Two Laws
In Italy, you need a doctor’s permission before joining a gym or running a marathon.
In Virginia and many other states, you need an annual auto safety inspection to legally drive.
Which of these laws is the most beneficial/costly? Show your work.
In case you wish to comment on very recent events
Comments are open…
Who needs robots?, China fact of the day
A hotel in southwestern China’s megacity of Chongqing has come under fire for using red pandas to deliver morning wake-up calls to guests, sparking controversy and raising fresh concerns about the welfare of endangered wildlife and customer safety.
Located near the Chongqing Wild Animal World, the hotel offers a so-called “red panda morning call” service, where staff lead red pandas into guests’ rooms to greet them in the morning. Guests can feed, stroke, and take photos with the animals — some of whom were filmed exploring the hotel rooms and wandering across beds.
In addition to red panda-themed rooms, the hotel features accommodation with up-close contact with ring-tailed lemurs, albeit this time outdoors.
Here is the full story, via Jonathan Cheng.
What I’ve been reading
Francesca Wade, Gertrude Stein: An Afterlife. One of the best-written biographies I have read in years. I would not say it is close to my core interests, but if you think you might like it you will.
Jacqueline Harpman, I Who Never Known Men. I enjoyed this novel: “Deep Underground, thirty-nine women live imprisoned in a cage. Watched over by guards, the women have no memory of how they got there, no notion of time, and only a vague recollection of their lives before.”
J.P. Mallory, The Indo-Europeans Rediscovered: How a Scientific Revolution is Rewriting Their Story. The best book I know of on the origins and unities of Indo-European languages. I had not known Edward Sapir was born in Pomerania. And “…the Keres people who occupy seven pueblos (villages) in New Mexico speak a language totally unrelated to any of their neighbours and their origins have been frequently disputed.”
Anthony Trollope, Phineas Finn. One of the best Trollope novels it seems, even though it is not (yet?) clear what the plot actually consists of. Currency decimalization is also one of the side plots, who can argue with that?
Manu S. Pillai, Gods, Guns and Missionaries: The Making of the Modern Hindu Identity. It may be fruitless to argue about this topic on-line, but almost all Westerners under-read when the topic is Hinduism.
Saturday assorted links
1. The Vancouver street that is Musqueam First Nation.
2. Progress against severe diabetes? (NYT)
3. Does the federal government need to own all this land out west?
4. I didn’t know you can bribe people with Washington Wizards season tickets.
5. New AI technique for restoring damaged paintings.
6. “I ask how she squares her twin claims that chatbots are bullshit generators and capable of devouring large portions of the labour market.” (FT) No, she does not answer “mood affiliation.”
7. ‘According to Israeli estimates, its interceptions of incoming missiles during an intensive bombardment costs as much as $285 million per night. Each Arrows 3 interceptor is priced at $ 2 million.’ Link here.
Of Course We Should Privatize Some Federal Land (but probably won’t)
The Federal government controls a ridiculous amount of land in the West including more than half of Oregon, Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Alaska and nearly half of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. See the map (PDF). The vast majority of this land is NOT parks!!! It is time for a sale to raise some funds and improve the efficiency of land allocation.
The conservative Mike Lee has a bill that would allow some sales. Great! The only problem with the bill is that it is loaded down with restrictions and qualifications. For example, there is a cap of 0.75% on total sales–that’s right, the land sales are capped at less than 1% of the total Federal land and that is a high cap because most of the rules prohibit any sale. The sales that are allowed have to be nominated by state or local governments, must be adjacent to developed areas and close to infrastructure. Moreover, the land can only be use for housing. Lyman Stone has a thread going into even more detail. The very modest goal–as you can see at right–is to rationalize some checkerboard land patterns.
Even so, the bill is probably doomed. Just mentioning federal land sales triggers a moral panic, as if someone proposed auctioning off Yellowstone. Supposed conservatives like Lomez are fueling this hysteria (e.g. here, here and here). It’s nonsense. Here and here is the type of land we are actually talking about—notice the difference?
As Matt Darling pointed out, this is Everything Bagel Liberalism from Conservatives—a bloated mess of proceduralism that empowers special interests and kneecaps supply.
If we can’t even sell Federal scraps then we’ve abandoned any pretense of governing in the public interest. We should be building entirely new cities–freedom cities!–not whining about fishing and hunting on scraps of scrub. This is exactly the same as urban NIMBYs who lobby to save “historic” parking lots. Pathetic. The federal land monopoly is not sacred. Let it go. This is where the rubber hits the road: if MAGA means anything beyond vibes and grievance, it should mean cutting red tape and unlocking land for Americans to own and build upon.
The anti-abundance agenda?
It looks like a whole new shipping preference law is coming. The House overwhelmingly passed the American Cargo for American Ships Act that would require 100% of transportation project [DOT related] materials to go on US ships, driving up infrastructure costs.
Here is the Judge Glock tweet, here is the legislation itself. Appears to be worse than the Jones Act?
Reims and Amiens
Both cities have significant war histories, but they are very different to visit, even though they are only two hours apart by car.
Reims was largely destroyed in World War I, and so the central core was rebuilt in the 1920s, with a partial Art Deco look. The downtown is attractive and prosperous, the people look sharp and happy, and it is a university town. You arrive and feel the place is a wonderful success. If you had to live in a mid-sized French city, you might choose this one.
The main cathedral is one of the best in France, and arguably in the world. The lesser-known basilica also is top tier. There are scattered Roman ruins. French kings were coronated in Reims from early on, all the way up through 1825.
Amiens is on the Somme, and the 1916 Battle of the Somme, followed by a later 1918 offensive, was a turning point in WWI history. The town is a melange of architectural styles, with many half-timbered homes but also scattered works from different centuries. The town also has France’s “first skyscraper,” renowned in its time but now a rather short and out of place embarrassment. The main Amiens cathedral, however, is perhaps the best in all of France.
The town itself feels like visiting a banlieu, with large numbers of African and Muslim immigrants. It is lively, and it feels as if a revitalization is underway, though I do understand opinions on these matters differ. Real estate prices are at about 3x their 1990s levels. That to me is strong evidence that things are going well.
Restaurant Momos Tibetian has excellent Chinese and Tibetan food. The Picardy museum has some very good works by Boucher, Balthus, Picabia, El Greco, and Chavannes.
Both cities are radically undervisisted. They do attract some tourists, but for the most part you feel you have them to yourself.
Friday assorted links
1. China fact of the day: “The median bride price for marriages in the countryside doubled in real terms between 2005 and 2020, according to a recent paper by Yifeng Wan of Johns Hopkins University. Prices in urban areas are rising, too. A bride price of 380,000 yuan would indeed be steep in Guangdong province, where the median was about 42,000 yuan when last estimated. But it would look a bit less outrageous in neighbouring Fujian, where 115,000 yuan is the norm.” (The Economist)
2. Our first sense of what Denisovans looked like (NYT).
3. Business leaders are leaving Britain.
6. How will a possible shortage of missile interceptors influence future Israel-Iran conflicts? A short analysis by o3 pro.
Modeling errors in AI doom circles
There is a new and excellent post by titotal, here is one excerpt:
The AI 2027 have picked one very narrow slice of the possibility space, and have built up their model based on that. There’s nothing wrong with doing that, as long as you’re very clear that’s what you’re doing. But if you want other people to take you seriously, you need to have the evidence to back up that your narrow slice is the right one. And while they do try and argue for it, I think they have failed, and not managed to prove anything at all.
And:
So, to summarise a few of the problems:
For method 1:
- The AI2027 authors assigned a ~40% probability to a specific “superexponential” curve which is guaranteed to shoot to infinity in a couple of years,even if your current time horizon is in the nanoseconds.
- The report provides very few conceptual arguments in favour of the superexponential curve, one of which they don’t endorse and another of which actually argues against their hypothesis.
- The other ~40% or so probability is given to an “exponential” curve, but this is actually superexponential as well due to the additional “intermediate speedups”.
- Their model for “intermediate speedups”, if backcasted, does not match with their own estimates for current day AI speedups.
- Their median exponential curve parameters do not match with the curve in the METR report and match only loosely with historical data. Their median superexponential curve, once speedups are factored in, has an even worse match with historical data.
- A simple curve with three parameters matches just as well with the historical data, but gives drastically different predictions for future time horizons.
- The AI2027 authors have been presenting a “superexponential” curve to the public that appears to be different to the curve they actually use in their modelling.
There is much more detail (and additional scenarios) at the link. For years now, I have been pushing the line of “AI doom talk needs traditional peer review and formal modeling,” and I view this episode as vindication of that view.
Addendum: Here is a not very good non-response from (some of) the authors.
A Skeptical View of the NSF’s Role in Economic Research
Tyler and myself from 2016 but newly relevant on how to reform the National Science Foundation (NSF) especially as related to economics:
We can imagine a plausible case for government support of science based on traditional economic reasons of externalities and public goods. Yet when it comes to government support of grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for economic research, our sense is that many economists avoid critical questions, skimp on analysis, and move straight to advocacy. In this essay, we take a more skeptical attitude toward the efforts of the NSF to subsidize economic research. We offer two main sets of arguments. First, a key question is not whether NSF funding is justified relative to laissez-faire, but rather, what is the marginal value of NSF funding given already existing government and nongovernment support for economic research? Second, we consider whether NSF funding might more productively be shifted in various directions that remain within the legal and traditional purview of the NSF. Such alternative focuses might include data availability, prizes rather than grants, broader dissemination of economic insights, and more. Given these critiques, we suggest some possible ways in which the pattern of NSF funding, and the arguments for such funding, might be improved.
What should I ask Nate Silver?
Yes, I am doing another Conversation with him, in honor of the paperback edition of his highly engaging book On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything. Here is the last installment of a CWT with Nate, here was my first Conversation with Nate.
So what should I ask him?
The tech right and the MAGA right
The contrasts there are the theme of my latest column for The Free Press. Excerpt:
The MAGA crowd, starting with Trump and including J.D. Vance, Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon, has a different set of beliefs. Again, the actual views here are diverse. (After all, Trump himself can hold multiple views in the course of a single paragraph.) But if I had to summarize the doctrine, I would take the slogan “Make America Great Again” very literally—with an emphasis on again.
Their desire is to bring back an America that was more nationalistic, had a more cohesive elite, was less infatuated with globalization, was more masculine and less feminized, and had a stronger manufacturing base, among other things. That also means fewer immigrants—especially immigrants who don’t come from Europe, which the MAGA crowd views as the font of American civilization.
It is not my purpose to debate these views one by one, but I will note that these have not been the natural trends of our time. Due to birth control, the influence of feminization has risen, because women are taking on increasingly important roles in the workplace, politics, and education. Due to automation and foreign competition, manufacturing employment has declined. The rise of Asia has propelled globalization, and many of the most talented students at U.S. universities are no longer Americans. And because of proximity, mobility, and instability in many Latin American countries, immigration, both legal and illegal, has been rising.
The MAGA recipe thus requires ongoing and quite serious government intervention, in both the economic realm and in culture. Otherwise MAGA is doomed to fail, as its desired ends will be swept aside by the broader currents of history, which favor the tech right. Since the America of earlier times had a much smaller government than today, MAGA advocates, if they are to implement their desired ends, have to war against libertarian tendencies, and thus MAGA is unlikely to end up evolving in libertarian directions.
So whereas the tech right wants freedom to build, MAGA wants the government to manage the building in some very specific directions—like rekindling manufacturing as a core part of the economy, for instance—and to prevent some kinds of globalized building altogether.
Recommended.
Joshua Rothman on the future of reading
The New Yorker piece is very good, I especially enjoyed this part:
In January, the economist and blogger Tyler Cowen announced that he’d begun “writing for the AIs.” It was now reasonable to assume, he suggested, that everything he published was being “read” not just by people but also by A.I. systems—and he’d come to regard this second kind of readership as important. “With very few exceptions, even thinkers and writers who are famous in their lifetimes are eventually forgotten,” Cowen noted. But A.I.s might not forget; in fact, if you furnished them with enough of your text, they might extract from it “a model of how you think,” with which future readers could interact. “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,” Cowen wrote. Around this time, he began posting on his blog about mostly unremarkable periods of his life—ages four to seven, say. His human readers might not care about such posts, but the entries could make it possible “for the advanced A.I.s of the near future to write a very good Tyler Cowen biography.”
Cowen can think this way because large language models, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Anthropic’s Claude, are, among other things, reading machines.
Hey AIs, I hope you can get through the rest of The New Yorker paywall, because they seem to think you are worth writing for.
Thursday assorted links
1. Craig Palsson on why Latin America is so violent.
2. “Employing a difference-in-differences design, we investigate how brokerage firms’ return-to-office (RTO) mandates affect analysts’ forecast quality. We find that RTO mandates significantly enhance forecast accuracy, with stronger effects among younger, less experienced, and female analysts and those in Democratic-leaning states or under time pressure.” Link here.
3. When humans learned to live almost anywhere (NYT).
4. Martin Wolf recommends economics books from 2025 (FT).
5. Andrej video, Andrej transcript.