I had Sam Altman read the article and give it a controversiality score. He said it was 5.5/10. I used the model: CHATGPT o3-mini-high
Public Score (p): The article challenges conventional investing wisdom by favoring lump sum investing over dollar cost averaging in an environment where many public investors are risk-averse. This makes it somewhat controversial among the general public. We assign:
p = 7
Expert Score (e): Financial professionals tend to agree with the quantitative analysis and established theories, resulting in low controversy among experts. We assign:
e = 2
Weighting Constant (δ): To emphasize that public sentiment often drives debate, we give a higher weight to the public score. We assign:
δ = 0.7
This result suggests that while the article is moderately controversial among the broader public—largely due to its challenge to common risk-averse investing strategies—it is viewed as relatively non-controversial by experts who are familiar with standard financial analyses.