Category: Uncategorized
Saturday assorted links
Detroit notes
It remains one of America’s most interesting cities, and now it is seeing a continuing comeback. Downtown remains mostly empty of foot traffic, but I was stunned to see new office buildings and signs of budding prosperity. It did not feel abandoned or hopeless.
Detroit Institute of Art is one of America’s best art museums, showing impeccable taste, though it is notable how much the picture donations simply disappear after some point in time. This is a temple for those are skeptical about modern art, as you will not find it reprensented much here. The American art, the Rembrandt Visitation, the Poussin Holy Family, the Breughel, and the huge Diego Rivera murals are all to die for. The average quality of painting is high as well.
Baobab Fare, not too far from the museum, is a good Burundian (!) restaurant in town.
I was lucky enough to visit the General Motors research and development complex in Cranbrook, mostly designed by Eero Saarinen, due to the ingenuity of Dan Wang (it is mostly not open to the public). Around 20,000 people work there, and it remains a temple of modernist architecture, perhaps anachronistic in effect but beautiful nonetheless. I had not realized how strong the colors were, as that does not come through in the photos.
The Saarinen (papa Saarinen!) house in the Cranbrook Art Museum is perhaps the best Art Deco design I have seen. The museum itself has excellent architecture, sculptures, and gardens, rather than being much of an art museum proper.
Here are good NYT photos of that part of the joy ride.
Overall a trip to the Detroit area is one of the very best American visits you can do, highly recommended, automobile required of course that is why they call it the Motor City.
Friday assorted links
1. Chinese modular innovation.
2. “Are you an emerging scholar passionate about scientific discovery and innovation, and interested in joining a community of classical liberal scholars for a year? We’d love to hear from you. Apply below…” New Mercatus program.
3. State media control influences large language models.
4. The best intellectual biographies of the last twenty-five years. An excellent thread, though it will induce you to spend some money.
5. An undervalued Jack Butler Yeats. Up for auction, I have seen many worse paintings priced in seven figures. Elsewhere, here are some major works up for auction.
Thursday assorted links
My excellent Conversation with Bob Spitz
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is the episode summary:
Bob Spitz has written major biographies of the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, and now the Rolling Stones — but also, somehow, Ronald Reagan and Julia Child. In rock, his credentials were hard won: he started out hustling gigs for an unknown Bruce Springsteen for six years, moved on to handling Elton John’s American business, and spent long enough in the world to find himself jamming with Paul McCartney and chatting with Bob Dylan on a stoop in the Village. The Reagan and Julia Child books are harder to explain, and perhaps that’s the point—Spitz seems to do his best work when he has no business writing the book at all.
Tyler and Bob discuss how the Stones became so great so quickly, what they added to the blues, how their melodies stack up against the Beatles’, whether Exile on Main Street deserves its canonical status, which songs are most underrated, what Charlie Watts actually got out of playing in a rock band, the rise and fall of Brian Jones, how the Stones outlasted nearly everyone, the influence of Mick’s London School of Economics training, why popular music has lost its cultural influence, what we should still be asking Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, whether the Beatles’ breakup was good for the world, how senile Reagan really was in his second term and whether he was ever truly a communist, how good a cook Julia Child actually was, his next book on Lennon’s second act, and much more.
Excerpt:
SPITZ: Mick, from a very early age, was an exercise freak.
As we know from my investigation in the book, Mick’s father was the Jack Lalanne of the United Kingdom. He had a television show, an exercise show like Richard Simmons, and he always had a great person to show off the exercises, young Michael. He would say, Mike, get down, show him 50 pushups. Mike, do 100 chins, and Mick would jump to it and do it. That man still has a 27-inch waist at the age of 83.
Keith, on the other hand, is a medical miracle.
And this:
COWEN: Mick once said his favorite economist was Friedrich A. Hayek. Do you know anything more about that?
SPITZ: I do not, actually. I think it’s incredible that Mick had favorite economists. We do know that Mick was a scholarship student to the London School of Economics, and that for two and a half years, he attended and got pretty good grades. He did fairly well. The one thing that amazes me about Mick coming out of that London School of Economics is this. After 1967, when Andrew Loog Oldham stopped managing the Stones, they have never had another manager. They’ve had some money managers, but as far as managers go, Mick Jagger was their manager.
And:
COWEN: How good a cook was Julia Child? That’s another of your biographies. Actually, how good was she?
SPITZ: She was great. She was a wonderful person, but here’s the little secret. Julia was a great cooking teacher, but not a very good cook. There were people who left her house—and John Updike told me this. He was a frequent guest with her. Corby Kummer, who was a wonderful food writer, told me this as well. They’d leave Julia’s house. They’d go to a little park around the corner, and they’d get physically ill. They’d get sick. Julia used too much butter, too much cream. She really had no reins on her when it came to using things like that.
Bob was excellent throughout, and I very much enjoyed his new biography of the Rolling Stones.
Wednesday assorted links
Some non-obvious reasons why AI will create some transitional problems in employment
I do not find the mass unemployment hypothesis persuasive, and I have covered this extensively in the past. But here are three other problems which may end up being noticeable in the short run, though likely absent longer term:
1. Many of the new jobs to be created may come in highly regulated sectors, and that will slow their creation. Energy and health care — especially biomedical trials — are two examples I have in mind here. Let’s say we opt for more nuclear power to ease constraints of compute — how long will it take for most of those jobs to come on line?
2. At least initially, job search and matching might be less efficient. We have lots of practice judging which workers are best for which jobs in a pre-AI world. But say most jobs involve working with AI in some manner? How well can actual HR departments judge who is good at that? Are the HR departments themselves even decent at that?
So expect slower matches, though at some point AI itself might give us better and faster labor market matches.
3. Government fiscal policy might be less effective at putting people to work in an efficient manner, given that the government is likely, at least for some while, to be a poor judge of who is good at working with AI. That may slow hiring, or lead to quicker dismissals and quits, or simply result is less output from the fiscal policy investments, thus making them less effective.
These features of the problem all could use a bit more consideration, and likely there are others I have not thought of.
Data centers are good
Data centers are the physical infrastructure behind cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and enterprise software. The rapid diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) is intensifying demand for compute, accelerating investment in data centers, and raising concerns about the local economic and environmental footprint of these facilities. Their expansion creates a local policy tradeoff. A data center can bring capital investment, construction activity, and specialized employment, but it can also increase demand for electricity, land, and grid capacity. This paper studies these effects at the U.S. county level. We assemble a facility-level panel of global data centers with precise coordinates, scale metrics, and annualized revenue. We map facilities to U.S. counties and combine them with County Business Patterns, county-level IRS income, county-level house prices, and electricity prices. To address endogenous siting, we instrument for data center growth using two shift-share instruments, which leverage pre-existing proximity to InterTubes long-haul fiber nodes and the 1980 county share of U.S. urban college population as shares, and both Chinese and rest-of-the-world data center revenue growth as shifts. The IV estimates show positive effects on total employment, data-processing employment, construction employment, establishments, house prices, and electricity prices at different horizons after data center growth. We also find positive effects on tax returns, adjusted gross income, and wages, while annual payroll responds less robustly. The results suggest that data centers create measurable local activity, increase house prices, and affect local electricity markets through higher prices.
That is from a new NBER working paper by
Tuesday assorted links
1. Is it too expensive to sell a house? (NYT)
2. Sumner on Halperin on macro.
3. Why progress under Milei has stalled (WSJ).
4. Why is Latin America so violent?
5. Diet Coke parties are the rage in India.
6. Optimizing AI models for creativity. “They simply have not done it yet” is one of the most useful phrases to keep in your mind these days.
Monday assorted links
1. Why Dunkin’ Donuts failed in India.
2. Rents in the Middle East, and is the region less dependent on oil than before? And why is Jordan still relatively stable in economic terms?
3. Kakistocracy, the pending Richard Hanania book.
4. Brad Mehldau defends Billy Joel. Slowly, but even I am being brought around to this position.
5. Kurtis Hingl on the future of research papers: “But this will evolve to a demand-side system where “papers” are accompanied by a platform of all the tools used in the process, and the reader will ask their AI their “what if we did X instead of Y, does that change the estimate?” Like if I were reading an experimental chemistry paper, and it came with a pre-set lab with all the ingredients, a lab director and assistants, and I could ask them as I read the paper, “what if we tweaked the proportions by X?” and they did it right there in front of me and together we saw the outcome.”
6. Yes China understands their security risks from ChatGPT and other LLMs.
Sunday assorted links
1. What should be our Bayesian priors on von Neumann probes?
2. AI book mirrors.
3. Why power in Spain is so cheap.
4. The comments on Mick West here are pretty tough. We still do not know what it is, and yes the national security people have pondered these questions in advance. Most broadly, trust people who are in “explorer mode,” not debunker mode. Debunker mode is tempting, because you often end up right, and feeling good about yourself, but it also means you miss big discoveries when they come along.
5. More on the cell phone ban study.
6. Technological breakthroughs and the progress of science. The early papers based on digital computing techniques did very, very well, at least on average.
Will AI kill the research paper?
Imagine taking a macroeconomics paper and adding a little button at the end “Press this button to update this paper with the latest macro data.”
All of a sudden you have multiple papers rather than one, and no single canonical version. It is the latter versions, not created directly by the authors, that people will look at.
Imagine adding another button, to either micro or macro papers “Please rerun these results using what the AI thinks might be five other different yet still plausible specifications.”
Then you have more papers yet.
Ultimately, why not just build a “meta-paper,” using AI, to answer any possible question about the subject area under consideration. This meta-paper would allow the reader, using AI, to make many sorts of modifications and additions to the basic work. The meta-paper also would allow the reader to add new data, to run additional robustness checks, and to do whatever else you might think of. Once again, the canonical version of the paper evolves away.
A researcher might spend a significant part of his or her career building such a meta-paper. Imagine a meta-paper, or sometimes I call it a “box,” devoted to answering questions about say fiscal policy, minimum wage hikes, or maybe the Industrial Revolution. Fed researchers would spend their entire careers, not writing papers, but improving the Fed’s “box” that answers questions about monetary policy and also prudential supervision.
Who will be good at doing such things? Is it the people today who become the top economists, or not? Will it be a highly decentralized endeavor, or, given the compute and team work requirements, a highly centralized one?
Economics is going to change a lot, as will many of the other sciences.
It is funny, and tragic, how much some of you are still obsessed with writing and publishing “papers.”
Saturday assorted links
1. Do chatbots ever follow the interests of advertisers?
2. Approaching the Star Trek universal translator.
3. Jon Haidt response to the new cell phone study.
4. U.S. electricity prices have been flat since June.
5. Friend Alla Keselman now has a Substack.
6. I am enjoying the new Elizabeth Strout novel The Things We Never Say. It is arguably “too American” for me, and also “too New England,” still it is quite good.
The UAP report so far
I will stick with my earlier Free Press predictions:
The fact remains that, if you talk with insiders, they will confirm that the federal government faces some big mysteries. It seems that we have data on what appear to be craft that move very fast, have no visible means of propulsion, and can accelerate in a surprising manner. Radar, infrared, and other forms of data are cited to varying degrees, plus there are eyewitness pilot reports, broadly consistent with what our instruments are telling us.
And this:
Assuming a reasonable chunk of the data are declassified, I think we will simply see more of the same kind of material we’ve seen in the past: more data on entities that appear to move very quickly and in mysterious ways, but with no real explanations. We will see, as I’ve argued before, that the government itself does not know what is going on, and has been afraid to admit that. That may be the real “conspiracy” and why the veil of secrecy has been relatively difficult to pierce.
As of yesterday, there are plenty of additional videos of what seem to be glowing orbs moving fast and in unpredictable ways. Or try this one. Here is another weird one. Or try this. And another one, near military craft. And what is this?
One thing we can conclude is that the debunkers, who have been suggesting this is all camera tricks, parallax issues, or people not understanding how videos work, are proven wrong in general, even though they are right about some particular cases. On that point we can move on, as I have been arguing for some while. Mick West is not your proper guide here.
Nonetheless we still do not know what it all means, and I do not see proof of anything in particular.
I also will stress my earlier point that we are not going to see alien bodies or alien technologies, or anything meaningful connected to Roswell. That is sheer fantasy, or sometimes locos.
340 million hits in the first twelve hours? More people will be believing in aliens in any case, I suspect. Or will it be demons?
It is fashionable in the comments sections of blogs to call this topic a waste of time, but the serious people in the military and national security — most of whom do not cite alien presence — do not see it that way.
And they will be releasing more materials. These materials are being released because some subsection of “the Deep State” wants to know what is going on. As do I.
Friday assorted links
1. Eigenism.
2. Steven Nadler, Spinoza, Atheist. A good and very readable introduction to the Dutch philosopher.
3. Neal Katyal talk on what really won the SCOTUS tariff case.
4. “What America lacks relative to Europe is not price-sensitive leisure travelers but routes where almost everyone is a price-sensitive leisure traveler.” From Matt Y.
5. The White House is distancing itself from the very tough AI regulation idea.
6. Musical longevity is reaching its peak this year.
7. Are these the emerging megaregions?
