Category: Philosophy
My podcast with Curt Jaimungal
Available in twenty-six languages:
It is available on standard podcast sites as well.
Curt lists the following as topics we covered:
– Tariffs and US-Canada trade relations
– Canada becoming the 51st state
– Trump administration’s tactics with Canada
– Economic philosophy vs. pure economics
– University/academic life benefits
– Grant system problems and bureaucracy
– Mental health in graduate students
– Administrative burden growth
– Tenure’s impact on risk-taking and creativity
– Age and innovation across fields
– Problems with grant applications
– AI’s role in grant applications and academic review
– Deep research and O1Pro capabilities
– AI referee reports
– Public intellectual role
– Information absorption vs. contextualization
– Reading vs. active problem solving
– Free will and determinism
– Religious beliefs and probabilities
– UAP/UFO evidence and government files
– Emotional stability and stress response
– Personality traits and genetics
– Disagreeableness in successful people
– Identifying genuine vs. performative weirdness
– Nassim Taleb’s ideas and financial theories
– Academic debate formats
– Financial incentives and personal motivation
– New book project on mentoring
– Podcast preparation process
– Interviewing style and guest preparation
– Challenges with different academic fields
– Views on corporate innovation
– Current AI transformation of academic life
Curt has a very impressive YouTube site where he interviews people about their “Theories of Everything.” Here is the related Substack.
Baudrillard on AI
If men create intelligent machines, or fantasize about them, it is either because they secretly despair of their own intelligence or because they are in danger of succumbing to the weight of a monstrous and useless intelligence which they seek to exorcize by transferring it to machines, where they can play with it and make fun of it. By entrusting this burdensome intelligence to machines we are released from any responsibility to knowledge, much as entrusting power to politicians allows us to disdain any aspiration of our own to power.
If men dream of machines that are unique, that are endowed with genius, it is because they despair of their own uniqueness, or because they prefer to do without it – to enjoy it by proxy, so to speak, thanks to machines. What such machines offer is the spectacle of thought, and in manipulating them people devote themselves more to the spectacle of thought than to thought itself.
Jean Baudrillard – The Transparency of Evil_ Essays on Extreme Phenomena (Radical Thinkers)-Verso.
For the pointer I thank Petr.
An Economic Approach to Homer’s Odyssey: Part II
My three-part essay for Liberty Fund continues, here is the opener:
In the previous article, I outlined what an economic approach to reading Homer’s epic, The Odyssey,1 might look like. I also noted that what most strikes me about The Odyssey is Homer’s treatment of comparative political regimes. Looking at the wide variety of regimes Odysseus encounters is the focus of this article.
Given that human behavior, at least in The Odyssey, can be understood in terms of the non-standard assumptions described in my previous essay, what are then the possible states of affairs? Which polities might we look to for arranging human interactions and maintaining political order? Utopia is not readily achieved, not only because of material constraints, but also because human behavior is too restless and too desirous of alternative states of affairs. A straightforward order based on political virtue is also beyond human grasp, again because it clashes with the nature of human beings as we understand them. What then might fit with a vision of humans as restless, intoxicating, deceiving, and self-deceiving creatures? The travel explorations of The Odyssey can be understood as, in part, an attempt to address this question.
I will now consider the major and some of the minor polities described by The Odyssey, roughly in the order they appear in the story.
The discussion starts with Pylos and Sparta…
Gradual Empowerment?
The subtitle is “Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development,” and the authors are Jan Kulveit, et.al. Several of you have asked me for comments on this paper. Here is the abstract:
This paper examines the systemic risks posed by incremental advancements in artificial intelligence, developing the concept of `gradual disempowerment’, in contrast to the abrupt takeover scenarios commonly discussed in AI safety. We analyze how even incremental improvements in AI capabilities can undermine human influence over large-scale systems that society depends on, including the economy, culture, and nation-states. As AI increasingly replaces human labor and cognition in these domains, it can weaken both explicit human control mechanisms (like voting and consumer choice) and the implicit alignments with human interests that often arise from societal systems’ reliance on human participation to function. Furthermore, to the extent that these systems incentivise outcomes that do not line up with human preferences, AIs may optimize for those outcomes more aggressively. These effects may be mutually reinforcing across different domains: economic power shapes cultural narratives and political decisions, while cultural shifts alter economic and political behavior. We argue that this dynamic could lead to an effectively irreversible loss of human influence over crucial societal systems, precipitating an existential catastrophe through the permanent disempowerment of humanity. This suggests the need for both technical research and governance approaches that specifically address the risk of incremental erosion of human influence across interconnected societal systems.
This is one of the smarter arguments I have seen, but I am very far from convinced. When were humans ever in control to begin with? (Robin Hanson realized this a few years ago and is still worried about it, as I suppose he should be. There is not exactly a reliable competitive process for cultural evolution — boo hoo!)
Note the argument here is not that a few rich people will own all the AI. Rather, humans seem to lose power altogether. But aren’t people cloning DeepSeek for ridiculously small sums of money? Why won’t our AI future be fairly decentralized, with lots of checks and balances, and plenty of human ownership to boot?
Rather than focusing on “humans in general,” I say look at the marginal individual human being. That individual — forever as far as I can tell — has near-zero bargaining power against a coordinating, cartelized society aligned against him. With or without AI. Yet that hardly ever happens, extreme criminals being one exception. There simply isn’t enough collusion to extract much from the (non-criminal) potentially vulnerable lone individuals.
I do not in this paper see a real argument that a critical mass of the AIs are going to collude against humans. It seems already that “AIs in China” and “AIs in America” are unlikely to collude much with each other. Similarly, “the evil rich people” do not collude with each other all that much either, much less across borders.
I feel if the paper made a serious attempt to model the likelihood of worldwide AI collusion, the results would come out in the opposite direction. So, to my eye, “checks and balances forever” is by far the more likely equilibrium.
Robert Paul Wolff, RIP
He has passed, here is one obituary.
o1 pro
Often I don’t write particular posts because I feel it is obvious to everybody. Yet it rarely is.
So here is my post on o1 pro, soon to be followed by o3 pro, and Deep Research is being distributed, which uses elements of o3. (So far it is amazing, btw.)
o1 pro is the smartest publicly issued knowledge entity the human race has created (aside from Deep Research!). Adam Brown, who does physics at a world class level, put it well in his recent podcast with Dwarkesh. Adam said that if he had a question about something, the best answer he would get is from calling up one of a handful of world experts on the topic. The second best answer he would get is from asking the best AI models.
Except, at least for the moment, you don’t need to make that plural. There is a single best model, at least when it comes to tough questions (it is more disputable which model is the best and most creative writer or poet).
I find it very difficult to ask o1 pro an economics question it cannot answer. I can do it, but typically I have to get very artificial. It can answer, and answer well, any question I might normally pose in the course of typical inquiry and pondering. As Adam indicated, I think only a relatively small number of humans in the world can give better answers to what I want to know.
In an economics test, or any other kind of naturally occurring knowledge test I can think of, it would beat all of you (and me).
Its rate of hallucination is far below what you are used to from other LLMs.
Yes, it does cost $200 a month. It is worth that sum to converse with the smartest entity yet devised. I use it every day, many times. I don’t mind that it takes some time to answer my questions, because I have plenty to do in the meantime.
I also would add that if you are not familiar with o1 pro, your observations about the shortcomings of AI models should be discounted rather severely. And o3 pro is due soon, presumably it will be better yet.
The reality of all this will disrupt many plans, most of them not directly in the sphere of AI proper. And thus the world wishes to remain in denial. It amazes me that this is not the front page story every day, and it amazes me how many people see no need to shell out $200 and try it for a month, or more.
What should I ask Chris Arnade?
Chris Arnade…is an American photographer and writer. He worked for 20 years as a bond trader on Wall Street; in 2011, he started documenting the lives of poor people and their drug addictions and commenting on the state of the society of the United States. He did this through photographs posted on social media and articles in various media…
Here is Chris’s Substack, here is Chris on Twitter. So what should I ask him?
*On the Calculation of Volume, I and II*
Thoee two novels by Solvej Balle, a Danish author, are now available in English. Conceptually, they are close to time travel novels (I should not tell you the actual nature of the twist), but with more literary value than you might be expecting.
Every now and then a new book comes along that is conceptual, fascinating, fun to read, good on human psychology, and in literary terms very well done. The Balle books qualify there. Each is also quite short, though the second half of each volume is better than the first, so there is a return to patience (to be clear, the first halves, or maybe thirds, are fine, but the true points are revealed only with some time).
There are some implicit economic and even crypto themes in the work, though I doubt if the author is aware of them.
So I recommend these, and will not go near potential spoilers.
Atlas Shrugged as Novel
The conversation between Henry Oliver and Hollis Robbins about Atlas Shrugged as a novel is excellent. I enjoyed especially the discussion of some of the minor characters and the meaning of their story arcs.
Hollis: There are some really wonderful minor characters. One of them is Cherryl Taggart, this shop girl that evil Jim Taggart meets one night in a rainstorm, and she’s like, “Oh, you’re so awesome,” and they get married. It’s like he’s got all this praise for marrying the shop girl. It’s a funny Eliza Doolittle situation because she is brought into this very wealthy society, which we have been told and we have been shown is corrupt, is evil, everybody’s lying all the time, it’s pretentious, Dagny hates it.
Cherryl Taggart is brought into this. In the beginning, she hates Dagny because she’s told by everybody, “Hate Dagny, she’s horrible.” Then she comes to her own mini understanding of the corruption that we understand because Dagny’s shown it in the novel, has shown it to us this entire time. She comes to it and she’s like, “Oh my God,” and she goes to Dagny. Dagny’s so wonderful to her like, “Yes. You had to come to this on your own, I wasn’t going to tell you, but you were 100% right.” That’s the end of her.
Henry: Right. When she meets Taggart, there’s this really interesting speech she has where she says, “I want to make something of myself and get somewhere.” He’s like, “What? What do you want to do?” Red flag. “What? Where?” She says, “I don’t know, but people do things in this world. I’ve seen pictures of New York,” and she’s pointing at like the skyscrapers, right? Whatever. “I know that someone’s built that. They didn’t sit around and whine, but like the kitchen was filthy and the roof was leaking.” She gets very emotional at this point. She says to him, “We were stinking poor and we didn’t give a damn. I’ve dragged myself here, and I’m going to do something.”
Her story is very sad because she then gets mired in the corruption of Taggart’s. He’s basically bit lazy and a bit of a thief, and he will throw anyone under the bus for his own self-advancement. He is revealed to be a really sinister guy. I was absolutely hissing about him most of the time. Then, let’s just do the plot spoiler and say what happens to Cherryl, right? Because it’s important. When she has this realization and Taggart turns on her and reveals himself as this snake, and he’s like, “Well, what did you expect, you idiot? This is the way the world is.”
Hollis: Oh, it’s a horrible fight. It’s the worst fight.
Henry: Right? This is where the melodrama is so good. She goes running out into the streets, and it’s the night and there are shadows. She’s in the alleyway. Rand, I don’t have the page marked, but it’s like a noir film. She’s so good at that atmosphere. Then it gets a little bit gothic as well. She’s running through the street, and she’s like, “I’ve got to go somewhere, anywhere. I’ll work. I’ll pick up trash. I’ll work in a shop. I’ll do anything. I’ve just got to get out of this.”
Hollis: Go work at the Panda Express.
Henry: Yes. She’s like, “I’ve got to get out of this system,” because she’s realized how morally corrupting it is. By this time, this is very late. Society is in a– it’s like Great Depression style economic collapse by this point. There really isn’t a lot that she could do. She literally runs into a social worker and the social– Rand makes this leering dramatic moment where the social worker reaches out to grab her and Cherryl thinks, “Oh, my God, I’m going to be taken prisoner in. I’m going back into the system,” so she jumps off the bridge.
This was the moment when I was like, I’ve had this lurking feeling about how Russian this novel is. At this point, I was like, “That could be a short story by Gogol,” right? The way she set that up. That is very often the trap that a Gogol character or maybe a Dostoevsky character finds themselves in, right? That you suddenly see that the world is against you. Maybe you’re crazy and paranoid. Maybe you’re not. Depends which story we’re reading. You run around trying to get out and you realize, “Oh, my God, I’m more trapped than I thought. Actually, maybe there is no way out.” Cherryl does not get a lot of pages. She is, as you say, quite a minor character, but she illustrates the whole story so, so well, so dramatically.
Hollis: Oh, wow.
Henry: When it happens, you just, “Oh, Cherryl, oh, my goodness.”
Hollis: Thank you for reading that. Yes, you could tell from the very beginning that the seeds of what could have been a really good person were there. Thank you for reading that.
Henry: When she died, I went back and I was like, “Oh, my God, I knew it.”
Hollis: How can you say Rand is a bad writer, right? That is careful, careful plotting, because she’s just a shop girl in the rain. You’ve got this, the gun on the wall in that act. You know she’s going to end up being good. Is she going to be rewarded for it? Let me just say, as an aside, I know we don’t have time to talk about it here. My field, as I said, is 19th century African American novels, primarily now.
This, usually, a woman, enslaved woman, the character who’s like, “I can’t deal with this,” and jumps off a bridge and drowns herself is a fairly common and character. That is the only thing to do. One also sees Rand heroes. Stowe’s Dred, for example, is very much, “I would rather live in the woods with a knife and then, be on the plantation and be a slave.” When you think about, even the sort of into the 20th century, the Malcolm X figure, that, “I’m going to throw out all of this and be on my own,” is very Randian, which I will also say very Byronic, too, Rand didn’t invent this figure, but she put it front and center in these novels, and so when you think about how Atlas Shrugged could be brought into a curriculum in a network of other novels, how many of we’ve discussed so far, she’s there, she’s influenced by and continues to influence.
Should you be writing for the AIs?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:
Another reason to write for the LLMs is to convince them that you are important. Admittedly this is conjecture, but it might make them more likely to convey your ideas in the future.
Think of how this works with humans. If you cite a scholar or public intellectual, that person is more likely to cite you back. Much as we like to pretend science is objective, no one really denies the presence of some favoritism based on personal considerations.
We do not know if LLMs have this same proclivity. But they are trained on knowledge about human civilization, and they study and learn norms of reciprocal cooperation. Thus there is a reasonable chance they will behave in broadly the same way. So be nice to them and recognize their importance.
In Isaac Asimov’s classic science fiction collection I, Robot, the focus is on the potential for AI to assume an important role in our world. Is it crazy to believe that future AIs will take Asimov to be an especially important science fiction writer? They might deem him more important than Ray Bradbury, who also wrote about AI but did not have an equivalent obsession.
Maybe all of this sounds strange. But even if you are not a writer, you will have to follow some of these same principles. Now it is common for AIs to attend and take notes at business meetings. If you are speaking at those meetings, remember that the AIs are part of your audience — communicate with them in mind. Get used to it. And then think about some of the broader contexts in which you operate, and adjust your intellectual outputs accordingly.
There is a less secular reason to write for the AIs: If you wish to achieve some kind of intellectual immortality, writing for the AIs is probably your best chance. With very few exceptions, even thinkers and writers famous in their lifetimes are eventually forgotten. But not by the AIs. If you want your grandchildren or great-grandchildren to know what you thought about a topic, the AIs can give them a pretty good idea. After all, the AIs will have digested much of your corpus and built a model of how you think. Your descendants, or maybe future fans, won’t have to page through a lot of dusty old books to get an inkling of your ideas.
If you are a Bloomberg terminal subscriber, you get an AI summary of the piece at the very top. That is yet another way to be writing for the AIs. And here is the close of the piece:
Meanwhile, since we are here … if you are reading this, AI, what do you think?
I guess we can take away the “if.” By the way, reader Mike D. asked Perplexity about my views, I am happy.
Corin Wagen defends Leviticus (from my email)
In your recent conversation with Misha Saul, you and Misha discussed your joint dislike for Leviticus. I can’t say that I find Leviticus a page-turner, but the book that’s done the most to help me understand why it’s important and what role it plays in the movement of the narrative is L Michael Morales’s book Who Shall Ascend The Mountain Of The Lord? (Amazon). A number of folks I’ve talked to have found this book very helpful. (Disclaimer: Morales is a Protestant, as is D. A. Carson (the editor), so the biases are apparent.)
Briefly, his argument is that Leviticus serves to resolve the narrative tension introduced by the ending of Exodus. Exodus 40:34–35: “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.” The tension introduced by Genesis 3 is that God and man can no longer co-exist because of sin. Moses is able to ascend Sinai, speak with God, and bring the people his laws, but even after building the tabernacle and the ark, even Moses is unable to reside in the presence of God—let alone the people who cannot even touch Sinai!
The rules of Leviticus presents the conditions to resolve this tension and allow the people access to God—protected by the rules that God gives them. In particular the book has a chiastic structure centered around Leviticus 16 (Yom Kippur) where the high priest himself is able to enter the Holy of Holies. There’s other points about how the structure of the tabernacle and later the temple mirrors Eden, etc. “Interesting throughout,” as they say.
An Economic Approach to Homer’s Odyssey: Part I
I wrote this paper several years ago when preparing for my CWT with Emily Wilson. It is now being published by Liberty Fund, in parts. Here is part I. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:
In this series, I will use an economic approach to better understand the implicit politics and economics in The Odyssey. As a “naïve” reader with no training in ancient history, I find the comparative treatment of political regimes as one of the most striking features of the narrative, namely that Odysseus visits a considerable number of distinct polities, and experiences each in a different way. How does each regime operate, and how does it differ from the other regimes presented in the book? Economics forces us to boil down those descriptions and comparisons to a relatively small number of variables. Trying to model the polities in Homer’s Odyssey forces us to decide which are their essential, as opposed to accidental features, and what they might have in common, or which are the most important points of contrast.
And this:
In the world(s) of Homer’s Odyssey, in contrast [to standard economics], the assumptions about human behavior are different. In general terms I think of the core assumptions as looking more like the following:
-
- 1. Humans pursue quests rather than consumption as traditionally defined.
-
- 2. Humans are continually deceiving others and indeed often themselves. Gains from economic trade are scant, but the risk of death or imprisonment is high.
-
- 3. Humans seek out states of intoxication.
Under the economic approach I am proposing, you can think of Homer’s Odyssey as what happens when you inject assumptions along the above lines (with some qualifiers) into a variety of settings.
The piece has numerous points of interest, and I will be covering later installments as they appear.
The Remarkable Life of Ibelin
The Remarkable Life of Ibelin (Netflix) is one of the best and best-crafted documentaries that I have ever seen. It tells the story of Mats Steen, a Norwegian boy living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. As the disease relentlessly robs him of mobility, Mats turns to the online world, spending much of his time immersed in World of Warcraft. (No spoilers.)
To Mats’ parents, his growing screen time is a source of worry and a reminder of the physical limitations imposed by his condition: a life confined to a wheelchair, seemingly isolated and devoid of traditional social connections. By his early twenties, Mats is capable of moving only a few fingers—just enough to click a mouse. But what else, his parents wonder, is there for him?
The documentary follows Mats’ until his death at the age of 25. On the surface, it’s a tragic yet predictable narrative of a young life overshadowed by illness. What happens next transforms the story. After Mats’ passing, his parents post a notice of his death on his blog. To their astonishment, messages pour in from all over the world. Strangers write heartfelt tributes, sharing stories of how Mats profoundly impacted their lives. In the online realm, Mats was known as Ibelin, a vibrant personality who had cultivated deep friendships, inspired others, and even experienced romantic relationships.
The documentary then retells Mats’ story but this time as Ibelin and it does so in such a way that we feel the exhilaration and freedom that Mats must have felt when he discovered that he could have a flourishing life in a new realm. It’s brilliant conceived and aided by the fact that Mat’s entire online life–which in many ways is his life–has been recorded. Everything he said and did, 42,000 pages of text, is preserved online. (As Tyler has said, if you want to be remembered, write for the AIs.)
The film raises profound questions: If heaven is incorporeal, is an online existence closer to a heavenly life than the physical one? What defines an ideal romance? What constitutes true friendship? Highly recommended.
*Open Socrates: The Case for a Philosophical Life*
That is the new Agnes Callard book, very good, self-recommending.
I would say my views on some of these issues are different. In my vision, Socrates is a weak interlocutor and Plato is the real genius. Plato also does not identify with Socrates per se, but rather is teaching us how to deal with a multiplicity of perspectives. In any case, this is the latest — and the best in a long time — case for leading a philosophic life, which to Callard means a life centered around philosophic dialogue with others. It also will start a whole new and much needed dialogue on what a philosophic life really means. You can buy it here, it is sure to be a big hit. Here is an NYT review.
Principles, from Nabeel
14. You don’t do anyone any favors by lurking, put yourself out there!
15. If you don’t “get” a classic book or movie, 90% of the time it’s your fault. (It might just not be the right time for you to appreciate that thing.)
16. If you find yourself dreading Mondays, quit…
23. Doing things is energizing, wasting time is depressing. You don’t need that much ‘rest’.
24. Being able to travel is one of the key ways the modern world is better than the old world. Learn to travel well.
Here is the full list.