If everyone were a realist, we wouldn't have half the advances we do. Because what can be "real" is proven wrong through innovation, after all isn't that disrup

If everyone were a realist, we wouldn't have half the advances we do. Because what can be "real" is proven wrong through innovation, after all isn't that disruption? :) Sam Altman talks about this quite frequently, that it's not intelligence or luck necessary for an enduring innovation. It is persistence in the face of inevitability, and a high tolerance for being proven wrong and still persisting