Democracy continues
Here is a link.
Thursday assorted links
With Craig Newmark, at the 92nd St. Y
April 14, register here.
And what would you suggest I ask him for this Conversations with Tyler?
My Conversation with the excellent Henry Oliver
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. In the first half of the episode we discuss Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, and then move on to other topics. Here is the episode summary:
Henry Oliver is the preeminent literary critic for non-literary nerds. His Substack, The Common Reader, has thousands of subscribers drawn in by Henry’s conviction that great literature is where ideas “walk and talk amongst the mess of the real world” in a way no other discipline can match. Tyler, who has called Henry’s book Second Act “one of the very best books written on talent,” sat down with him to compare readings of Measure for Measure and range across English literature more broadly.
Tyler and Henry trade rival readings of the play, debate whether Isabella secretly seduces Angelo, argue over whether the Duke’s proposal is closer to liberation or enslavement, trace the play’s connections to The Merchant of Venice and The Rape of Lucrece, assess the parallels to James I, weigh whether it’s a Girardian play (Oliver: emphatically not), and parse exactly what Isabella means when she says “I did yield to him,” before turning to the best way to consume Shakespeare, what Jane Austen took from Adam Smith, why Swift may be the most practically intelligent writer in English, how advertising really works and why most of it doesn’t, which works in English literature are under- and overrated, what makes someone a late bloomer, whether fiction will deal seriously with religion again, whether Ayn Rand’s villains are more relevant now than ever, and much more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Now, before doing your current work, you were in advertising for almost a decade. How do you feel that work in advertising has shaped how you read literature?
OLIVER: [laughs] I try to keep them very separate. I try not to let advertising—
COWEN: You try, but I’m sure you fail.
OLIVER: —pollute my readings of literature.
COWEN: Why is it a pollution?
OLIVER: Because advertising is not a great art, and to apply the principles of advertising to literature would be a diminishment.
COWEN: You don’t have to apply the principles. Advertising gives you insight into what people value, how people respond, and that’s also a part of literature.
OLIVER: It is if you take advertising not to mean headlines and banner ads and things like that, but to mean the calling of attention to some particular thing of importance. You can see that a lot of the great writers were very good advertisers of their own work, of their own ideas.
COWEN: Swift in particular.
OLIVER: Swift is very, very good at advertising. If you wanted to be obtuse, you could reframe his whole career as an exercise in lobbying and PR, and realize that no one’s ever been as good at it as he was.
COWEN: So, your favorite authors are the ones who are best at advertising is what you’re now telling us.
OLIVER: I have a very catholic view of literature, and I admire those writers who are practical and can do a lot of different things. I love Samuel Johnson, and one reason is that he can write a sermon, a legal opinion, an advert—almost anything you want. I think the literary talent can often be turned to those multiple uses.
COWEN: Why isn’t there more creativity in advertising? So much of it, to me, seems stupid and boring.
OLIVER: Yes.
COWEN: You would think, well, if they had a clever ad that people would talk about, it would be better, but that doesn’t happen. Is it a market failure, or it’s actually more or less optimal?
OLIVER: I don’t think it’s optimal. We don’t know how well advertising works, and we’re still impeded in that because of the laws about who you can and cannot target on the internet. I think most people would actually be surprised, if they went into an advertising agency, to learn just how poorly we can target people. Everyone thinks they’re being targeted all the time, but being followed by a toaster advert is really quite basic, and everyone uses the same toaster example because everyone’s being followed by the same bloody toaster. That’s not targeting.
I think they’ve been taken over by bad ideas. There are two competing schools of advertising. One of them is the hard sell, where you put a lot of information and facts, and you name the product a lot. “Buy this aspirin. It cures headaches three times quicker than other brands. We did a study—38 percent of people . . .” And you just hammer it all the time.
The other advertising school is image-based. Arthur Rubicam wrote those wonderful Steinway adverts. The instrument of the immortals. Have you brought great music into your home? The woman in the dress at the piano. You’re buying a whole mood or a vibe. The peak of that is like the tiger on the Frosty cereal packet. You don’t need words. Or the Marlboro Man—you buy these cigarettes. You’re going to look like that cowboy in that shirt, and you’re going to smoke. You’re going to feel like a man, and it’s just going to be great. Coors Light does that now.
Then there was this terrible, terrible thing called the Creative Revolution in the 1960s, where supposedly—this is like the modernism of advertising.
Definitely recommended, and do get out your copy of the Shakespeare.
Addendum: Here are comments from Henry.
Wednesday assorted links
1. Singaporeans to receive free premium AI subscriptions from second half of 2026.
2. “In a secular world, equality is a last attempt to offer some dignity to the weak.”
4. Mr. Beast, banker (NYT).
5. Chimpanzees are fascinated by crystals (NYT).
7. Dario okie-dokie.
8. Polymarket removes market on nuclear detonation (WSJ).
By the way, I like 5.3 Instant very much.
*The Infinity Machine*
The author is Sebastian Mallaby and the subtitle is Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence. A very good and enjoyable book.
Are universities running down their endowments?
US university endowments have recorded their fastest spending growth since the global financial crisis as federal funding cuts and rising operating costs squeeze campus budgets.
A study of 657 institutions by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (Nacubo) with Commonfund showed their endowment withdrawals rose 11 per cent year on year in the 12 months to June 2025 — the sharpest increase since 2010.
The surge came as endowments funded an average of 15.2 per cent of universities’ operating expenses last year, up from 10.9 per cent in 2023.
Here is more from Sun Yu at the FT.
The value of good high schools
Improving education and labor market outcomes for low-income students is critical for advancing socioeconomic mobility in the United States. We use longitudinal data on five cohorts of 9th grade students to explore how Massachusetts public high schools affect the longer-term outcomes of students, with a special focus on students from low-income families. Using detailed administrative and student survey data, we estimate school value-added impacts on college outcomes and earnings. Observationally similar students who attend a school at the 80th percentile of the value-added distribution instead of a school at the 20th percentile are 11% more likely to enroll in college, are 31% more likely to graduate from a four-year college, and earn 25% (or $10,500) more annually at age 30. On average, schools that improve students’ longer-run outcomes the most are those that improve their 10th grade test scores and increase their college plans the most.
That is from a new NBER working paper by
A simple model of AI governance
I trust private companies with strong AI more than I trust the government, regardless of which administration is in power. Yet if the federal government feels it has no say or no control, it will lunge and take over the whole thing. We thus want sustainble methods of perpetual interference that a) are actually somewhat useful from a safety perspective, and b) give governments some control, and the feeling of control, but not too much control.
You should judge AI-related events within this framework.
Tuesday assorted links
1. Legal basis for the Pentagon’s designation?
3. “But what is true is that this should not be much of a surprise considering the constant rhetoric over the past few years has been that AI is a power like no other. It’s like nukes, but times a thousand. We need regulation. And when an industry repeatedly calls out for oversight, asking for someone to make the rules on how it should be used, you cannot be surprised when the Defense department take that seriously. You cannot be surprised when they make up their own interpretations of what ought to be done, because you were insufficiently prescriptive. They will listen to your articulation of any red lines and wonder, what do you mean you want to tell me how to use the mega-nuke-crazy-power that you yourself are saying you don’t know how to control?” Rohit.
4. There are too many types of shower controls.
5. The Anthropic valuation seems pretty stable. Plus other matters of interest from SSC, including an idea for how to improve prediction markets by inducing the sports betting to subsidize participation in other contracts.
6. You can now bet on German train delays.
7. Rohit: “OpenAI now is also the only case I know of a defense department vendor contract being negotiated in public iteratively. With plenty of object lessons on why nobody does it.” People, there is nothing weird going on here. It is fine to dislike various aspects of the U.S. military, after all part of their business is to kill people. But any blame you wish to levy goes toward “the system,” do not overly spin the narrative here.
*Sirāt*
I thought this was one of the five or six best movies of the millennium so far, comparable in quality to say Uncle Boonmee or Winter Sleep. The soundtrack is one of the very best, ever. The production is joint Spanish and French. The story starts with a Spanish father looking for his lost (grown) daughter at a rave in Morocco. He then meets up with some other parties and a story ensues. I do not consider it a spoiler to report that I consider this a movie about the end of the world, so to speak. Here is the trailer for the film.
It has been playing in NYC and LA for a while, and this Friday it opens for a week in many more cities. The big screen is essential, so see it while you can.
Deflating macroeconomics?
We use long-run annual cross-country data for 10 macroeconomic variables to evaluate the long-horizon forecast distributions of six forecasting models. The variables we use range from ones having little serial correlation to ones having persistence consistent with unit roots. Our forecasting models include simple time series models and frequency domain models developed in Müller and Watson (2016). For plausibly stationary variables, an AR(1) model and a frequency domain model that does not require the user to take a stand on the order of integration appear reasonably well calibrated for forecast horizons of 10 and 25 years. For plausibly non-stationary variables, a random walk model appears reasonably well calibrated for forecast horizons of 10 and 25 years.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Kurt G. Lunsford and Kenneth D. West. If you do not know macro, here is a GPT translation in plainspeak. And this new paper suggests macro shocks do not matter that much.
Monday assorted links
2. Just say no to the monopsony model.
3. Your dose of John Cochrane.
4. More on the recent climate change estimate. It seems the paper should not have been published?
What the recent dust-up means for AI regulation
From my new Free Press column, I see these as the most important facts:
Congress has not passed explicit regulation of AI foundation models, and an executive order from President Trump limited regulation at the state level. But do not think that laissez-faire reigns. In addition to existing (largely pre-AI) laws, which lay out general principles of liability, and laws from a few states, the United States is engaged in a kind of “off the books” soft regulation.
The major AI companies keep the national security establishment apprised of the progress they are making, as has been the case with Anthropic. There is a general sense within the AI industry that if the national security authorities saw anything in the new products that was very concerning or that might undermine the national interest, they would inform the president and Congress. That would likely lead to more formal and more restrictive kinds of regulation, so the major AI companies want to show relatively safe demos and products. An informal back and forth enforces implied safety standards, without the involvement of formal legislation.
That may sound like an unusual way to do regulation, but to date the system has worked relatively well. For one thing, I believe our national security establishment has a better and more sophisticated understanding of the issues than does Congress. Congress right now simply isn’t up to the job, as indeed the institution has been failing more generally. Most representatives seem to know little about the core issues behind AI regulation.
As it stands, AI progress has been allowed to proceed, and the United States has stayed ahead of China, without major catastrophes. The burden on the companies has been manageable, and the system, at least until last week, was flexible.
Another advantage of this system is that both Congress and the administrative state can be very slow to act. The AI landscape can change in just weeks, yet our federal government is used to taking years to issue laws and directives. Had we passed AI legislation in, say, 2024, today it would be badly out of date, no matter what your point of view on what such regulation should accomplish. For instance, in 2024 few outsiders were much concerned with the properties of, or risks from, autonomous AI “agents.” Today that is the number-one topic of concern.
Though it is not driven by legislation, the status quo AI regulatory system is not anti-democratic, as it operates well within the rules passed by Congress and the administrative state. It is more correct to say the current AI guardrails rely on the threat of regulation, rather than regulation itself, with the national security state as the watchdog. The system sticks to a kind of creative ambiguity. The national security state offers no official imprimatur for the new advances, but they proceed nonetheless. Nevertheless, the various components of the national security state reserve the right to object in the future.
It is also correct, however, to believe that such a system cannot last forever. At some point creative ambiguity collapses. Someone or some institution demands a more formal answer as to what is allowed or what is not allowed. At that point a more directly legalistic system of adjudication enters the picture, and Congress likely starts paying more attention.
With the recent dispute between Hegseth and Anthropic, we have taken a step away from the previous regulatory mode of quiet cooperation. Instead, the relationship between the military and the AI companies has become a matter of public concern. Now everyone has an opinion on Hegseth, Anthropic, and OpenAI, and social media is full of debate.
No matter “whose side you take,” it would have been better to have resolved all this behind closed doors.
Brazil is underrated
Numerous nations in the Middle East are being pulled into the current conflict and have received missile attacks from Iran. I believe the proper Bayesian update is that Brazil is underrated.
The country has plenty of water, and lots of capacity to grow its own food. It is an agricultural powerhouse. It is developing more and more fossil fuels. No neighbor or near neighbor dares threaten it. You cannot imagine conquering it, because even the government of Brazil has not conquered its own country.
It is big enough that even the United States can push it around to only a limited degree.
Crime rates are high, but on the up side that gives the place a certain resiliency. People are used to bad events, and society is structured accordingly. You cannot write of “Brazil falling into dystopia” without generating a laugh.
If immigration bothers you (not my view), Brazil and Brazilian culture is not going to be swamped by people coming from somewhere else. For better or worse.
Brazil has “stayed Brazil” through both democracy and autocracy.
Worth a ponder. Here is an FT piece on “Brazil’s Dubai.”