It convinced some "geniuses" that attacking Iran was a good idea? /s (maybe true?)

Nuance. It doesn't seem that the "public geniuses" themselves are driving impactful decision-making, but well-meaning folks in one of many thin layers "surrounding" them. The relevant point though is that this layer wants to be seen as forward-thinking (they could be advocating vaccines or crypto in previous eras, so you can't blame them for the "incorrectness" of the fad).

Nor are they sycophants; I'd expect they know independence of thought is a prerequisite for getting into those positions

A rough picture of what these guys smell like-- in personality, not in role-- are the "journalistic-influencers": Peter Robinson of Hoover, Dwarkesh, etc. I hope dang or mod-wannabes are different (maybe they don't actually aspire to be impactful) ?

Question: did these journalistic-influencers have to go through a LinkedIn stage where they vy for the public-geniuses' attention? I suspect not-- even in the case of Dwarkesh. I'm not saying there was no seduction involved.. just that the seduction is not entirely legible..

Eric Weinstein seems to belong to another layer, one that is more like a sinecure, providing moral-support only. Is he in the same layer as Lex Fridman? Maybe.

How about Fidji Simo?? Or the CFO? "Agrippa" Bosworth?

Calling these guys "Mafiosi" or "Enforcers" is underestimating their sophistication..

I wanted to include Hannah-Arendt's ideas somewhere in this diagnosis but this is a long term project looking for collaborators :)