I'd say it's something like "a squandering of potential"

I think it’s more nuances, it’s saying that our definition of potential, best, etc, doesn’t weigh empathy for our fellow humans heavily enough. It’s an argument to flip that instead of our brightest minds being spent on ads, to instead say we are not rewarding our brightest minds at all but our most mercenary ones.

I read it as: best in terms of problem-solving power. On the ethical and empathic side, whether they're good/best or worst depends on whether you put more blame on systemic pressures (here mostly economic) vs. on individual agency.

Yeah, that's what the original quote means, and I agree with it. The comment tho is trying to argue that unqualified 'best' should not implicitly mean 'best at problem solving' which is a kinda interesting social/linguistic take.