People who have met Schmidt describe him as clever, cunning, and extremely intelligent

Chain of Thought (what he's describing on his first point) is NOT the same thing as infinite context. It's not even a case of "I'm simplifying this for non-technical people", he's just straight up conflating two completely different things.

His explanation of agents is also wrong in that they don't "learn" anything. They have their internal model weights from training and they have the stuff in their context window and that's it. Agents don't have any magical "learning" ability. Finish one task with an agent and it will immediately forget what it just did.

These are the people making the big decisions and guiding the industry and they a) don't even fucking know how the technology works, b) are blatantly lying about it, or c) both.

There are no good billionaires. Eat the fucking rich.

So how do I convince the owner's son that AI is not the answer to our regulation and compliance heavy business? He can't even explain what the problem AI would solve, just that he wants to start with an internal chat bot that has access to all of our internal (nonexistent) process documentation, then that would save employees time from trying to find those documents. This is completely ignoring the fact that nobody is spending more than a few minutes a week "looking for documentation", yet when he described the idea he ends it with "what could people do with those several hours every week?" as if it's some kind of genius gotcha.

Luckily the CFO and COO are incredibly skeptical, but it's so exhausting having to deal with people like this.

There are exceptions to every rule. While no human is anywhere near perfect, there are a small number of them who are still decent enough - particularly when compared to their peers. Mackenzie Scott (Bezos' ex) is one example.