Increasingly, we must distinguish between ‘content’ created by some AI tool, masquerading as thought leadership and advice, and the genuine output of experts seeking to inform, encourage debate and deepen the pool of knowledge.
I’m constantly reminded as I read and hear the superficial nonsense spread around as serious advice, of the story Charlie Munger often told of Max Planck and his chauffeur.
Doctor Planck had been touring Europe giving the same lecture on quantum mechanics to scientific audiences. His constant chauffeur had heard the presentation many times, and had learnt it by heart. One night in Munich, he suggested that he give the lecture while Doctor Planck acting as the chauffeur sat in the audience, resting.
After a well received presentation a question from a professor was asked to which the chauffeur responded, ‘I am surprised that in an advanced city like Munich, I get such an elementary question. I am going to ask my chauffeur to respond’.
It is hard at a superficial level to tell the difference between a genuine expert, and someone who has just learned the lines.
To tell the difference between those two you must
- Dig deeper to determine the depth of knowledge, where it came from. Personal stories and anecdotes are always a good market of originality.
- Understand how the information adjusts to different circumstances, and contexts. An inability to articulate the ‘edge’ situations offers insight to the depth of thinking that has occurred.
- Look for the sources of the information being delivered. Peer reviewed papers and research is always better than some random Youtube channel curated for numbers to generate ad revenue.
- Consider the ‘tone of voice’ in which the commentary is delivered. AI generated material will be generic, bland, average. By contrast, genuine originality will always display the verbal, written and presentation characteristics of the originator.
- Challenge the ‘expert’ to break down the complexity of the idea into simple terms that a 10 year old would understand.
These will indicate to you the degree of understanding from first principles, the building blocks of knowledge, that the ‘Guru’ has.
The header is a photo of Max Planck in his study, without his chauffeur.
I tried to seek verification on the Internet, fool that I am. The story is part of the Internet echo chamber and is reproduced verbatim …
Over time, his chauffeur memorized the lecture and said, “Would you mind, Professor Planck, because it’s so boring to stay in our routine, if I gave the lecture in Munich and you just sat in front wearing my chauffeur’s hat?” Planck said, “Why not?” And the chauffeur got up and gave this long lecture on quantum mechanics. After which a physics professor stood up and asked a perfectly ghastly question. The speaker said, “Well I’m surprised that in an advanced city like Munich I get such an elementary question. I’m going to ask my chauffeur to reply.”
OK. Lets check to see the flaws in the story:
1. The chauffeur drove Plank all around Europe? 1918 why drive? Surely trains?
2. 1918 Europe … WWI had just finished, Planck, according to WIkipedia was raising money for the recovery of German science … unlikely he would be giving physics lectures
3. The chauffeur would not attend Planck’s lectures—chauffers usually stay with the car as they are employed to do
4. “Would you mind Professor, if we just swapped places” … “gosh, Albert, that sounds like a jolly good idea! Lets do it!” “I am also quite bored and I don’t care about my reputation as one of the world’s most eminent scientists and intellectuals. What a jolly good jape.”
5. And, of course, Planck as a German scientist would not be recognised by any other German scientist as Munich is so far away from Berlin where Planck was a professor even wearing a chauffeur’s hat in the front row.
6. They would be talking in German
7. The chauffeur’s name was Einstein.
Reluctantly, I accept that the story is a lovely parable made up by Charlie to make a point.
That conclusion came before your curmudgeonly attempt to slur Charlie by pointing out some factoids.
I am however, deeply impressed with the credibility of point 7, and think it a very worthy addition to the parable.
Let’s get it into the echo chamber and have some fun!!
I love the idea of the chauffer playing the part of the great physicist. It is a great story but surely cannot be possible at all.
Tim,
I do not know for sure if it is true, but I have seen it referred to several times, always crediting Charlie Munger for it.
Would Charlie tell a porkie??
Haha. I like a good story and truth is not always necessary. That can make a good story even better I think, knowing that it is not possibly true but believing it anyway.
Irrespective of your contrarian view that the story must be a chimera, I choose to reaffirm my faith in Charlie.
He would never embellish the truth, let alone allow a monstrous perjury pass his lips.