This "rent seeking class" is not a historical universal, regardless of how much college marxists insist that it is. Leaders can be good or bad, and they hold power in different ways. In America today we have bad leaders (across the entirety of the political spectrum) - and AI poses a lot of challenges in how they hold power. This is not to say Chinese leaders are any better - but the way they hold power is not challenged by AI. Business models will indeed adapt - but the condition is excellent, as they say.

Factor in how a lot of tools have weaponized their interfaces against their users - then the motivation isn't just cost, but usability.

Also seems like the science on whether science communication actual changes behavior doesn't point towards it being much of a cause here.

(as an aside - this reminds me of the trend of Object Oriented Ontology that specifically /tried/ to imbue agency onto large-scale phenomena that were difficult to understand discretely. I remember "global warming" being one of those things - and I can see now how this philosophy would have done more to obscure the dominion of experts wrt that topic)

Social organizations require some sort of glue to bind them together. They need ways to maintain cohesion despite vagueness and to obscure (small) errors. There is a cap put upon max individual output, but aggregate output is much higher than whatever a collection of individuals could attain. This is a very basic dynamic that is lost amidst a cult of individualism that refuses to admit to any good greater than themselves.

Yes - the CEO talking to the board in this way would lose credibility. But a CEO failing to deploy this jargon correctly would also lose credibility with the board : it's obvious he doesn't know how to lead.

What I would like to see is a study of the ratio's between corporate speak and technical speak - and the inflection points at which too much of either causes organization ruin.