Workers who believe "leveraging cross-functional synergies" sounds profound may want to rethink their career trajectory because a new study suggests people who fall for corporate word salad also tend to perform worse at their jobs.

Researchers from Cornell University have developed what they call "the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale," a tool designed to measure how impressed people are by business school-style jargon that sounds strategic but says very little.

The findings, described in a recent study, suggest that employees who rate this sort of language as insightful are more likely to struggle with analytical thinking and workplace decision-making.

To build the scale, researchers ran four studies involving more than 1,000 working adults in the US and Canada. Participants were shown a mix of genuine corporate statements and nonsense lines generated by what the researchers call a "corporate bullshit generator" – effectively a tool that mashes together buzzwords into sentences that sound like they came straight out of a quarterly strategy meeting.

Examples included lines such as "actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing" and "pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence." Participants were then asked to rate how meaningful or insightful the statements appeared.

snip

People who scored higher on the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale tended to perform worse on tests measuring analytical thinking, cognitive reflection, and fluid intelligence. They also made poorer judgments in workplace decision-making scenarios designed to mimic common business problems./excerpt]

https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/15/corporate_jargon_research/]

Scientists have found that all five of the substances that make up DNA and RNA in samples from Ryugu, the asteroid Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency visited in 2020.

As outlined in a paper titled “A complete set of canonical nucleobases in the carbonaceous asteroid (162173) Ryugu” that appeared in the journal Nature Astronomy this week, analysis of samples from Ryugu turned up “all five canonical nucleobases – purines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (cytosine, thymine and uracil).”

That matters because “The purines adenine and guanine and the pyrimidines cytosine, uracil and thymine constitute the base sequences of DNA and RNA that encode and transmit genetic information.”

And they were all floating around in an orbit between Earth and Mars.

“This implies that the molecular prerequisites for life are not unique to Earth and may emerge as natural products of chemical evolution throughout the Solar System,” the paper states.

There’s more: “Nucleobases could have been delivered to the early Earth, potentially contributing to the molecular inventory necessary for life,” the paper argues. “Furthermore, elucidating the formation mechanisms of extraterrestrial nucleobases helps to constrain the universal physicochemical conditions under which they can form abiotically, thus linking astrochemical processes in interstellar and planetary environments to the chemical evolution that preceded the origin of life.”

Gartner analyst Dennis Xu has half-jokingly suggested banning use of Microsoft’s Copilot AI on Friday afternoons, because he fears at that time of week users may be too lazy to properly check its possibly offensive output.

Xu, a Gartner research vice-president, offered the advice at the end of a talk titled “Mitigating the Top 5 Microsoft 365 Copilot Security Risks” at the firm’s Security & Risk Management Summit in Sydney on Tuesday.

He raised the possibility of a Friday afternoon AI ban when advising on the fifth risk he has identified: Copilot producing output that is toxic because while it may be factually correct it is culturally unacceptable either in the workplace or among customers. Xu recommended mitigating Copilot’s tendency to produce toxic content by enabling the filters Microsoft supplies, and by training users to always validate the tool’s output.

The analyst reminded the audience that all Copilot output isn’t fit for sharing without review, making validation necessary for all users at all times. He suggested Friday afternoons are a time when workers might just want to get the job done and won’t bother to check for errors that Microsoft’s chatbot produces, perhaps making that slice of the working week a fine time to ban use of Copilot.

Xu’s talk ran for 30 minutes, and he spent the first 20 discussing the risk of Copilot exposing content whose creators didn’t set appropriate sharing permissions.

“Copilot makes over-shared documents more accessible,” he warned. “This is not a net new risk, but a known risk amplified by AI.” Xu explained why with the example of a worker who uses Copilot to search for information about organizational changes receiving a response that includes a confidential document about an imminent re-org.

Not only did America declare its independence from Britain 250 years ago, but the man presumed to be the father of conservative economics published his opus, The Wealth of Nations, 250 years ago this month.

It, too, was revolutionary.

snip

It’s no accident that An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (a title usually shortened to The Wealth of Nations) appeared the same year that Americans declared themselves free and independent citizens, with a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The leading thinkers of the Enlightenment, as this age is now called, assumed that individuals would naturally and inevitably strive to make better lives for themselves, to maximize their own satisfaction and happiness.

This didn’t mean that people were selfish or that they had no use for patriotism or religion. It meant simply that their basic motive was to improve their lot in life. It followed that a good society was one which allowed its citizens to do so.

Adam Smith’s ideas fit perfectly with this new democratic idea. To him, the “wealth” of a nation wasn’t determined by the size of its monarch’s treasure or the amount of gold and silver in its vaults, nor by the spiritual worthiness of its people in the eyes of the Church.

A nation’s wealth was to be judged by the total value of all the goods its people produced for all its people to consume. To a reader in the. twenty-first century, this assertion may seem obvious. At the time he argued it, it was a revolutionary democratic vision.

William Gibson is one of history's most quotable sf writers: "The future is here, it's not evenly distributed"; "Don't let the little fuckers generation-gap you"; "Cyberspace is everting"; and the immortal: "The street finds its own uses for things":

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Gibson

"The street finds its own uses" is a surprisingly subtle and liberatory battle-cry. It stakes a claim by technology's users that is separate from the claims asserted by corporations that make technology (often under grotesque and cruel conditions) and market it (often for grotesque and cruel purposes).

"The street finds its own uses" is a statement about technopolitics. It acknowledges that yes, there are politics embedded in our technology, the blood in the machine, but these politics are neither simple, nor are they immutable. The fact that a technology was born in sin does not preclude it from being put to virtuous ends. A technology's politics are up for grabs.

In other words, it's the opposite of Audre Lorde's "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." It's an assertion that, in fact, the master's tools have all the driver-bits, hex-keys, and socket sets needed to completely dismantle the master's house, and, moreover, to build something better with the resulting pile of materials.

And of course the street finds its own uses for things. Things – technology – don't appear out of nowhere. Everything is in a lineage, made from the things that came before it, destined to be transformed by the things that come later. Things can't come into existence until other things already exist.

Take the helicopter. Lots of people have observed the action of a screw and the twirling of a maple key as it falls from a tree and thought, perhaps that could be made to fly. Da Vinci was drawing helicopters in the 15th century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_aerial_screw

But Da Vinci couldn't build a helicopter. No one could, until they did. To make the first helicopter, you need to observe the action of the screw and the twirling of a maple key, and you need to have lightweight, strong alloys and powerful internal combustion engines.

Those other things had to be invented by other people first. Once they were, the next person who thought hard about screws and maple keys was bound to get a helicopter off the ground. That's why things tend to be invented simultaneously, by unrelated parties.

TV, radio and the telephone all have multiple inventors, because these people were the cohort that happened to alight upon the insights needed to build these technologies after the adjacent technologies had been made and disseminated.

If technopolitics were immutable – if the original sin of a technology could never be washed away – then everything is beyond redemption. Somewhere in the history of the lever, the pulley and the wheel are some absolute monsters. Your bicycle's bloodline includes some truly horrible ancestors. The computer is practically a crime against humanity:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/the-traitorous-eight-and-the-battle-of-germanium-valley/

A defining characteristic of purity culture is the belief that things are defined by their origins. An artist who was personally terrible must make terrible art – even if that art succeeds artistically, even if it moves, comforts and inspires you, it can't ever be separated from the politics of its maker. It is terrible because of its origins, not its merits. If you hate the sinner, you must also hate the sin.

"The street finds its own uses" counsels us to hate the sinner and love the sin. The indisputable fact that HP Lovecraft was a racist creep is not a reason to write off Cthulhoid mythos – it's a reason to claim and refashion them:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/09/the-old-crow-is-getting-slow/#i-love-ny

The claim that sin is a kind of forever-chemical contaminant that can't ever be rinsed away is the ideology of Mr Gotcha:

We should improve society somewhat.

Yet you participate in society. Curious!

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

In its right-wing form, it is Margaret Thatcher's "There is no alternative":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/15/piketty-pilled/#tax-justice

Thatcher demanded that you accept all the injustices and oppressions of capitalism if you enjoyed its fruits. If capitalism put a roof over your head and groceries in your fridge, you can't complain about the people it hurts. There is no version of society that has the machines and practices that produced those things that does not also produce the injustice.

The technological version of this is the one that tech bosses peddle: If you enjoy talking to your friends on Facebook, you can't complain about Mark Zuckerberg listening in on the conversation. There is no alternative. Wanting to talk to your friends out of Zuck's earshot is like wanting water that's not wet. It's unreasonable.

But there's a left version of this, its doppelganger: the belief that a technology born in sin can never be redeemed. If you use an LLM running on your computer to find a typo, using an unmeasurably small amount of electricity in the process, you still sin – not because of anything that happens when you use that LLM, but because of LLMs' "structural properties," "the way they make it harder to learn and grow," "the way they make products worse," the "emissions, water use and e-waste":

https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/acting-ethical-in-an-imperfect-world/

The facts that finding punctuation errors in your own work using your own computer doesn't make it "harder to learn and grow," doesn't "make products worse," and doesn't add to "emissions, water use and e-waste" are irrelevant. The part that matters isn't the use of a technology, it's the origin.

The fact that this technology is steeped in indisputable sin means that every use of it is sinful. The street can find as many uses as it likes for things, but it won't matter, because there is no alternative.

When radical technologists scheme to liberate technology, they're not hoping to redeem the gadget, they're trying to liberate people. Information doesn't want to be free, because information doesn't and can't want anything. But people want to be free, and liberated access to information technology is a precondition for human liberation itself.

Promethean leftists don't reject the master's tools: we seize them. The fact that Unix was born of a convicted monopolist who turned the screws on users at every turn isn't a reason to abandon Unix – it demands that we reverse-engineer, open, and free Unix:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/20/capitalist-unrealism/#praxis

We don't do this out of moral consideration for Unix. Unix is inert, it warrants no moral consideration. But billions of users of free operating systems that are resistant to surveillance and control are worthy of moral consideration and we set them free by seizing the means of computation.

If a technology can do something to further human thriving, then we can love the sin, even as we hate the sinners in its lineage. We seize the means of computation, not because we care about computers, but because we care about people.

Artifacts do have politics, but those politics are not immutable. Those politics are ours to seize and refashion:

https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/Winner.pdf

"The purpose of a system is what it does" (S. Beer). The important fact about a technology is what it does, not how it came about. Does a use of a technology harm someone? Does a use of a technology harm the environment?

Does a use of a technology help someone do something that improves their life?

Studying the origins of technology is good because it helps us avoid the systems and practices that hurt people. Knowing about the monsters in our technology's lineage helps us avoid repeating their sins. But there will always be sin in our technology's past, because our technology's past is the entire past, because technology is a lineage, not a gadget. If you reject things because of their origins – and not because of the things they do – then you'll end up rejecting everything (if you're honest), or twisting yourself into a series of dead-ends as you rationalize reasons that the exceptions you make out of necessity aren't really exceptions.

(Image: Dylan Parker, CC BY-SA 2.0, modified)