Category: Uncategorized
Rebuilding our world, with reference to strong AI
When 2012 passed into 2013, we did not have to rebuild our world, not in most countries at least. It sufficed to make adjustments at the margin.
After the Roman Empire fell, parts of Europe had to rebuild their worlds. It took a long time, but they ended up doing pretty well.
After the American Revolution, the newly independent colonies had to rebuild their own world. They did so brutally, but with considerable success.
After WWII, Western Europe had the chance to rebuild its own world, and did a great job.
We moderns are not used to having to rebuild our world.
It is now the case that strong AI is here/coming, and we will have to rebuild our own world. Many of us are terrified at this prospect, others are just extremely pessimistic. It seems so impossible. How are all the new pieces supposed to fit together? Who amongst us can explain that process in a reassuring way?
Yet we have done it many times before. Not always with success, however. After WWI ended, Europe was supposed to rebuild its own world, but they came up with something far worse than what they had before. Nonetheless, in the broader sweep of history world rebuilding projects have had positive expected value.
And so we will rebuilding our world yet again. Or maybe you think we are simply incapable of that.
As this happens, it can be useful to distinguish “criticisms of AI” from “people who cannot imagine that world rebuilding will go well.” A lot of what parades as the former is actually the latter.
In any case, it all will be quite something to witness.
“You see tech and AI everywhere but in the productivity statistics”
How many times have I heard versions of that claim? Erik Brynjolfsson picks up the telephone in the FT:
While initial reports suggested a year of steady labour expansion in the US, the new figures reveal that total payroll growth was revised downward by approximately 403,000 jobs. Crucially, this downward revision occurred while real GDP remained robust, including a 3.7 per cent growth rate in the fourth quarter. This decoupling — maintaining high output with significantly lower labour input — is the hallmark of productivity growth.
My own updated analysis suggests a US productivity increase of roughly 2.7 per cent for 2025. This is a near doubling from the sluggish 1.4 per cent annual average that characterised the past decade.
It is fine to suggest caution in interpreting such statistics, but they hardly push the other way.
Monday assorted links
1. Andrew Hall on improving the operation of prediction markets.
2. A new aesthetic for San Francisco.
3. Intelligent AI delegation. And Seb Krier. And Abigail Shrier. All of this can change your life.
4. Krugman on tariff incidence.
5. The century of the maxxer (“How many apricots can fit in your mouth?”). Excellent piece.
6. Andy Goldsworthy (New Yorker). Ditto.
7. Claims.
Malthus had real influence
From a recent paper by Eric Robertson:
Public officials often fail to implement government policy as directed, yet the role of economic ideas in shaping these implementation choices is poorly understood. This paper provides causal evidence that exposure to economic ideas can durably influence bureaucrat behavior. I study British colonial bureaucrats in India, exploiting a natural experiment created by the abrupt death of Thomas Malthus in 1834, replacing his economics instruction at a bureaucrat training college for that of a contemporary critic, Richard Jones. Whereas Malthus regarded economic distress as a natural mechanism for restoring equilibrium by reducing population growth, Jones disagreed with this view. Linking rainfall shocks to district-level fiscal responses, I show that officials trained by Malthus delivered less relief during droughts, providing 0.10-0.25 SD less aid across all major measures compared with officials taught by Jones. The results reveal that exposure to abstract economic ideas can shape real-world policy implementation for decades.
This may be a case where using rainfall shocks in a paper actually makes sense. Via Krzysztof Tyszka-Drozdowski.
At the Grand Egyptian Museum
Neal Spencer has a good review at the LRB, excerpt:
Over the past few decades, however, Egyptian museums have pivoted away from Europe and America. The National Museum of Egyptian Civilisation, which opened in 2021, rejected the traditional division of artefacts into pharaonic, Coptic, Greco-Roman and Islamic eras (a framework associated with European academic disciplines). The Grand Egyptian Museum, announced at the height of Hosni Mubarak’s rule and styled ‘the largest museum in the world dedicated to the people, history and culture of Ancient Egypt’, opened in November last year with a lavish ceremony broadcast round the world. It is estimated to have cost more than $1 billion ($300 million of which was a loan from Japan) and sprawls over an area the size of seventy football pitches. The financial crash of 2008, the Arab Spring and Covid meant that its construction took almost twenty years. Much has changed in that time. The last decade of construction took place under the military regime of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who installed one of his generals as its head – the first non-Egyptologist to direct a major Egyptian museum.
I saw the museum shortly after the opening and found it pretty spectacular, both the building/setting and the collection. It is worth making a trip to Cairo just to see this, and it now can be considered one of the world’s great museums and history sites (yes I had seen the earlier incarnation of the museum, years ago). The very wise Rasheed Griffith also gave the museum an A+.
Sunday assorted links
Saturday assorted links
1. The myth of Nordic mobility.
2. How should Pakistan price its solar power?
3. Recoding America Fund jobs.
4. Data on lesbians in comedy.
5. Right to repair and defense contracting.
7. Pelicot interview (NYT). Unfathomable.
The cocaine problem seems to be getting worse again
Colombian coca cultivation fell dramatically between 2000 and 2015, a period that saw intense U.S.-backed eradication and interdiction efforts. That progress reversed in 2015, when peace talks and legal rulings in Colombia opened enforcement gaps. Coca plantation has since increased to record levels, which coincided with a sharp rise in cocaine-related overdose deaths in the U.S. We estimate how much of that rise can be causally attributed to Colombia’s new coca boom. Leveraging the unforeseen coca supply shock and cross-county differences in pre-shock cocaine exposure, we find that the surge in supply caused an immediate rise in overdose mortality in the U.S. Our analysis estimates on the order of 1,000–1,500 additional U.S. deaths per year in the late 2010s can be attributed to Colombia’s cocaine boom. Implicit annual loss in American statistical life values about $48,000 per hectare of cultivation in Colombia. If left untamed, the current level of coca cultivation (over 230,000 ha in 2022) may impose on the order of $10 billion per year in costs via overdose fatalities.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Xinming Du, Benjamin Hansen, Shan Zhang, and Eric Zou.
Changes in the Gender Wage Gap for Business Professionals
In the United States, much of the gap in earnings between men and women is due to the persistent gap for high wage earners. This paper explores changes in the gender wage gap for MBAs graduating from a large public university over 30 years. We document large gender wage gaps on average, which grow in the course of men’s and women’s careers. Comparing graduates at identical career stages across time periods to address composition concerns, we show that the raw gender wage gap has shrunk by 33 to 50 percent over the last two decades. Additionally, the temporal pattern of the gap has fundamentally shifted: while gaps only emerged over time in earlier decades, significant gaps now emerge immediately. Convergence in labor supply factors, particularly hours worked, explains much of the narrowing gap, alongside shifts in industry composition. However, unexplained wage gaps persist for recent graduates from the very start of their careers, suggesting different underlying mechanisms across cohorts. These findings highlight both progress in gender wage equity among business professionals and concerning patterns that emerge earlier in careers than in previous decades.
That is from a recent NBER working paper by
Friday assorted links
1. The economy of Egypt continues to improve.
2. Who is Claude really? (New Yorker)
3. Cowen’s Second Law, as applied to the Midwest.
4. Andreas Backhaus economics Substack, a post on why the motherhood penalty is smaller than many think.
5. Derivatives on derivatives for the Second Coming.
6. The debate over Mars life continues.
7. Can Greenland be an AI powerhouse? (WSJ)
Those new service sector jobs
Who needs to be a programmer, be hired to close the doors on Waymo vehicles:
Or see here. And more text from TechCrunch. Via Glenn Mercer, Tom McCarthy, and also Air Genius Gary Leff.
The import of cross-task productivity
Given that LLMs seem to be able to automate so many small tasks, why don’t we see large productivity effects?
I drafted a short paper recently exploring the possibility that it’s for the same reason (or at least one of the reasons) that labor is typically bundled into multi-task jobs, instead of transacted by the task, in the first place: because performing a task increases one’s productivity not only at the task itself but at related tasks.
For example, say you used to spend half your time coding and half your time debugging, and the LLM can automate the coding but you still have to do the debugging. If you’re more productive at debugging code you write yourself, this (1) explains why “coder” and “debugger” aren’t separate jobs, and (2) predicts that the LLM won’t save half your time. If you’re half as productive at debugging code you didn’t write, or less, the LLM saves you no time at all.
So I was excited to see @judyhshen and @alextamkin’s paper from a week or two ago finding basically just that!
At least the way I’m thinking about it, “cross-task learning” should make the productivity impacts of automating tasks more convex: – Automating the second half of a job should be expected to have much more of an impact than automating the first half; and – If the machines can learn from their and each others’ experience, as a worker learns by doing from her own experience, then automating two jobs will have more than twice the impact of automating one.
That is from Philip Trammell. Here is his short piece. Here is the Shen and Tamkin paper. This is all very important work for why the AI growth take-off will be much slower than the power of the models themselves might otherwise indicate. The phrase “…and then all at once” nonetheless applies. But when?
These short pieces and observations are likely among the most important outputs economists will produce this year. But are they being suitably rewarded?
Oliver Kim reviews *How Africa Works*
That is the new book by Joe Studwell, my podcast with him should be coming out pretty soon. Here is Oliver’s new review. Excerpt:
Botswana is Studwell’s poster child for a successful democratic developmental coalition. (For this reason, it featured heavily in Acemoglu and Robinson’s Why Nations Fail as an example of “inclusive institutions”.)
Under the sound leadership of Seretse Khama, local chiefs were carefully co-opted at independence and the Botswana Democratic Party built up into a genuine national force. Khama also created a capable civil service, initially staffed by remaining Europeans, but gradually Africanized with sterling Batswana talent. This meant that when diamonds were discovered just around independence, the windfall was carefully managed, avoiding the worst effects of Dutch Disease. These mining revenues helped raise Botswana to upper middle-income status, making it the fourth-richest country in continental Africa.
Botswana’s chief failing, in Studwell’s view, was adhering too much to responsible policy orthodoxy—i.e., not enough industrial policy. There was no vision for large-scale industrialization, no coherent plan to create large numbers of factory jobs. Moreover, the political dominance of large cattle owners (Botswana was a society of pastoralists rather than farmers) meant that redistribution was never in the cards. The result is a relatively rich society, but one that is highly unequal.
You will be hearing my views on these issues soon enough. Oliver, of course, writes one of the very best Substacks in all of economics.
Optimal timing for superintelligence
There is a new paper by Nick Bostrom with that title:
Developing superintelligence is not like playing Russian roulette; it is more like undergoing risky surgery for a condition that will otherwise prove fatal. We examine optimal timing from a person-affecting stance (and set aside simulation hypotheses and other arcane considerations). Models incorporating safety progress, temporal discounting, quality-of-life differentials, and concave QALY utilities suggest that even high catastrophe probabilities are often worth accepting. Prioritarian weighting further shortens timelines. For many parameter settings, the optimal strategy would involve moving quickly to AGI capability, then pausing briefly before full deployment: swift to harbor, slow to berth. But poorly implemented pauses could do more harm than good.
Via Nabeel.
Thursday assorted links
1. Using Claude Code for academic work.
2. Younger Firms and CEOs Allow More Work from Home.
3. Extractive taxes were indeed a major force behind the French Revolution.
4. How much will “the human touch” persist?
5. “It was one attempt to do so, by Charles Jones of Stanford University, that entertained the negative top rate of -26%. If high earners produce a lot of ideas that help society, then “subsidising the discovery of new ideas through low tax rates may be as effective as redistribution in raising worker welfare”, he writes.” (The Economist)
6. Moral intuitions about love, romance, and reproduction are not Coasean.
7. Do not exercise options unless you have to!