all “human”. But humans are also beautiful, meaning-making machines ... and throughout our often messy history, we’ve done amazing things and somehow survived.

Appreciating Life

Watching my father die was a catalyst for me to appreciate life and living more than I did. I gave a TEDx talk about that and wrote articles about the time value of a life worth living. At the end of his life, it was clear that he appreciated things more (a family dinner, a kiss goodbye, the beauty of a sunset) and that he would have done almost anything for more time. Two hidden gifts came from that “scarcity”. The first gift was recognizing that we got to choose how much more “life” we got out of the last part of my dad’s life. The second gift was realizing that you don’t have to wait for the end of life to “live like you only have a year left”.  

Final Goodbye

I have another memory from his deathbed as well. He had been out of it for a while, and I was worried that I wouldn’t get a chance to say a final goodbye and to tell him how much I loved him. Luckily, he woke up, and we had a few final lucid moments together. He looked me straight in the eyes, told me how much he loved me, and then with a touch of humor said, “Okay, so tell me how this relates to Veritas ...” which was the original name of the company I was running at that time. His final message to me was a reminder that life is not really about work.

Looking Beyond Work

Transparently, I still look at the world through a lens and filter that too often focuses on work. Yet I also recognize and strive to pay attention to the deeper meanings beyond that.

Getting back to the point of the article, it is easy to see how AI relates to work ... yet, it might be more important to consider how AI is going to affect the rest of your life. 

 

 

In the last article, we discussed how Lee Sedol, one of the world’s top Go players, retired after losing to AlphaGo. When asked about it, Lee said, “Losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing.” He also explained, “I could no longer enjoy the game. So, I retired.” 

While it’s certainly his right to retire, I think it might have been the wrong choice ... or, at least, not what I would have done in that situation.

If playing Go was his passion, it might have been better for him to change how he “keeps score” to focus on his progress, rather than the distance between him and what AI could do.

As long as you believe you can get better (and have hope for continued improvements), there are many ways to leverage the capabilities and opportunities that come from that.

Many people engage in sports or games even though they know they won’t become the greatest of all time. The same is true for almost any hobby or pursuit (whether it’s in art, literature, philosophy, craftsmanship, or other fields). There will always be someone or something that can do it better, faster, or more efficiently. However, that shouldn’t be the sole determinant of whether you get joy or energy from pursuing a path of getting better at what you want to excel at.

One of my core beliefs is that the changes coming to the world will free us up to be more human. That means we have to choose what to pursue.

What’s more human than pursuing something difficult? 

The Beauty of Passion

In a world increasingly shaped by AI’s precision and efficiency, choosing to do something purely out of passion becomes a powerful act of self-expression. When a machine can paint more photorealistically or compose music with perfect mathematical harmony, human creativity finds new purpose not in competing, but in conveying emotion, imperfection, and lived experience.

 

As we focus on growing businesses and changing the world, I think it’s easy to lose sight of the passion that first got us into business. 

I do the research and write this newsletter, not because I expect it to make me a ton of money, or because AI can’t do it ... but because I enjoy it, and it’s almost like meditation for me. 

My son plays rugby despite enduring countless injuries, significant financial cost, and realizing that it takes increasing amounts of his time to stay competitive. From a logical standpoint, it makes almost no sense for him to spend scarce resources or risk such extreme bodily harm in his 30s. But he’s passionate about rugby, enjoys playing it, and recognizes how it improves other parts of his life. It is an excellent example of the time value of a life worth living. He made a conscious choice that this is what it takes to be, do, and have what he values most.

The Power of Fun 

Artificial Intelligence is probably better than you at poker ... does that mean you shouldn’t have some friends over and try to win their money?

Does it mean you shouldn’t try to learn a new instrument or write a book?

We often undervalue fun because it doesn’t always produce measurable outcomes, but fun is not frivolous. It’s how we bond, relax, and explore parts of ourselves we can’t access through obligation or structure.

We intrinsically understand this. You don’t worry about being the best when you’re playing pick-up basketball or throwing a football with your son. You’re focused on creating memories and having fun. 

Joy doesn’t need justification. 

 

Striving To Be The Best

Ultimately, you have to be willing to lose to be the best. In every pursuit, there will always be someone ahead of you. Whether it’s a faster runner, a sharper mind, or a newer technology, I want to be the man in the arena. 

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt, Citizenship in a Republic

The point has never been to be the best at everything ... but to strive for your best.

I’ve always believed the game isn’t over until I win, not because I can’t lose, but because the belief empowers me to get back up again. 

Being second best — or tenth, or just a beginner — doesn’t diminish your effort; it validates it. The climb matters, even if you never reach the summit. Humans are wired for persistence and purpose, not perfection. 

Humanity got where we are today because people weren’t happy with the status quo. They pursued greatness and innovation. Sometimes, what seems like failure ends up being the most significant success. 

AI is an incredible opportunity. It’s an opportunity to increase your productivity, to transform your business, and to redefine industries. It’s also an invitation to redefine your future and how you spend time. You can use it as an excuse to get smaller or bigger ... the power is in your perspective.

Hope that helps.

What Do You Do When AI is Better Than You?

When Beethoven was at the peak of his career, several of his contemporaries struggled to deal with the realization that they may never create anything that lived up to his creations. Brahms, for example, refused to make a symphony for 21 years. Schubert is quoted as saying, “Who can ever do anything after Beethoven?”

We’re seeing the same effect as a result of Artificial Intelligence. 

 

via visualcapitalist

The gap between human and machine reasoning is narrowing fast. I remember when AlphaGo, an AI program created by Google’s DeepMind, finally got better than humanity at Go. It was a big deal, and it prompted us to think seriously about competition in a post-AI world. If you can’t be the best, is it still worth competing? To one former Go champion, it wasn’t. He retired after “declaring AI invincible.” 

Over the past few years, AI systems have advanced rapidly, surpassing humans in many more tasks. Much like Beethoven, AI is discouraging competition. 

Was Lee Sedol, the former Go champ, wrong to quit? It’s hard to say ... but as AI gets better at more activities, it’s an issue we’ll encounter more often.

There’s always someone (or something) better. Taking a purely utilitarian approach isn’t always necessary or productive. It often helps to take a longer view of the issue.

Sometimes, it's okay to just do something because you enjoy doing it.

Sometimes you have to “embrace the suck” and be willing to put in the work to learn, grow, and progress.

Sometimes, you need to invest effort in understanding a process better to determine whether others (or automation) are achieving the right results.

The most successful people I know don’t try to avoid things with powerful potential. Instead, they leverage those things to achieve more and become better.

I advocate intelligently adopting AI, in part, because I expect the scale of AI’s “wins” will skyrocket. That means I know AI will soon be better than I am at things I do now.

It doesn’t mean I should give up. It means I have to raise the bar to stay competitive.

I have another belief that helps here. What if you believed, “The game isn’t over until I win ...”? With that belief in place, I won’t let a 2^nd place ceiling stop me if something gives me energy. AI may change how I play the game ... or even what game I choose to play ... but I will still choose to play.

 

 

What Happens to Human Work When Machines Get Smarter?

AI is changing the playing field at work, too. 

As a result, some say that AI-driven job displacement is not a future threat but a present reality.

This past week, several prominent  CEOs publicly mandated AI use, marking a shift to “AI-first” work culture, which prioritizes and integrates AI into the core of an organization’s strategy, operations, and overall culture.

Here is what I think (and you've probably heard me say this before): 

At this point, AI won't likely replace you ... but someone who uses AI better might.

Let’s face it, doing more with less is a core goal and strategy in business.

But that doesn’t mean humans are doomed. There are lots of historical parallels between AI integration and past technological revolutions. If you think about AI as a transformative force, you can hear the echoes of historical shifts that redefined work practices and intellectual labor (like the printing press, the calculator, or the internet).

We’re seeing significant changes in how we work. Instead of just having a mix of people working from home or the office (a hybrid workplace), we’re moving to a situation where people are working alongside smart computer programs, called AI agents (a hybrid workforce).

 

The rise of the hybrid workforce signifies a transformative shift in workplace dynamics. Gartner predicts that one-third of generative AI use cases will involve AI agents by 2028.

In the age of AI, success doesn’t come from battling technology — it comes from embracing our uniquely human powers and building systems that let those powers shine.

AI is coming - but it doesn’t have to be joy-sucking. Ideally, it should free you up to do MORE of the things that bring you joy, energy, and satisfaction. 

Onwards!

The Next Gilded Age ... This Generation's Carnegies, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts

Wealth is fascinating to those who have it, those who want it ... and even those who don’t.

Billionaires have always controlled significant amounts of wealth compared to the general population. However, now we’re seeing substantial wealth differences grow within the billionaire population itself. The very richest are getting much richer compared to just “wealthy” people. 

When Forbes published its first World’s Billionaire List in 1987, 140 billionaires accounted for a total of $295 billion in global wealth. Topping that list was Yoshiaki Tsutsumi from Japan, with $20 billion. A lot has changed since then. Elon Musk topped this year’s Forbes List and is now worth over $342 billion. His wealth is about 21 times more than Tsutsumi’s ... and over two million times more than the average American family’s.

A New Gilded Age

In 2017, The Guardian released an article stating that the world’s super-rich held the greatest concentration of wealth since the turn of the 20th century. According to The Guardian, 1,542 billionaires held approximately $6 trillion in collective wealth, which would put them as the fifth largest GDP at the time. 

Last year, less than a decade since the Guardian’s article, Forbes estimated that 2,781 billionaires had a combined net worth of over $14 trillion. For a little more context, some estimate that the world’s richest 1% own more than 43% of global financial assets. 

Currently, the world’s super-billionaire population is primarily made up of entrepreneurs who made their money in the tech sector, or whose industry was catapulted to new levels by technological advances. Six of the top ten wealthiest individuals on the Forbes list fall into that category.

In comparison, the first Gilded Age was established by a few entrepreneurs controlling monopolies in US rail, oil, steel, and banking.

 

The image is “Bosses of the Senate”.

The Vanderbilts amassed $185 billion (adjusted for inflation) from their railroad empire. Andrew Carnegie made $309 billion from his steel empire. John D. Rockefeller made $336 billion from an oil empire (that controlled about 90% of the American oil business). They were the stars of the Gilded Age ... and their control over major industries led to some of the largest individual fortunes in American history compared to the average population. 

It’s interesting to look at the transition from the richest in the late 1800s to the richest in 2025 ... the transition from industries like Steel, Oil, and Rail, into companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Tesla, and Walmart. While they certainly dominate the spaces they’re in, it is a far cry from the monopolies of the 1800s. 

While there are more “super-rich” individuals today than before, our wealthiest individuals still manage to have some impressive stat lines. As of the end of 2024, Bernard Arnault was worth an estimated $233 billion. Elon Musk was worth around $195 billion, and Jeff Bezos was right behind at $194 billion. Today, Bernard is sitting at $178 billion, Elon is up to $342 billion, and Jeff is up to $215 billion. Arnault is a clear example of how Trump’s tariff announcement impacted billionaires. 

With the AI gold rush in full swing, it will be interesting to see who gets added to the list in the coming years. 

Let me know when your name makes that list. I’ll do the same.

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.

• NewsNation Segment: UFO Whistleblower Jake Barber Shares Allegations and Will Testify to Congress About Nonhuman Craft Retrievals.
• NewsNation Segment: UFO whistleblower David Grusch: 'We are not alone.'
• Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka, Professor of Religious Studies, bridges the gap between religious studies, technological advancements, and the realm of UFO phenomena.
• Trailer for a film called "The Phenomenon."

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. 

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. 

• 75 Reasons We Don't See Aliens 
• Wait But Why: The Fermi Paradox
• A New Theory on Why We Haven't Found Aliens Yet
• A List of Solutions to The Fermi Paradox
• Dissolving the Fermi Paradox, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University

To Infinity and Beyond!

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

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

Lighter Links:

• OpenAI's Most Impressive Move Has Nothing to Do With AI. (ZDNet)
• AI Stuns Researchers by Rewriting Its Own Code to Overcome Limitations. (TalkAndroid)
• Meta’s New AI Tech Can Read Your Mind at Work…What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (AllWork)
• How to Enter a ‘Flow State’ on Command: Peak Performance Mind Hack Explained in 7 Minutes. (OpenCulture)
• British Anthropologist Claims Jesus' Tomb and Ark of the Covenant are Beneath the Great Pyramid. (JPost)

 

 

Trading Links:

• Trump’s Knives Are Out for Jerome Powell, Setting Up a Supreme Court Showdown Over the Fed’s Independence. (Fortune)
• First Shockwaves of Trump’s Tariffs are About to Hit the World Economy. (Bloomberg)
• America is Losing the Robot Wars. (Insider)
• The Only Way Some Manufacturing Jobs Will Return Stateside is If AI-Empowered Robots Do Them—And That’s a Good Thing. (Fortune)
• ‘China’s Elon Musk’ Uses Just Two Numbers to Demonstrate Why His Country’s Auto Industry is Now Outcompeting the U.S. And Europe. (Fortune)

Are We Alone In The Universe?

Last week, Astronomers announced the discovery of the most promising "hints" of life on an exoplanet, K2-18, 124 light years away. 

While it would only be signs of phytoplankton and other microscopic marine life, it would still be a massive finding. 

I tend to read a lot across a wide variety of sources. Recently, I've noticed a significant uptick in stories about aliens, UFOs, non-human intelligence, and non-human technology. In addition, several of my seemingly sane friends claim to have direct knowledge of projects and groups (funded by well-known billionaires) close to making very public announcements about missions, research, and discoveries in these areas, they hope will result in discontiguous innovations and asymmetric capabilities.

While I believe it's naive to assume that there's no other form of life in a universe as vast as what we understand ... I'm also highly skeptical of anyone who claims that they have specific knowledge or proof. With that said, I have seen enough stuff from people I trust to expect that our beliefs about these issues will shift massively in the very near future. As an example, check out Skywatch.ai, some of its videos, or this NewsNation broadcast.

Since we live in a time where technologies are rapidly advancing, I thought it might be interesting to test out an AI-powered chatbot designed to debunk conspiracy theories through evidence-based conversations. It is a spin-out project with roots at MIT and other top universities. Research shows that many people doubted or abandoned false beliefs after a short conversation with the DebunkBot. 

I first heard of this tool through these two articles: Meet DebunkBot, The AI Chatbot that Will Debunk Any Conspiracies You Believe and AI Chatbot Shows Promise in Talking People Out of Conspiracy Theories.

Here is a link to the conversation I had with it about the belief  "Life likely exists elsewhere in the Universe due to its vastness and the repeated conditions that can give rise to life."  To my surprise, this tool concluded that the belief is not a conspiracy theory and reminded me that:

Science for the sake of knowing is one thing. Belief for the sake of hope, curiosity, or imagination is another. The search for "life" might actually help us discover something more valuable than what we thought we were searching for in the first place.

You can test your beliefs against DebunkBot's AI. Let me know how it goes and whether you changed your mind.

Meanwhile, Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the Universe. 

As usual, it's well done, fun, and informative. 

For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with the Drake and Seager equations.

The Drake equation estimates the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy and the universe. It factors in variables such as habitable planets, the likelihood of life, intelligent life, and the duration of time a civilization sends signals into space. 

The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation, focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect - for example, the number of observable stars/planets, the % have life, and the % chance of detectable bio-signature gas. 

Click here to play with the Are We Alone in the Universe infographic. 

 

via Information Is Beautiful

For both equations, the infographic lets you look at various default options, but also enables you to change the variables based on your beliefs. 

For example, the skeptic's default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy, which is still 924,000 in the universe. The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our universe. 

Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the universe.

 

via Information Is Beautiful

One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially influential numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space. Conservative estimates are 420 years, but optimistic estimates are 10,000 or more. 

One other thing to consider is that some scientists believe that life is most likely to grow on planets with very high gravity, which would also make escaping their atmosphere for space travel nigh impossible.

If any aliens are reading this ... don't worry, I won't tell. But we will find out who you voted for in the last election.

Last week, Astronomers announced the discovery of the most promising "hints" of life on an exoplanet, K2-18, 124 light years away. 

While it would only be signs of phytoplankton and other microscopic marine life, it would still be a massive finding. 

I tend to read a lot across a wide variety of sources. Recently, I've noticed a significant uptick in stories about aliens, UFOs, non-human intelligence, and non-human technology. In addition, several of my seemingly sane friends claim to have direct knowledge of projects and groups (funded by well-known billionaires) close to making very public announcements about missions, research, and discoveries in these areas, they hope will result in discontiguous innovations and asymmetric capabilities.

While I believe it's naive to assume that there's no other form of life in a universe as vast as what we understand ... I'm also highly skeptical of anyone who claims that they have specific knowledge or proof. With that said, I have seen enough stuff from people I trust to expect that our beliefs about these issues will shift massively in the very near future. As an example, check out Skywatch.ai, some of its videos, or this NewsNation broadcast.

Since we live in a time where technologies are rapidly advancing, I thought it might be interesting to test out an AI-powered chatbot designed to debunk conspiracy theories through evidence-based conversations. It is a spin-out project with roots at MIT and other top universities. Research shows that many people doubted or abandoned false beliefs after a short conversation with the DebunkBot. 

I first heard of this tool through these two articles: Meet DebunkBot, The AI Chatbot that Will Debunk Any Conspiracies You Believe and AI Chatbot Shows Promise in Talking People Out of Conspiracy Theories.

Here is a link to the conversation I had with it about the belief  "Life likely exists elsewhere in the Universe due to its vastness and the repeated conditions that can give rise to life."  To my surprise, this tool concluded that the belief is not a conspiracy theory and reminded me that:

Science for the sake of knowing is one thing. Belief for the sake of hope, curiosity, or imagination is another. The search for "life" might actually help us discover something more valuable than what we thought we were searching for in the first place.

You can test your beliefs against DebunkBot's AI. Let me know how it goes and whether you changed your mind.

Meanwhile, Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the Universe. 

As usual, it's well done, fun, and informative. 

For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with the Drake and Seager equations.

The Drake equation estimates the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy and the universe. It factors in variables such as habitable planets, the likelihood of life, intelligent life, and the duration of time a civilization sends signals into space. 

The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation, focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect - for example, the number of observable stars/planets, the % have life, and the % chance of detectable bio-signature gas. 

Click here to play with the Are We Alone in the Universe infographic. 

 

via Information Is Beautiful

For both equations, the infographic lets you look at various default options, but also enables you to change the variables based on your beliefs. 

For example, the skeptic's default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy, which is still 924,000 in the universe. The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our universe. 

Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the universe.

 

via Information Is Beautiful

One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially influential numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space. Conservative estimates are 420 years, but optimistic estimates are 10,000 or more. 

One other thing to consider is that some scientists believe that life is most likely to grow on planets with very high gravity, which would also make escaping their atmosphere for space travel nigh impossible.

If any aliens are reading this ... don't worry, I won't tell. But we will find out who you voted for in the last election.

To Rebirth & Spring Cleaning

Next Sunday is Easter, but yesterday was the first night of Passover - an 8-day long Jewish holiday that recounts the story of Exodus. 

The overlap can be seen in DaVinci's Last Supper, depicting a Passover Seder and Jesus's last meal before his crucifixion. 

 

 

Part of the Passover Seder tradition involves discussing how to share the story in ways that connect with different types of people, recognizing that everyone understands and relates to things differently.

To do this, we examine the Passover story through the lens of four archetypal children — the Wise Child, the Wicked Child, the Simple Child, and the Child Who Does Not Know How to Ask.

The four children reflect different learning styles — intellectual (Wise), skeptical (Wicked), curious (Simple), and passive (Silent) — and highlight how we must adapt communication to the diverse personalities and developmental stages of our audience.

This seems even more relevant today, as we struggle to come to a consensus on what to believe and how to communicate with people who think differently. 

 

On a lighter note, one of the memorable phrases from Exodus is when Moses says, "Let my people go!"  For generations, people assumed he was talking to the Pharoah about his people's freedom.  But after a week of eating clogging food like matzoh, matzoh balls, and even fried matzoh … for many Jews, "Let my people go" takes on a different meaning.

After Passover, and as we enter a new season, it's a great time for a mental and physical 'Spring Cleaning,' and delve into your experiences to cultivate more of what you desire and less of what you don't.

Here is to Spring, Re-Birth, and Spring Cleaning.

Hope you had a great weekend.

Are Billionaires Popular?

We live in an interesting time. Many billionaires aren’t just business leaders - they’re also influencers, personalities, and public figures. 

While countless billionaires go under the radar, several of today’s billionaires have become controversial figures - like Elon Musk. So, how do the top 10 richest Americans rank in this so-called “popularity contest?”

via visualcapitalist

It’s interesting how many of the 10 wealthiest people in America are still flying relatively under the radar. In my head, names like Sergey Brin or Larry Page should still be household names. 

On the other side of this scale, the three richest billionaires have primarily unfavorable ratings ... with Mark Zuckerburg being the most disliked of the bunch. 

Meanwhile, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have predominantly positive ratings - though Bill is more polarizing than Buffett. 

As an aside, the world’s richest lost over $200 billion in a single day as news of Trump’s tariffs rocked markets. For context, that drop is the fourth-largest one-day decline in the Bloomberg Billionaires Index’s 13-year history.

Mad About March Madness

March Madness is in full swing and will have the world's attention for a few more days. As you can guess, almost no one has a perfect bracket anymore. McNeese beat Clemson, Drake beat Mizzou, and Arkansas handed Kansas its first first-round loss since 2006. On Friday, the NCAA said that of the over 34 million brackets submitted at the start of March Madness, approximately 1,600 remained perfect. That's less than .1% after the first day. The first game of the tournament - Creighton vs. Louisville - busted over half of the brackets. 

Before 24/7 sports channels, people watched the weekly show "The Wide World of Sports."  Its opening theme promised "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat!" and "The human drama of athletic competition." That defines March Madness.

The holy grail is mighty elusive in March Madness (as in most things). For example, the odds of getting the perfect bracket are 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (that is 1 in 9.223 quintillion if that was too many zeros count). If you want better odds, then you can have a 1 in 2.4 trillion chance based on a Duke Mathematician's formula that takes into account ranks). It's easier to win back-to-back lotteries than picking a perfect bracket. Nonetheless, I bet you felt pretty good when you filled out your bracket.

via Duke University

Here's some more crazy March Madness Stats: 

• Companies expect $4 Billion of corporate losses due to employees tracking games
• The highest-paid NCAA coach, Kansas's Bill Self, makes a salary of $8.8 Million
• In 2018, it was estimated that March Madness generated $10 Billion in gambling (twice as much as the Super Bowl)

 

Feeding the Madness

"Not only is there more to life than basketball, there's a lot more to basketball than basketball." - Phil Jackson

In 2017, I highlighted three people who were (semi) successful at predicting March Madness: a 13-year-old who used a mix of guesswork and preferences, a 47-year-old English woman who used algorithms and data science (despite not knowing the game), and a 70-year-old bookie who had his finger on the pulse of the betting world. None of them had the same success even a year later.

Finding an edge is hard - Maintaining an edge is even harder.

That's not to say there aren't edges to be found. 

Bracket-choosing mimics the way investors pick trades or allocate assets. Some people use gut feelings, some base their decisions on current and historical performance, and some use predictive models. You've got different inputs, weights, and miscellaneous factors influencing your decision. That makes you feel powerful. But knowing the history, their ranks, etc., can help make an educated guess, and they can also lead you astray. 

The allure of March Madness is the same as gambling or trading. As sports fans, it's easy to believe we know something the layman doesn't. We want the bragging rights for the sleeper pick that went deeper than most expected, our alma mater winning, and for the big upset we predicted. 

You'd think an NCAA analyst might have a better shot at a perfect bracket than your grandma or musical-loving co-worker.

In reality, several of the highest-ranked brackets every year are guesses. 

The commonality in all decisions is that we are biased. Bias is inherent to the process because there isn't a clear-cut answer. We don't know who will win or what makes a perfect prediction. 

Think about it from a market efficiency standpoint. People make decisions based on many factors — sometimes irrational ones — which can create inefficiencies and complexities. It can be hard to find those inefficiencies and capitalize on them, but they're there to be found. 

In trading, AI and advanced math help remove biases and identify inefficiencies humans miss.

Can machine learning also help in March Madness?

“The greater the uncertainty, the bigger the gap between what you can measure and what matters, the more you should watch out for overfitting - that is, the more you should prefer simplicity” - Tom Griffiths

The data is there. Over 100,000 NCAA regular-season games were played over the last 25+ years, and we generally have plenty of statistics about the teams for each season. There are plenty of questions to be asked about that data that may add an extra edge. 

That said, people have tried before with mediocre success. It's hard to overcome the intangibles of sports—hustle, the crowd, momentum—and it's hard to overcome the odds of 1 in 9.2 quintillion. 

Two lessons can be learned from this:

1. People aren't as good at prediction as they predict they are.
2. Machine Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to all your problems.

Something to think about.

 

Feeding the Madness

"Not only is there more to life than basketball, there's a lot more to basketball than basketball." - Phil Jackson

In 2017, I highlighted three people who were (semi) successful at predicting March Madness: a 13-year-old who used a mix of guesswork and preferences, a 47-year-old English woman who used algorithms and data science (despite not knowing the game), and a 70-year-old bookie who had his finger on the pulse of the betting world. None of them had the same success even a year later.

Finding an edge is hard - Maintaining an edge is even harder.

That's not to say there aren't edges to be found. 

Bracket-choosing mimics the way investors pick trades or allocate assets. Some people use gut feelings, some base their decisions on current and historical performance, and some use predictive models. You've got different inputs, weights, and miscellaneous factors influencing your decision. That makes you feel powerful. But knowing the history, their ranks, etc., can help make an educated guess, and they can also lead you astray. 

The allure of March Madness is the same as gambling or trading. As sports fans, it's easy to believe we know something the layman doesn't. We want the bragging rights for the sleeper pick that went deeper than most expected, our alma mater winning, and for the big upset we predicted. 

You'd think an NCAA analyst might have a better shot at a perfect bracket than your grandma or musical-loving co-worker.

In reality, several of the highest-ranked brackets every year are guesses. 

The commonality in all decisions is that we are biased. Bias is inherent to the process because there isn't a clear-cut answer. We don't know who will win or what makes a perfect prediction. 

Think about it from a market efficiency standpoint. People make decisions based on many factors — sometimes irrational ones — which can create inefficiencies and complexities. It can be hard to find those inefficiencies and capitalize on them, but they're there to be found. 

In trading, AI and advanced math help remove biases and identify inefficiencies humans miss.

Can machine learning also help in March Madness?

“The greater the uncertainty, the bigger the gap between what you can measure and what matters, the more you should watch out for overfitting - that is, the more you should prefer simplicity” - Tom Griffiths

The data is there. Over 100,000 NCAA regular-season games were played over the last 25+ years, and we generally have plenty of statistics about the teams for each season. There are plenty of questions to be asked about that data that may add an extra edge. 

That said, people have tried before with mediocre success. It's hard to overcome the intangibles of sports—hustle, the crowd, momentum—and it's hard to overcome the odds of 1 in 9.2 quintillion. 

Two lessons can be learned from this:

1. People aren't as good at prediction as they predict they are.
2. Machine Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to all your problems.

Something to think about.