Category: Uncategorized
*What Makes a Great Composer?: A Data-Driven Exploration of Music History*
A very good book, forthcoming, by Karol J. Borowiecki and Marc Lawx, here is the Amazon link, here is the Princeton University Press page.
Sunday assorted links
1. The family keeping watch over a 52-year-old pot of soup (WSJ). I guessed the country wrong.
2. The rise of grocery tourism.
3. PEPFAR interview. Much of this is substantive, and interesting. But some of Mike’s claims are absurd, for instance: “Elon Musk, on his own, if he paid his taxes, could end world hunger.” Can he really believe that?
4. David Brooks on who benefits from AI (Atlantic).
5. Michael Polanyi’s book The Contempt of Freedom is now reissued. Amazon link here.
6. Falling fertility on the political left is the key driver of U.S. birth rate decline. Do note that political views are somewhat heritable. That said, other demographics are moving America to the left economically.
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?
Tyler, Nabeel, and Jackson on French thinkers
Nabeel: (57:47) …For example, there’s a French thinker called Jacques Derrida. I probably should go and read him at some point, but I’m not entirely convinced there is a there there, and I don’t know anyone who swears by it. If Tyler told me, “Nabeel, you are missing a big piece of your life by not reading him,” I would go read him tomorrow. But I don’t have any of those people.
Tyler: (58:44) Lacan is my marginal case of “no there there.” So Derrida, I put in a fair amount of effort and did conclude, rightly or wrongly, that there’s no there there. So you can, in my opinion, write him off. Lacan, I keep on wondering. Smart people still will say, “This is amazing.” I’ve tried a bunch of times, but I haven’t given up. There’s a new Lacan book coming out later this summer and I’ll try it again. We’ll see. That’s my marginal “is there a there there” figure.
Nabeel: (59:13) Yeah. I think modern French thinkers put too much of a premium on sounding cool, or postmodern philosophy generally. I think it repays some effort to kind of grasp the core ideas, but it doesn’t repay making it your life’s reading or something.
Tyler: (59:26) Baudrillard is quite good and Foucault is extremely interesting. So I’m not against “the French” in this period, but if they keep on not making sense, I feel I’m educated well enough.
Jackson: (59:37) You have a lot of context.
Tyler: (59:38) That at some point I can strike the ledger.
Nabeel: (59:41) I do—Nowadays, I just put Foucault through GPT and I just have GPT explain it to me, and that’s going to be good enough for now.
Tyler: (59:50) The problem with Foucault, I think, is so much of the history is wrong in a quite mundane way, so there’s something very problematic about it. But the stuff—I think it’s in a way quite simple, almost too simple. And the fact that the current right has so latched on to Foucault is a sign that it’s simple. I don’t mean necessarily bad, but there are these structures and they’re trying to tell you what to do. And there’s something anonymous about that as well. It’s not just the individuals who form the conspiracy. It’s how a lot of the world thinks today.
Here is the longer discussion, already linked to.
Saturday assorted links
1. The pending evolution of Chile’s school age population.
2. Markets in everything those new service sector jobs.
3. Survey on the economics of caste.
4. J.D. Vance on Milton Friedman. And Mamdani on Hayek.
5. “Firms that adopt AI heavily grow headcount 10% over two years following adoption.”
6. Browse all Criterion films.
7. Does a damage accumulation model explain different aging rates across the species?
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.
The most profitable crypto investors and firms
Here is the source. Here is from the editors at The Free Press. Here is more from Mene Ukueberuwa.
Do falling birth rates boost per capita income?
The secular decline in birth rates across the globe over the past seven decades has slowed population growth, raised average ages, and reshaped labor markets and the macroeconomy. Contrary to the widespread expectation that these trends hamper economic growth, we find lower birth rates are associated with higher growth in GDP per working-age adult across countries and higher wage growth across US commuting zones, with no negative impact on aggregate GDP or earnings. These patterns are not explained by educational upgrading, rising female labor force participation, the declining importance of agriculture, or neoclassical-Solow mechanisms. We argue that they reflect the endogenous, labor-saving response of technology to the scarcity of younger workers. Consistent with this interpretation, countries and regions with lower birth rates exhibit more labor-saving patents and growing high-tech activity. There is also higher TFP growth across countries and industries. Exploiting cross-country variation in WWII military and civilian deaths, we find that declines in younger population, rather than population size per se, drive our results.
Here is the full paper by Acemoglu, Autor, Beirne, and Scott. Via Philip Heimburger.
Friday assorted links
1. Rohit is solving for the AI equilibrium.
2. Robin Hanson explains his political evolution.
3. Restoring the Book of Kells.
4. More Scott Sumner movie reviews.
5. Peter Howitt YouTube talk on golf? (I have not heard)
6. “Academics need to change, not the AI.”
7. I answer questions about AI for Berkman Klein Center.
8. On late Dylan.
How will AI and the fertility crisis interact?
That is from my latest Free Press column, here is one excerpt:
Each individual will be seen as something special by the other humans. Public spaces will be emptier, so anyone out in public will attract more notice. If you are waiting in line at the movie theater, you will be more likely to start talking to the person next to you. After all, you already have had the option of talking to the AIs all day long.
It has long been the norm in American small towns that you say hi to the people you pass on the sidewalk, or perhaps start chatting with customers in your store who appear to be outsiders. Those kinds of practices will spread to the large cities of today, which will become like smaller towns due to lower population density.
Many of these humans will invest heavily in their appearances, in their charisma, and in their “vibes.” After all, the AIs will, and already do, perform so many useful informational functions. If you, as a human, wish to draw attention to yourself and be seen as noteworthy, you will have to specialize in the remaining human functions. That may include “touching grass,” giving warm and appropriate hugs, looking good or at least looking interesting, and having some kind of unique identity that either is visible upon meeting or which AI smart glasses will communicate during social interactions. (“This guy has sailed around the world three times and punched a shark on the nose.”)
The YouTube celebrity Clavicular has attracted a lot of ridicule for his “looksmaxxing,” which involves a lot of manipulation of his appearance and some plastic surgery. Like it or not, that is a harbinger of how some aspects of this future will operate. Clavicular has achieved nothing of note, except for being immediately recognizable for how he looks. For similar reasons, people are likely to pay more attention to how they dress, what kind of makeup they wear, and other aspects of their appearance, such as how tall they are and how much they weigh. Plastic surgery and the successor drugs to GLP-1s are likely to command even more interest than today.
If a person comes across as extremely nondescript, you might feel there is no reason to speak with that person instead of chatting with your AI. A lot of ordinary social interactions will become more like a gala, where everyone shows up wanting to look a very particular way to draw attention.
To inhabitants of 2026, that might sound stupid, undesirable, and ridiculous. I do not love the thought myself. Yet people today care much more about how they look, and can do much more about it, than could people in medieval times. We are used to those differences, and few of us wish to go back to earlier times. People in this future may well feel the same way.
There are other interesting points at the link.
Noah Smith on negative emotional contagion
Every movement in 2020s America is defined not by what they want, but by who they hate.
Rightists: Immigrants
Leftists: Israel
Intellectual liberals: Rich techbros
Here is the link, in the last six months or so I have noticed all these trends getting worse. Praise goes to all those who avoid negative emotional contagion, you will prove the saviors of our civilization.
Thursday assorted links
1. There is massive synaptic pruning between birth and adulthood.
2. Some major city populations from 1854.
3. From Samuel Hammond: “The AI boom is doubly upsetting to progressive economic commentators because it a) shows “financialization” was largely a macro story that eventually solved itself, and b) the boom is being driven by AI rather than their hoped-for “green transition”.” Plus it shows the internet and social media really were worth it, and that many tech companies are run by geniuses not superficial idiots.
4. The safety of mRNA vaccines.
5. Do the optimistic live longer?
6. How many people have ever lived in the United States? And what percentage of them are living here now?
7. What is going on with SpudCell? (NYT).
Is Alexander Calder the great American artist?
I am not ready to make this claim, but I wondered this after seeing the marvelous exhibit at Fondation Vuitton. To Calder’s credit:
1. His work is both beautiful and deep. It also can be fun. Unlike many other high-status artists, most Americans like or could like his work.
2. It is immediately recognizable and the body of work has a coherence as a whole.
3. He invented a new form — the mobile — and showed it could be art.
4. His works have iconic placement in many major American cities, namely Chicago, Grand Rapids, New York, Los Angeles, Cambridge, Philadelphia, Houston, Minneapolis, Seattle, and a bunch more. Who else can match that list?
5. He worked in multiple genres with great success, including not just sculpture (of various kinds, including wire sculpture and bronze sculpture) but also painting, works on paper, and jewelry (!). He worked with metal and wood and wire and string in his sculptures. The exhibit is wonderful in showing all this.
6. He built things, a very American endeavor, and he trained as a mechanical engineer. Mobility is also a very American idea.
7. He lived during the major period of American growth and hegemony, namely 1898-1976, very American years to have been on the scene.
I would note that most people think first of his large installations, which to me are his least interesting works. The small sculptures I admire the most? In this regard he remains underrated.
Who else are possible candidates for this designation? A while back Jasper Johns might have been an obvious leader for the title, and he remains in contention. But perhaps it is all a tad too formal and serious?
Rothko and Pollock are too one-dimensional, no matter how much you may admire the dimension. The Hudson River School does not boil down easily enough to a single artist, plus it is mainly just painting. Winslow Homer is a possibility. Warhol is another candidate, as his work is both seminal and “very American,” but currently it feels overexposed? (I am not anti-Warhol but perhaps his influence peaked some while ago.) Roy Lichtenstein did very well in sculpture as well as painting and prints, and he is in the running as well.
But I no longer think Calder is such a crazy choice for this designation. Do go see the show! The people we saw the show with were amazed at how much they had underrated his depth, breadth, and quality.
How to ask for help from a stranger
The next heuristic is to make your request easy to accept. Making something easy to accept largely is about reducing the cost of acceptance. One clear kind of cost is the magnitude. Do ask someone for twenty minutes of their time, but don’t ask them to read your five-hundred-page manuscript in a week. Another is to make it specific: asking for a resource to start with is better than “can I pick your brain?”. When you’ve made your request, make it low friction for them. If you’re asking for an introduction, write a blurb about yourself which they can forward. If you have a question, ask it in writing rather than over a call. And last on cost, make your ask bounded. Don’t ask for recurring obligations like being your mentor for your whole life, but do keep it limited to asking them to read a blog post. If that instance goes well, they’ll gladly read more.
My last heuristic is stranger: make it easy to say no. You might think that the worst outcome is a no, but the worst outcome is a pressured, begrudging yes. Your coercion will have poisoned your relationship with this person while you feel the false glow of a hard-won victory. A person who helps you with gritted teeth is one who will never help you again. And even then, the help will be a half-hearted effort to get rid of the obligation you manufactured. By contrast, help freely given is effortless, the way you’d hold the door open for someone. Help willingly given keeps your conscience clear, free from the burden of having pressured someone. And help, when given from the heart, is the foundation of a relationship where both of you contribute to what you’re building.
Here is more from Pradyumna Prasad.
Wednesday assorted links
1. Florida drivers speed up after a close NFL home team loss. No such comparable effect for the NBA.
3. Ezra Klein and Chris Rufo (NYT).
4. Generating human eggs from stem cells?
5. AI to predict human chess moves?
7. Anthropic on the reconstruction of Fable 5. And Alex Stamos comments.