It's more about the "aim" of innovation, i.e. what social configuration and lifestyle are we trying to enable with technology. If you ask the billionaire class they might be interested in a future where a lot of people (other than them) work a ton to advance their visions of the future. And if you ask everyone else they might think we should automate as much as possible to enable creativity and human freedom

Maybe publicly financed elections would do it indirectly. But yeah it seems power is where all the good ideas go to die lol

That's fair. I think I just trust crowds more than elites in ethical questions (for logical ones it's the reverse). They're more likely to think of themselves in bad and good positions of hypothetical social arrangements.

And no I haven't! I largely agree with that statement about aligning incentives, if not for the tendency towards regulatory capture, not sure how you account for that

Certainly. Beyond the clearly undemocratic nature of the aim being decided more interestingly I wonder if it could be decided democratically, or at least at an individual level

As a correction money does not mostly flow to innovators but to their investors and the rest of the capital class. They rarely see more than a few percent of the value of what they produce

Now it just recommends chili p

This is true bravery, hats off to Ms. Taraneh Alidoosti