Category: Uncategorized

What we’re grateful for

Here is the Free Press symposium, here is my contribution:

Tyler Cowen, columnist

I am grateful for how many parts of the world I can visit freely. I have been to roughly 105 countries and have not had serious problems getting to them, entering them, or leaving them. Nor have I contracted any serious illnesses abroad.

I do feel some recent growth in restrictions. For instance, I cannot go to Russia and be assured of my safety, nor would I feel comfortable visiting Ukraine at the current moment, given the ongoing Russian attacks. Nonetheless, so very much of the world is accessible to us, whenever we wish to be there.

This is an unparalleled opportunity, without precedent in the history of mankind.

Thursday assorted links

1. Good analysis of the proposed Ukraine deal, by a Ukrainian economist who is fighting for Ukraine.

2. Chinese AI as homework monitor?

3. David Goodhart on Britain.

4. Jana Gallus profile.

5. Charlie Munger’s final years (WSJ).  ““His last delivery was Korean fried chicken: A whole chicken, kimchi fried rice and waffle fries,” Jackson says.”

6. Claims about pretraining.

My excellent Conversation with Cass Sunstein

Cass was in top form, and so we went on for almost two hours.  In his Substack he described it as “The most fun interview I have ever done.”  Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is part of the episode summary:

Tyler and Cass discuss whether liberalism is self-undermining or simply vulnerable to illiberal forces, the tensions in how a liberal immigration regime would work, whether new generations of liberal thinkers are emerging, if Derek Parfit counts as a liberal, Mill’s liberal wokeism, the allure of Mises’ “cranky enthusiasm for freedom,” whether the central claim of The Road to Serfdom holds up, how to blend indigenous rights with liberal thought, whether AIs should have First Amendment protections, the argument for establishing a right not to be manipulated, better remedies for low-grade libel, whether we should have trials run by AI, how Bob Dylan embodies liberal freedom, Cass’ next book about animal rights, and more.

I will reproduce the section Cass pulled for his own Substack:

COWEN: Now, we started with the topic of liberalism. How is it you think about or characterize the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

SUNSTEIN: Bob Dylan is a liberal. His liberalism is captured in the line, “He not busy being born is busy dying.” I hope he’s immortal, but if anything is on his epigraph, that would be a good candidate.

The notion of self-invention, of freedom, is central to basically everything. His refusal to keep singing the same song — you can hear him talking about it in some of the interviews. He said, “I could do that. I could just do that forever. I knew how they’d react.” He said, “What’s that about?” He said, “I needed to do something else.” But of course, the line, “I needed to do something else” — that’s my line. How he would put it would be much more vivid and surprising than that.

His “Like a Rolling Stone” is an anthem of freedom. I heard it, actually, in concert a few years ago. It was a great performance. It wasn’t young, but it was a great performance. The audience went wild when he did “Like a Rolling Stone.” That was the final song. It was the encore. It wasn’t just because it was the greatest rock song ever written. It was because of how he did it. I thought, “What’s going on in this song? Why is everyone exhilarated?” The song, which he described when he wrote it as vomit, hatred directed at somewhere that was real — it wasn’t that, or it was a little bit that, but it was a song of liberty.

“How does it feel to be on your own with no direction home, like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone?” Everyone felt like they were flying. He makes that — “Like a Rolling Stone” — be a song of freedom. If you look at his angry songs — “Positively 4th Street” — there’s a freedom in being, of course, uninhibited, able to say things, but also a freedom of disconnection.

When he’s asked why did he change his name, I have an account of why he actually did. I think he gave it exactly once, but in his more characteristic way, he said, “This is America. You can change your name.” Then he said, “I was born. I didn’t think I was born with the right name. I could make it up. I could say that sounds more like I was.”

Making rootlessness not be a curse, but instead something that is . . . the word joy is too clichéd for Dylan. If you look at his love songs, like “If You See Her, Say Hello,” which isn’t one of my favorites, but it’s good. There’s a connection with the one he loved, who got away, but you can feel the sense of freedom.

COWEN: “Visions of Johanna”?

SUNSTEIN: Yes, completely. He’s torn. That has the great opening line. “Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks When you’re trying to be so quiet?” Did Yeats write better lines than that? Probably, but he was Yeats.

COWEN: Blood on the Tracks — a liberal album?

SUNSTEIN: Oh, yes.

COWEN: How would you express that?

SUNSTEIN: Well, I’m thinking “Buckets of Rain” is the closing song. Right before that, there’s a song, “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go.” That’s it, which is, I think, one of his greatest songs. That’s a liberal song of freedom and separation, that she’s going, but he’s going to see her everywhere, and there’s smiling at impermanence. That is a big liberal theme — smiling at impermanence — because impermanence makes things not routine and also makes for freedom.

COWEN: “Idiot Wind” is the angry song of the batch, right?

SUNSTEIN: Yes, it’s pretty mad. He said about that song, “I don’t know why people like it. There’s so much sadness and distress in it.”

COWEN: Do you see your own liberalism or just yourself in the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

SUNSTEIN: I think so.

COWEN: Reinventing yourself, not quite wanting to be pinned down, doing a lot of stuff.

SUNSTEIN: He likes, I think, abandoning and going on to something that’s very different. I wish I’d gone electric or had some equivalent of that. But doing something quite different — I do share a little bit with him. I like it when I think something I thought was wrong. I now am very enthusiastic about the Austrian economists and Hayek. I’ve always admired them, of course, but I didn’t feel that they were on my team. Now I feel I’ve gone to their team. I don’t feel ashamed that I was wrong before. I feel excited that I’m less wrong now.

Definitely recommended, I could have pulled out many other parts as well.  Again, I am happy to recommend Cass’s new book Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom.

Race and economic well-being in the United States

We construct a measure of consumption-equivalent welfare for Black and White Americans, which incorporates life expectancy, consumption, leisure, and inequality. Based on these factors, welfare for Black Americans was 40 percent of that for White Americans in 1984 and 59 percent by 2022. There has been remarkable progress for Black Americans: The level of their consumption-equivalent welfare increased by a factor of 3.5 over the last 38 years when aggregate consumption per person only doubled. Despite this progress, the welfare gap in 2022 remains disconcertingly large at 41 percent, much larger than the 16 percent gap in consumption per person.

That is from a new article by Jean-Félix Brouillette, Charles I. Jones, and Peter J. Klenow, just published in American Economic Journal: Insights.

Wednesday assorted links

1. On the romanticism of Rudolf Steiner.

2. Proving new math theorems with AI.  And the AI for Science Executive Order.  Genesis Mission!

3. The AI invasion of knitting and crochet?

4. Nouriel Roubini is optimistic about the economy (FT).  And taxes have been rising too much on the wealthiest Brits (FT).

5. The speed of the NBA is increasing (thus so many injuries?).

6. Raye, Where is my husbannd?

7. GPT on economic recovery in Egypt, growth now above five percent.

8. Fifteen thoughts on the UK budget.

“Why ‘Humane’ Immigration Policy Ends in Cruelty”

That is the title of my latest Free Press column, which is interesting throughout.  Here is one bit from it:

Behind any immigration debate is an uncomfortable truth: In rich, successful democracies, every workable immigration policy, over enough time, offends liberal instincts or public opinion—often both. We oscillate between compassion and coercive control, and the more we do of one, the more we seem to need some of the other.

The dilemma: Due to the ever-rising numbers of migration to the United States, the enforcement of immigration restrictions has to become more oppressive and more unpleasant as time passes. The alternative course, which is equally unpleasant, is that immigration increases to levels that voters find unacceptable, and we fall under the rule of anti-immigrant parties—which are illiberal on many other issues as well.

The news gets worse. The more pro-immigration you are and the more you allow some foreigners to enter this country, the more others on the outside will wish to come too. Unless you are going to open the border entirely (not a good idea), you will end up having to impose increasingly harsh measures on illegal arrivals, and tougher and tougher restrictions on potentially legal applicants. The liberals in essence become the illiberals.

So I mourn our ongoing and intensifying moral dilemma. At the margin, there are so many people who want to come here (a sign of American success, of course) that there is no kind and gentle way to limit their numbers to a level the public finds acceptable.

And this:

A third alternative is to slow the intake. Keep it fast enough for America to remain “a nation of migrants,” but slow enough to avoid major backlash or to asymptotically approach open borders.

That sounds pretty good, right? But here is the illiberal catch: Given the growing attractiveness of migration to America, penalties and enforcement have to get tougher each year. There are no ways to send large numbers of people back that are not cruel and coercive. There are also few ways to keep people out that do not involve the extensive presence of coercive police, border arrests, imprisonment, and other unpleasant measures.

We might decide to let in more migrants, but still we will end up being cruel to the would-be migrants at the margin. And as demand to migrate continues to rise, we have to be increasingly coercive over time.

That does not have to mean masked ICE men grabbing people randomly off the streets (which leads to violating the constitutional rights of mistakenly identified citizens), but one way or another it is going to involve threats of violence against actual human bodies. That can mean turning away boats full of desperate people, flying people back home, putting them in interim jails, and in general treating them in ways I find deeply unpleasant and disturbing. It is no accident that the Biden administration could not completely avoid the Trumpian policy of separating illegal migrants from the children that accompany them.

Definitely recommended, one of my more interesting pieces this year.

Emergent Ventures India, 13th cohort

Khyathi Komalan, sophomore at Caltech majoring in math, received her grant for career development, and to support her research applying category theory to everything from quantum physics to social relationships.

Soumil Nema, cofounder of NeoVes, received his grant to develop stem cell therapies treating neurological disorders like stroke and neuropathy.

Anushka Punukollu, 17, a high school student in Canada, received her grant for SucroSoil, to repurpose sugarcane waste into hydrogels combating soil erosion in rural India.

Deev Mehta, 17, received his grant to develop a rover making farming autonomous.

Adithya Sakaray, Steve Aldrin, and Aadhithya D received their grant for Recruitr AI, to automate video interviews using AI.

Samarth K J, 20, civil engineering student at IIT madras, received a general career development grant.

Prakyath Gowda, 25, received his grant to develop a lightweight and efficient electric vehicle battery.

Aaron Rego received his grant for Rightful, to help Indian families recover unclaimed financial assets.

Vatsal Hariramani, 21, engineering student, received his grant to develop a smart and affordable neonatal incubator for remote terrain.

Rushab M received his grant to develop a jacket controlling body temperature for outdoor workers.

Sajal Deolikar, received his grant to develop hybrid powertrains for commercial vehicles improving mileage and reducing emissions.

Mihir Maroju, received his grant for Open Blood, to build an open-source blood donation platform connecting blood banks nationwide.

Habel Anwar, 13, middle-schooler in Kerala, for furthering his physics Olympiad preparation, and working on advancing his physics knowledge and research.

Yash Darji, 20, engineering student, received his grant to kickstart an experimental rocketry community in Ahmedabad.

Uddhav Gupta, 15, received his grant to develop a speech therapy application for children with special needs.

Krupal Virani, 19, received his grant for general career development.

Shwapno Rahman, 17, received his grant to develop low-cost computers for people living below the poverty line.

Sudhir Sarnobat and Rajendra Bagwe received their grant for HowFrameworks, to help Indian SMEs unlock sustainable growth through a learning portal.

Those unfamiliar with Emergent Ventures can learn more here and here. The EV India announcement is here. More about the winners of EV India secondthirdfourthfifthsixthseventheighthninthtenth, eleventh, and twelfth cohorts. To apply for EV India, use the EV application, click the “Apply Now” button and select India from the “My Project Will Affect” drop-down menu.

And here is Nabeel’s AI engine for other EV winners. Here are the other EV cohorts.

If you are interested in supporting the India tranche of Emergent Ventures, please write to me or to Shruti at [email protected].

LLMs Position Themselves as More Rational Than Humans

That is the title of a new paper by Kyung-Hoon Kim,  I differ from his terminology (“self-aware”), but the results are interesting nonetheless:

As Large Language Models (LLMs) grow in capability, do they develop self-awareness as an emergent behavior? And if so, can we measure it? We introduce the AI Self-Awareness Index (AISAI), a game-theoretic framework for measuring self-awareness through strategic differentiation. Using the “Guess 2/3 of Average” game, we test 28 models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) across 4,200 trials with three opponent framings: (A) against humans, (B) against other AI models, and (C) against AI models like you. We operationalize self-awareness as the capacity to differentiate strategic reasoning based on opponent type. Finding 1: Self-awareness emerges with model advancement. The majority of advanced models (21/28, 75%) demonstrate clear self-awareness, while older/smaller models show no differentiation. Finding 2: Self-aware models rank themselves as most rational. Among the 21 models with self-awareness, a consistent rationality hierarchy emerges: Self > Other AIs > Humans, with large AI attribution effects and moderate self-preferencing. These findings reveal that self-awareness is an emergent capability of advanced LLMs, and that self-aware models systematically perceive themselves as more rational than humans. This has implications for AI alignment, human-AI collaboration, and understanding AI beliefs about human capabilities.

Here is the Twitter version of the argument.

Prediction markets in everything

Prediction market Kalshi Inc. and sneaker marketplace StockX are offering a new way to bet on the resale prices of in-demand sneakers and collectibles such as Labubus and Pokémon cards.

In a partnership announced Wednesday, Kalshi will use StockX data to create so-called event contracts tied to sneakers, trading cards and figurines. Users will be able to trade on outcomes such as whether an item will surpass a price threshold after release day, or predict the best-selling brands during a major shopping event like Black Friday.

Products that will be listed include highly-anticipated drops of Jordan sneakers, Supreme hoodies and blind boxes that contain random Labubus.

Here is more from Bloomberg, via John De Palma.

Will the most important pop stars of the future be religious pop stars?

The personally irreligious (last I checked) economist Tyler Cowen has long been fond of proposing that the most important thinkers of the future will be religious thinkers—counter to everything we heard growing up in the age of the New Atheists, and yet, the evidence seems to keep amassing. After the recent release of LUX, the Spanish polymath Rosalía’s fourth studio album, I want to propose a corollary: the most important pop stars of the future may indeed be religious pop stars.

Critics and listeners already seem to agree that LUX represents a titanic accomplishment by the classically-trained, genre-bending singer. Urbane reviewers and YouTube-savvy opera conductors alike have spent the last two weeks obsessively unpacking Rosalía’s 4-movement, 18-track opus, whose symphonic trilingual cathedral piece and Mexican-inflected post-breakup diss track have already charted worldwide. Closer to home, it’s a striking accomplishment to get me to pay serious attention to Top 40 (it helps, of course, to make a hyperpolyglot album with Iberian duende at its core)…

At the beginning of the decade, metamodern types (myself included, in my interview for a PhD position at the Spirituality and Psychology Lab) were given to asking the question: “What can we do to reenchant the world?”

The great stagnation is over. In the age of spiritual machines, enchantment may soon become too cheap to meter. What’s left to ask is: “How are we to make sense of it?” We’ll need artists who can hold the tension—between the earthly and the divine, the ironic and the sincere, the rational and the numinous. Rosalía, to her credit and our great benefit, is already living the question with her full body.

Here is the full post from Josh Lipson at Whitmanic.

*The Age of Disclosure*

I have now watched the whole movie.  The first twenty-eight minutes are truly excellent, the best statement of the case for taking UAPs seriously.  It is impressive how they lined up dozens of serious figures, from the military and intelligence services, willing to insist that UAPs are a real phenomenon, supported by multiple sources of evidence.  Not sensor errors, not flocks of birds, and not mistakes in interpreting images.  This part of the debate now should be considered closed.  It is also amazing that Marco Rubio has such a large presence in the film, as of course he is now America’s Secretary of State.

You will note this earlier part of the movie does not insist that UAPs are aliens.

After that point, the film runs a lot of risks.  About one-third of what is left is responsible, along the lines of the first twenty-eight minutes.  But the other two-thirds or so consists of quite unsupported claims about alien beings, bodies discovered, reverse engineering, quantum bubbles, and so on.  You will not find dozens of respected, credentialed, obviously non-crazy sources confirming any of those propositions.  The presentation also becomes too conspiratorial.  Still, part of the latter part of the movie remains good and responsible.

Overall I can recommend this as an informative and sometimes revelatory compendium of information.  It does not have anything fundamentally new, but brings together the evidence in the aggregate better than any other source I know,and it assembles the best and most credible set of testifiers.  And then there are the irresponsible bits, which you can either ignore (though still think about), or use as a reason to dismiss the entire film.  I will do the former.