One question that came to mind while reading this is how decision-makers can more effectively bypass or override the sunk cost fallacy in these contexts, while incurring minimal—if any—reputational damage. Specifically, how can experts and stakeholders pivot quickly and effectively when credible, reliable, and actionable intelligence justifies a change in direction?
In my view, the challenge is partly structural and partly cognitive. As humans, we face real limitations in updating our priors, especially when doing so threatens vested interests, entrenched ideologies, or deeply held beliefs about reality. And even in those cases we do update to a more clearer model of reality, it still is quite unobvious, unattractive & difficult to effectively, mindfully & skillfully pivot. It was a nice & worthwhile read, Pablo. I wonder if you've any noteworthy updates, especially with regard to the status of AGI race & progress currently, in 2026?
Nice analogy — it reminded me of Futurama’s “The Problem with Popplers.” This is a good effort. Inviting skeptical scrutiny is the right move, and admirable, kudos.
One question that came to mind while reading this is how decision-makers can more effectively bypass or override the sunk cost fallacy in these contexts, while incurring minimal—if any—reputational damage. Specifically, how can experts and stakeholders pivot quickly and effectively when credible, reliable, and actionable intelligence justifies a change in direction?
In my view, the challenge is partly structural and partly cognitive. As humans, we face real limitations in updating our priors, especially when doing so threatens vested interests, entrenched ideologies, or deeply held beliefs about reality. And even in those cases we do update to a more clearer model of reality, it still is quite unobvious, unattractive & difficult to effectively, mindfully & skillfully pivot. It was a nice & worthwhile read, Pablo. I wonder if you've any noteworthy updates, especially with regard to the status of AGI race & progress currently, in 2026?
Cheers!
Nice analogy — it reminded me of Futurama’s “The Problem with Popplers.” This is a good effort. Inviting skeptical scrutiny is the right move, and admirable, kudos.