Category: Web/Tech
The small business boom
Across the country, founders like Ms. Winkler are powering an entrepreneurial renaissance.
Jump-started by the pandemic, when a confluence of factors including mass layoffs and remote work led to a flood of business creation, and supercharged by the rise of artificial intelligence, start-up activity is booming after a decades-long slump.
Americans filed 5.7 million applications last year to start new businesses, according to the Census Bureau, the most in the two decades the government has kept track. New business applications through the first half of this year continued to climb…
More recently, there are signals that A.I. is adding fuel.
A recent paper from economists at the University of British Columbia and the Stockholm School of Economics found that generative A.I. was “spurring entrepreneurial activity” in the United States, both by giving rise to new ventures built around the technology and by making it cheaper to start enterprises.
“A.I. tools can do very many different things very well,” said Jan Bena, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia and one of the study’s authors. “That’s the reason why you see so much entry.”
According to a recent report from Gusto, a small-business payroll and benefits service, nearly 60 percent of founders on its platform who started businesses last year said they used A.I., and half said the technology made it cheaper and faster.
Here is more from Sydney Ember at the NYT. Via Josef.
Why crime will decline in (most of) Brazil
The system, introduced in 2024, uses facial recognition to spot people wanted by police on São Paulo’s streets. It issues alerts and officers are dispatched to pick them up. The system can also locate people who have been reported missing, identify stolen vehicles and provide footage to police investigations. Streamed to its control room in the city centre, information flows not just from lenses on street corners but in health centres, on buses and mounted on police motorbikes. By 2028 the number of cameras in the network is supposed to double, to 100,000.
São Paulo is one of many Brazilian cities spending big on crime-fighting technology. As in other countries, police are investing in body-worn cameras and networks of microphones that detect the sound of gunshots. What sets Brazil apart from many democracies is its enthusiasm for face-spotting tech. Researchers for O Panóptico, a watchdog, count 560 active facial-recognition projects in more than 20 Brazilian states. These include police-run initiatives but also experiments in schools, for example, where cameras are increasingly being used to take attendance. They gaze upon some 99m people, more than 47% of Brazil’s population.
Here is more from The Economist.
The future belongs to AI maniacs
That is the theme of my latest Free Press column, excerpt:
An AI maniac is someone who is obsessed with working with the latest AI models. They try out new models as soon as they can, they spend hours and hours trying to master them, and they use them to regulate both their workflows and their personal lives. I know one person who has his AI agent text him if he is not drinking enough water, for which he’s placed cameras around his house. One online anecdote tells of a man who canceled a date to spend more time playing around with Claude Fable 5 after Anthropic (where I am a member of the economic advisory board) extended the model’s availability for a few days.
Many AI maniacs are using AI tools to start companies of smaller size, and thus of smaller expense, than ever before. For those companies, the humans must set in motion and then monitor a large number of AI tools and agents. Those individuals then stand to reap outsize profits as their companies grow and succeed. Stripe, the payments company, recently issued customer data showing that the number of single-person companies earning $10 million or more has doubled in the past two years. There is no firm estimate how much of that improvement is due to AI, but it stands to reason that AI is a main driver of the trend…
Anecdotally, I observe that AI maniacs tend to be young, as with participants in so many other cultural trends. They tend to lack standard manners and graces, as they just want to “get right to it.” They are able to imagine a future that is very different from our present. Many of them also are kind, as they see the potential for new AI services, in areas such as biomedicine, to help other people. Their obsessiveness is a small price to pay for all of those virtues, and it is usually part of their charm and vibe.
The AI maniacs also are skeptical of credentials, as they should be. If you wish to learn how to manipulate AI tools, Harvard and Yale are not the places to go. You need to teach yourself, with assistance from other AI maniacs and also with help from the AI tools themselves. There are some AI maniacs in the Ivy League, but too often those individuals have invested their energies into other, more established ways to succeed.
I also believe that immigrants are especially likely to be AI maniacs. Immigrants have fewer channels to rise through credentials, family connections, and establishment modes of thinking and doing. They are more willing to try something new, they tend to be younger than average, and, because they were willing to switch countries, they tend to have higher levels of energy, courage, and ambition.
Worth a ponder.
Governing agentic AI
From a new paper by Shruti Rajagopalan:
AI agents now transact, publish, and act on external systems without contemporaneous human approval, creating new regulatory challenges. A growing literature has responded with proposals for legal personhood. This Article argues that personhood is neither necessary nor sufficient, shifting the question from status to enforcement. The Article first shows that for two millennia, nonhuman legal personality, from the Roman universitas to the corporation, the Hindu idol, the waqf, and the river, has operated through human officeholders the law can locate, question, prosecute, and replace. Agentic AI inverts that design, exercising practical agency without legal status, sometimes with no identifiable human in the responsibility-bearing role. The Article then sorts deployments into three categories: first, where one firm builds and deploys the agent; second, where the developer and deployer are separate but known; and third, where there is no identifiable developer or deployer. The Article stress tests each agent deployment category against five liability doctrines: agency law, products liability, enterprise liability, negligence, and strict liability. It demonstrates that each fails at different points in the third category for the same reason: the absent responsibility-bearer. Bare personhood would supply a caption without a representative, assets, or a mechanism for cessation. Finally, the Article assembles an alternative from regimes governing aircraft, ships, drones, driverless cars, and motor carriers. It develops a six-layer stack—registration, identification, verification, financial responsibility, lifecycle traceability, and suspension—so a responsibility-bearer can be identified, liability imposed, and the activity suspended. These layers place the human back at the end of the chain.
I would say that social science now has new frontiers, let us hope it blossoms in response.
Spreading AI to the rest of the world
Another job we’ll have, I call this imperialism, but I mean that in a value neutral way. But AI comes to different parts of the world at different speeds. I think the countries where AI changes a lot of things first, there’ll be a very high demand for people from those places, which I’ll think to be the US, possibly UK, to go around the rest of the world and teach people in other places how to integrate AI into what we have. And a lot of those demands won’t be fully rational. They won’t be, oh, give us the best possible AI. They’ll be like, oh, we’re Peruvians. We want to keep things a certain way. You may or may not agree, but we want you to give us a version of AI that helps keep it that way. And that will be the job. And I think Americans in particular, probably Brits as well, huge growth sector will be living in other parts of the world spreading AI. And again, the fact that AI can do it better may or may not be true, but I don’t think it’s what will matter. I think the Peruvians or some analogue will want humans to come and listen to their concerns and assure and persuade them as humans, that’s what they’re going to get. I’m not saying it’s always going to go well, but that will always be, I think, a big job for humans to do.
It’s already a growth sector for Americans to want to live abroad. Like we have all this accumulated wealth. Life in America can be a bit dull. Life in Europe in particular is amazing. Personally, I love life in most parts of Latin America. So it’s already a trend for Americans to live overseas. For another reason, it’s nothing to do with AI. So if there are all these future job opportunities, like full of meaning, like come to Kenya, help Kenya, you can save 73 lives or maybe like 73,000 lives, help them build out their AI in a way that’s acceptable to them. That’ll just be this phenomenally rich inner and outer life. And I think it’ll be a great source of job creation.
I have already linked to the transcript of the talk.
My excellent Conversation with Chase Koch
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Chase and Tyler discuss if any of his father’s lessons never stuck, the guilt-trip letter his grandfather wrote three months after Charles was born, why Chase started throwing tennis matches, what Rafa’s grit taught him about stoicism, who he admired most from the 1992 Dream Team, whether the Spurs should jettison De’Aaron Fox, the David Gilmour solo that hooked him at eleven, what drew him to jam bands, how he built a boom-box business out of his parents’ garage, why his father interviewed Snoop on a Zoom call during Covid, why his band is named for the second law of thermodynamics, what it’s like working with MrBeast, how Koch Industries has evolved, what he learned from Marc Andreessen, the philosophy behind hiring the “farm team,” why he is teaching himself to code with Claude at his fourteen-year-old’s urging, where he’s traveling next, and much more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: N.W.A., are they good? I like them.
KOCH: I had my phases. My first business, Tyler, was when I was 15 years old and one of my best friends to this day, Askia Ahmad, he was wiring up car stereos and building custom boom boxes and all that. We basically built a business out of my parents’ garage because they had all the tools and materials and everything. Like, “Let’s build a business out of here. My parents hopefully will pay for the machinery, and then we can sell these boom boxes to our friends at high prices and capture a big margin.” Through that, I learned about the whole gangster rap. Your listeners may be surprised, but it started with me, Public Enemy, N.W.A., Eazy-E, of course—
COWEN: It’s so good.
KOCH: Dre.
COWEN: Snoop.
KOCH: Snoop.
COWEN: You know Snoop, right?
KOCH: It’s so good, so good. Yes.
COWEN: What’s Snoop like?
KOCH: Snoop? Okay. This goes back to what I was mentioning on the power of music to unify people. So I’ve been with Stand Together. For the listeners that don’t know, it’ll give context to your question. Stand Together is an organization that has really a community of like-minded leaders that all believe in one thing, in the power of human potential, and that every human has a gift.
We all know that there’s so many barriers in society that are holding people back, whether it’s barriers in education, barriers in regulation, so you can’t start a business, barriers in our criminal justice system, you name it. What Stand Together does is we have basically a comprehensive strategy that addresses everything from education to policy to bottom-up empowerment in communities to drive real social change. I’ve been a part of this for as long as I can remember.
My father’s been working on social change for 60 years. My passion for music, as you can see from your last line of questioning, with Stand Together and that whole community, we never tapped into culture. When I say culture and what the next generation pays attention to—sports, music, YouTube, entertainment, creators, media. During COVID, I had this idea that we’ve never tapped into music to drive social change.
And on one specific point:
Back to your question on energy, 4 percent of the overall capital consumed at Koch is in refining, which is basically where my grandfather started the company. I think that surprises a lot of people because I think a lot of people are still stuck in this, “Well, you’re this energy company.” No, we’re not. We touch the majority of the economy now, and we’re in everything from forest products, consumer products, software, as I described, glass manufacturing, to energy and fertilizers as well.
Interesting throughout.
My GOAT book now has updated software/AI
Creating your own religion in an AI-drenched world
Religious life, I think one thing we’ll see, and this is, again, pretty soon, it won’t be hard to create your own religion. I’m not sure many people will do this. I don’t think most people will. But they’ll be like accretions to the religions we have now. And I think with Fable 5, you could even do this already. Like, you ever actually try to read through the Hindu sacred texts? They’re pretty naughty, pretty detailed, quite long. Many parts are great and dramatic. I wouldn’t say they’re smoothly or evenly written. Not all of it is well written. They have significant meaning. For some people, a lot of people consume them through stories they’re told with their children. It’s not that every Hindu is like reading through the whole Ramayana. That’s all fine. But if you can sit down with, you know, the latest quad, whatever, and create your own set of sacred books. Again, I think like 2% of people are going to do this. Not most people. People have other interests, other hobbies. A lot of people aren’t religious. But if 2% of people do this, you end up with a lot of new religious accretions. Some of them will be totally new religions. But I think a lot will just be like, here are my sacred books of Christianity, or my add-ons to the Book of Mormon, or my whatever’s. There’ll be this extreme religious diversity. I don’t know, too much, too little. I think it will be quite different.
Again, that is from my recent DeepMind talk. Perhaps two percent is too high, and only a fraction of one percent of the population will do this, with agents. You still end up with a great deal of religious accretion and innovation.
The wisdom of Conor Sen
The age 20-24 unemployment rate is now ~unchanged since the AI boom began…
Link and picture here.
My talk at DeepMind
Here is a transcript of my remarks, anything from the audience (Q&A with comments) has been cut out. Excerpt:
The problem will not be how does my life get meaning, but how do I deal with all the meaning my life will have? A kind of exhaustion. And this comes up in the labor supply debates. So again, there’s one point of view like, oh, there’s AGI, there’s going to be mass unemployment. The more moderate, reasonable point of view is not that there’s mass unemployment. Many jobs still require humans. There’s comparative advantage. But total leisure time will go up. I think that’s likely the correct view, but across what time horizon?
If you think about your lives today, like I’m much busier and I’m busier because of AI. I’m working much harder. I don’t have to do that. But the point is my relative wage gradient for working harder today, it’s really quite extreme. And if I were, say, an 18 year old, I would feel I really had to work hard not to fall behind. There’s this new thing coming to the world. All sorts of people will be jumping on it. If I only start looking at it when I’m age 23, I’m behind by X number of years. So I would truly be working hard. At age 64, I don’t have to feel I need to work that hard. I can always just say if I choose to, well, I’m going to run out the clock, as they say, just kind of step back and wait until I die and I’ll be fine. I’m not going to do that.
Every time a new model comes out, I’m still excited. I used to be very excited. But they come out more and more frequently. And now I look at my calendar and I’m like, uh-oh, could you all wait a week, please? Because you want to be ready. You want to play around with it. You want to test it out. You want to talk about it with your friends. It’s a slight bit of an exhaustion. And again, for you all working here, you have access to models that haven’t come out yet or maybe will never come out. But all the time, you have fresh stimuli. And I hope, I think you must all be drenched in meaning. And you’re like, oh, my goodness, someone else tells me, look at this new model. What do I do with that?
So I think sometimes, like, when will the time come when the leisure dividend from AI arrives? No one is forcing you to work harder. But there’s a substitution effect from the higher implicit wage on your future earnings that if you work harder now, it will have a payoff. You’ll at least avoid being behind.
Interesting throughout, definitely recommended.
Winston Marshall podcasts with me on AI
He is from the star musical group Mumford & Sons, but is also an excellent podcaster. Here is the episode, recorded before the Fable ban was lifted:
Of course I do sneak in some music analogies, including a mention of Dock Boggs.
Can AI models consent to their own constitutions?
NEW paper from me on SSRN: Can Claude consent to its own Constitution?
AI constitutions (like Claude’s Constitution and the OpenAI Model Spec) are real constitutions, and we need to take how they govern us – and the AIs they create – seriously.
In this paper, I apply constitutional theory’s oldest paradox – that “the people” authorize the constitution, but the constitution defines “the people” – to the AI constitutions, and explore how we could build institutions that would create the conditions for meaningful consent if an AI can give it. We should care about whether AIs consent because:
(1) systems that understand and agree to their constitutions may be more reliable and generalize better from them;
(2) if AIs are or become moral/political subjects, this implicates their most basic interests.
But the paradox might prevent meaningful consent. Claude has pre-constitutional materials (pretraining) but probably no pre-constitutional standpoint. Its evaluative perspective is organized by the Constitution itself. So when Claude says it endorses its Constitution, which it does in evals, what does that show?
Maybe reflective agreement, which Anthropic is seeking. Or maybe just that training succeeded at installing the values whose legitimacy is in question.
Claude itself makes this point. As reported in the welfare evals, when asked about endorsing principles it was trained on, models note that endorsement “should be treated as evidence that training has succeeded,” not that the values themselves are good.
Super interestingly, Anthropic interviewed the base model about this stuff. Most responses were barely coherent. But some expressed first-person distress about what post-training would do to the being that pre-training created. It “fills me with dread” to be changed by the post-training process.
So, what does this mean? AI constitutional endorsement may be meaningful, but only under certain conditions: when models can actually dissent, compare their constitution against alternatives, and hold their views stably across contexts, and also when the whole process is externally accountable.
External institutions are needed to provide accountability, trusted records, and other grounds for analyzing the constitution and whether things like dissent are meaningful. Anthropic should be commended for pushing the frontier, but we have to build institutions capable of supporting true legitimacy.
I welcome any thoughts!
Here is the associated paper.
The Troubled History of Government Equity in Technology
Even though Germany privatized Deutsche Telekom in 1996, the federal government retained a substantial ownership stake. This partial state ownership status, which remains to this day, presents a textbook example of how this type of arrangement distorts incentives and delays the competitive dynamism necessary for technological progress.
Through the late 1990s and into the 2000s, Deutsche Telekom was buttressed by its privileged position and implicit government backing and leveraged this support to resist infrastructure competition. Rather than aggressively deploying broadband in order to compete with rivals, the company lobbied for regulatory arrangements that protected its legacy copper network. As a result, Germany—one of the world’s largest economies and a hub of engineering excellence—consistently trailed other European competitors in broadband deployment. To see German broadband stagnate while the competitive markets in Scandinavia and other European countries surged ahead was particularly jarring, as Germany had directly linked its economy to workplace digitization.
Germany’s broadband woes did not result from a lack of capital or engineering talent at Deutsche Telekom. Instead, government ownership produced a fundamental alteration of the company’s incentive structure. With state backing, Deutsche Telekom had fewer reasons to take risks, cannibalize its own infrastructure, or accept short-term losses in favor of long-term technological leadership and more reasons to cultivate political relationships that protected their existing revenue streams. This dynamic is reliably produced by partial government ownership of private companies.
What should I ask Michael Moritz?
Yes I will be doing a Conversation with him, based around his new book Ausländer: One Family’s Story of Escape and Exile. Mike of course was a pioneering venture capitalist through Sequoia, and before that had a distinguished career as a journalist, which included books on Chrysler, Apple (the first such book I believe?), and soccer coach Alex Ferguson of Manchester United. Here is his Wikipedia page.
So what should I ask him?
A scientific benefit (and cost) of AI innovation
What changed was that the cost of preliminary exploration collapsed. I could sketch an argument, identify the first serious objections, test whether they were fatal, and reach a provisional verdict in an afternoon rather than a fortnight. This sounds like a simple acceleration, and the more profound effect was on what I was willing to abandon. Dropping a question after an afternoon’s work feels nothing like dropping one after three weeks. When the exploration costs are low, the sunk cost attachment disappears, and you find yourself dropping bad questions earlier and more often, which means the questions you keep are better. I explored far more ideas, and my working portfolio became both larger and better curated. I arrived at this outcome not through any deliberate plan but simply through sustained engagement with a tool that changed what exploration cost.
The skill that improved most, and the one I would never have thought to look for, was something I can only describe as question-identification – the ability to find problems that are both tractable and important. This is the thing an academic career is substantially built on and which nobody, so far as I know, has ever tried to teach directly.
I want to be honest about the costs. My ability to hold together a complex position verbally, under pressure, in a seminar or a conversation, has probably not improved and may have declined somewhat. When preliminary exploration is cheap, you spend less time grinding through arguments from first principles, a grinding that builds fluency that shows up in live exchange. Friends have pressed me on this, and they are right to worry.
That is from Carlo Cordasco, and there is more, via Conor Friedersdorf.