> My definition of a sound-byte is a conceptually thin phrase that sounds good, but does not contain much content. Yeah, same. And to my eye, this whole thing

> My definition of a sound-byte is a conceptually thin phrase that sounds good, but does not contain much content. Yeah, same. And to my eye, this whole thing's paper-thin; it tested my suspension of disbelief to not dismiss it as an obvious joke or bad attempt at a PR stunt, and I'm honestly still undecided. Part of the issue is that its conclusions are absurd. We can invent ethical constraints to arrive at max-profit by pulling things out of thin air; the procedure's analogous to p-hacking. For funsies: 1. Come up with a huge portfolio of ethical-sounding constraints. Include basically any ethical-sounding argument imaginable, even if it seems stupid or bad for business (the numbers can be hacked; we just need the pretty words). 2. Come up with model-transform strategies. For example, instead of calculating the threshold, calculate the log-threshold or the threshold-entropy. (Again, don't think logically -- we're hacking the math, so just come up with random things.) 3. Come up with model-hybridization strategies. For example, construct a meta-model that uses 50% of the threshold + 25% of the inverse-log threshold + 20% of the inverse-entropy threshold + a flat 5% (because, hey, why not?). 4. Whenever we want to maximize profit, just do so with simple profit-maximization. No "ethical" constraints. 5. Repeat Step (4) for millions (or more) different hybridized models, combining all sorts of different model-transforms and ethical-constraints at random. Optimize each for approach to simple-maximization. 6. Stop upon finding an "ethical" solution that effectively equals simple profit-maximization. 7. Generate a description of the "ethical" solution, and write a report on how your company's using that particular ethical strategy as part of its latest, on-going campaign to promote social equity. 8. Just do simple profit-maximization. Or the "ethical" solution; whatever, they're literally the same thing. But if anyone asks, be sure to tell them it was for ethics. While we're at being ethical, we could even shift some paradigms to envision new modes of engagement with socioeconomically disadvantaged stakeholders to promote a synergistic realignment between our commitment to ethical outreach and disrupting the zeitgeist with our social media blitz to rapidly accumulate surprisingly liquid social capital, indelibly scrawled across the human blockchain of love and mutual respect, validated in the proof-of-work of billions of sapient hearts yearning to emerge from the trials-and-tribulations of our modern era into the welcoming bosom of a new tomorrow. But who cares about pointlessly defining jargon for logical inconsistencies, though? It's hallow and meaningless; at most, it might fool people before they realize that it's logically inconsistent, but that'd just be lies. It doesn't seem to have an actual use.