Open AI will partner with Arizona State University

  • OpenAI on Thursday announced its first partnership with a higher education institution.
  • Starting in February, Arizona State University will have full access to ChatGPT Enterprise and plans to use it for coursework, tutoring, research and more.
  • The partnership has been in the works for at least six months.
  • ASU plans to build a personalized AI tutor for students, allow students to create AI avatars for study help and broaden the university’s prompt engineering course.

Here is the full story.  After a very brief lull, AI progress is heating up once again…

Meta, the forward march of progress

According to one estimate, that is about $20 billion spent on GPUs. Which I guess is a lot.

Thursday assorted links

1. Why doesn’t the Davos set sound more intelligent?  (Only a partial diagnosis)

2. New and lucrative scholarships at University of Austin.

3. “What would an empirical revolution in safety research consist of?” Many would do well to heed this piece.

4. CWT meet-up in NYC Feb.5.

5. Cayalá, Guatemala (NYT).

6. “The Afghan Taliban is calling for peace, urging Pakistan and Iran to exhibit restraint and avoid violence.

No One’s Name Was Changed at Ellis Island

No one’s family name was changed, altered, shortened, butchered, or “written down wrong” at Ellis Island or any American port. That idea is an urban legend.

Many names did get changed as immigrants settled into their new American lives, but those changes were made several years after arrival and were done by choice of someone in the family. The belief persists, however, that the changes were done at the entry point and that the immigrants were unwilling participants in the modifications. Sophisticated family history researchers have long rolled their collective eyes at the “Ellis Island name change” idea. In genealogy blogs and online publications, they wearily repeat the correction—names were not changed at Ellis Island; immigrants changed their own names, usually during the citizenship process. But the belief persists, perhaps because people need to explain surname changes in a way that satisfies them (thinking that their immigrant ancestors made the changes themselves apparently does not do so).

The explanation for this is pretty obvious when you think about it. Just as today, people bought tickets and their names were written on the tickets:

It’s vital to remember that the people coming over from Europe and other places were paying passengers, not cattle. They weren’t shoved onto ships and then dumped onto American shores to be newly cataloged by harried immigration officials. The shipping companies were running a business, much as airlines do today—they sold tickets to people who could afford to purchase them (even a steerage class ticket cost almost a thousand dollars in today’s currency)….Agents quoted ticket prices to the would-be traveler, accepted payment, and then recorded each traveler’s name and other identifying information (the specific information collected varied over the years). The information taken down by the agents was sent to the home office, where it was transferred by shipping company clerks onto large blank sheets provided by the US government. Those sheets became the passenger lists which later were used by American port officials.

After all the tickets for a particular voyage had been sold and the manifest was complete, it was turned over to the ship’s captain. On departure day, crew members checked people’s names against the list as they came on board. The crew allowed past them only those people whose names were on the list, i.e., those who had paid for a ticket….Captains were required by the 1819 Steerage Act to sign a statement printed on the manifest verifying that the names on each list matched the names of those people disembarking. Any discrepancies resulted in fines for the shipping company. Thus it was in the shipping company’s interest to make sure no one stepped onto American soil whose name was not already on a manifest.

When the ship arrived at an American port, the captain signed the manifest and delivered it to the chief immigration official. That official checked it and then gave the manifest to officers called registry clerks who questioned each traveler and verified the information recorded on the lists…Obviously then, despite what the Godfather film conveys, the officials at Ellis Island did not record travelers’ names—they had pages with the names already filled in. The task of the registry clerks was to do the same thing the ship’s crew had done: check each person’s stated name against the name recorded on the manifest.

…no federal officer at an American port ever carelessly or maliciously altered an immigrant’s name because it was too difficult to spell or sounded too foreign. On a side note, the belief that immigration officials changed names to make them less “foreign” presumes that the Ellis Island officials were of different ethnicities than the immigrants and were openly hostile to them. In fact, officials were often hired because they spoke multiple languages.

From an excellent debunking by Rosemary Meszaros and Katherine Pennavaria. Many people will continue to deny the obvious but if you still have doubts you can find the original manifests through the National Archives. The urban legend that names were changed at Ellis Island comes from a scene in the Godfather movie and perhaps because people with Americanized names today like to think that someone other than their ancestor changed their name.

Positive noises about Latin America

Latin America has two-thirds of world lithium reserves and about 40 per cent of its copper. It accounts for 45 per cent of global agrifood trade, according to the EU, and its abundant stock of farmland and water could allow that to grow much further. It is home to the world’s largest surviving rainforest, the Amazon, and its diverse geography includes some of the best locations on the planet to generate solar and wind power.

…It also enjoys some other, less obvious, advantages in today’s troubled world: its states are not at war with each other; it is more democratic than any other developing region; and it is building soft power — latino music, food, art, and films have global audiences. In addition, digital nomads cite Mexico City, Medellín and Buenos Aires as among the world’s best cities for remote working.

Here is more from Michael Stott at the FT.  Of course these all remain open questions…

How is AI education going to work?

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column.  Here is the first part of the argument:

Two kinds of AI-driven education are likely to take off, and they will have very different effects. Both approaches have real promise, but neither will make everyone happy.

The first category will resemble learning platforms such as Khan Academy, Duolingo, GPT-4, and many other services. Over time, these sources will become more multimedia, quicker in response, deeper in their answers, and better at in creating quizzes, exercises and other feedback. For those with a highly individualized learning style — preferring videos to text, say, or wanting lessons slower or faster — the AIs will oblige. The price will be relatively low; Khan Academy currently is free and GPT-4 costs $20 a month, and those markets will become more competitive.

For those who want it, they will be able to access a kind of universal tutor as envisioned by Neal Stephenson in his novel The Diamond Age. But how many people will really want to go this route? My guess is that it will be a clear minority of the population, well below 50%, whether at younger or older age groups…

Chatbots will probably make education more fun, but for most people there is a limit to just how fun instruction can be.

And the second part:

There is, however, another way AI education could go — and it may end up far more widespread, even if it makes some people uneasy. Imagine a chatbot programmed to be your child’s friend. It would be exactly the kind of friend your kid wants, even (you hope) the kind of friend your kid needs. Your child might talk with this chatbot for hours each day.

Over time, these chatbots would indeed teach children valuable things, including about math and science. But it would happen slowly, subtly. When I was in high school, I had two close (human) friends with whom I often talked economics. We learned a lot from each other, but we were friends first and foremost, and the conversations grew out of that. As it turns out, all three of us ended up becoming professional economists.

This could be the path the most popular and effective AI chatbots follow: the “friendship first” model. Under that scenario, an AI chatbot doesn’t have to be more fun than spending time with friends, because it is itself a kind of friend. Through a kind of osmosis, the child could grow interested in some topics raised by the AI chatbot, and the chatbot could feed the child more information and inspiration in those areas. But friendship would still come first.

Worth a ponder.

GOAT podcast with Canadian

…the Curious Task podcast episode you recorded with Matt the other day is out now. Here are some links you could share if you would like:

Podbean: https://thecurioustask.podbean.com/e/ep-213-tyler-cowen-who-is-the-greatest-economist-of-all-time/

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/ep-213-tyler-cowen-who-is-the-greatest-economist-of-all-time/id1474563073?i=1000641959359

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5kayibK4XZEnhykHunpk8U?si=qf9D6U_VSe2TYgxPtaZs3w

Matt Bufton of the (Canadian) Institute for Liberal Studies is interviewing.  I was surprised not to be asked who is Canadian GOAT, maybe Robert Mundell is the obvious pick, followed by Harry Johnson and Harold Innis?

Get Out of Jail Cards, 2

“Courtesy cards,” are cards given out by the NYC police union (and presumably elsewhere) to friends and family who use them to get easy treatment if they are pulled over by a cop. I was stunned when I first wrote about these cards in 2018. I thought this was common only in tinpot dictatorships and flailing states. The cards even come in levels, gold, silver and bronze!

A retired police officer on Quora explains how the privilege is enforced:

The officer who is presented with one of these cards will normally tell the violator to be more careful, give the card back, and send them on their way.

…The other option is potentially more perilous. The enforcement officer can issue the ticket or make the arrest in spite of the courtesy card. This is called “writing over the card.” There is a chance that the officer who issued the card will understand why the enforcement officer did what he did, and nothing will come of it. However, it is equally possible that the enforcement officer’s zeal will not be appreciated, and the enforcement officer will come to work one day to find his locker has been moved to the parking lot and filled with dog excrement.

A NYTimes article discusses the case of Mathew Bianchi, a traffic cop who got sick of letting dangerous speeders go when they presented their cards.

By the time he pulled over the Mazda in November 2018, drivers were handing Bianchi these cards six or seven times a day. (!!!, AT)

…[He gives the ticket]…The month after he stopped the Mazda, a high-ranking police union official, Albert Acierno, got in touch. He told Bianchi that the cards were inviolable. He then delivered what Bianchi came to think of as the “brother speech,” saying that cops are brothers and must help each other out. That the cards were symbols of the bonds between the police and their extended family and friends.

Bianchi was starting to view the cards as a different kind of symbol: of the impunity that came with knowing someone on the force, as if New York’s rules didn’t apply to those with connections. Over the next four years, he learned about the unwritten rules that have come to hold sway in the Police Department.

Bianchi is reassigned, given shit jobs, isn’t promoted etc. Mayor Adams and police chief Chief Maddrey protect this utterly corrupt system.

A congestion theory of unemployment fluctuations

Yusuf Mercan, Benjamin Schoefer, and Petr Sedláček, newly published in American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics.  I best liked this excerpt from p.2, noting that “DMP” refers to the Nobel-winning Diamond-Mortensen-Pissarides search model of unemployment:

This congestion mechanism improves the business cycle performance of the DMP model considerably. It raises the volatility of labor market tightness tenfold, to empirically realistic levels. It produces a realistic Beveridge curve despite countercyclical separations. On its own, it accounts for around 30–40 percent of US unemployment fluctuations and much of its persistence. In addition, the model accounts for a range of other business cycle patterns linked to unemployment: the excess procyclicality of wages of newly hired workers compared to average wages, the countercyclical labor wedge, large countercyclical earnings losses from displacement and from labor market entry, and the long-run insensitivity of unemployment to policies such as unemployment insurance.

And by their congestion mechanism the authors mean this:

…a constant returns to scale aggregate production function that exhibits diminishing returns to new hires, a feature we call congestion in hiring.

I find that assumption plausible.  It remains the case that the DMP model is grossly underrepresented in on-line writings on economics, on Twitter, and in the blogosphere.  It won three Nobel Prizes, yet it also suggests that the “simple” manipulation of spending or nominal values does not automatically restore higher levels of employment.

Here are less gated versions of the paper.

How sticky are wages in nominal terms?

There is a new paper on this topic, with what seems to be very good data:

This paper examines the relationship between downward nominal wage rigidity and employment outcomes using linked
employer-employee data. Wage rigidity prevents 27.1 percent of counterfactual wage cuts, with a standard deviation of 19.2 percent across establishments. An establishment with the sample-average level of wage rigidity is predicted to have a 3.3 percentage point higher layoff rate, a 7.4 percentage point lower quit rate, and a 2.0 percentage point lower hire rate. Estimating a structural model by indirect inference implies that the cost of a nominal wage cut is 33 percent of an average worker’s annual compensation.

That is by Gabriel Ehrlich and Joshua Montes, recently published in American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics.  Here are less gated versions of the paper.  I found this of particular interest:

Establishments in the construction supersector display the least wage rigidity, with an average of 8.8 percent of wage cuts prevented. Establishments in the public administration and finance supersectors display the most wage rigidity, with average levels of 39.3 and 41.7 percent of wage cuts prevented, respectively.

Of course employment in the construction sector is highly cyclical, and employment in public administration often is governed by tenure, not exactly what fits best into the standard story.

Duke History of Economic Thought Summer Institute

The Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University will be hosting another Summer Institute on the History of Economics from June 3-12, 2024. The program is designed for students in graduate programs in economics, though students in graduate school in other fields as well as newly minted PhDs will also be considered.

Students will be competitively selected and successful applicants will receive free housing, access to readings, and stipends for travel and food. The deadline for applying is March 10.

We are very excited about this year’s program, which will focus on giving participants the tools to set up and teach their own undergraduate course in the history of economic thought. There will also be sessions devoted to showing how concepts and ideas from the history of economics might be introduced into other classes. The sessions will be run by Duke faculty members Jason Brent, Bruce Caldwell, Kevin Hoover, and Steve Medema. More information on the Summer Institute is available at our website, https://hope.econ.duke.edu/2024-summer-institute

Tyler Cowen on Undertone podcast

Dan Schulz is a very good interviewer.

Tuesday assorted links

1. My Feb.21 Arsht Center live event with Peter Thiel, “Political Theology,” register here.

2. One account of Russia’s game-theoretic strategy to come (speculative).

3. “Yemen now has more births per year than Russia, far more than Germany or Japan. In a few decades it must end up with a larger population than Russia. The future is Yemeni.”  Tweet here.

4. Taiwanese short stories.

5. Patrick Luciani reviews GOAT.

6. “The Indianapolis airport actually installed a full-length basketball court in the terminal in honor of NBA All-Star.

7. Short interview with Paul McCartney’s school teacher (1965 video).  Of course he sees Paul as a regional thinker.

The Role of Friends in the Opioid Epidemic

Your friends are not always good for you:

The role of friends in the US opioid epidemic is examined. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (Add Health), adults aged 25-34 and their high school best friends are focused on. An instrumental variable technique is employed to estimate peer effects in opioid misuse. Severe injuries in the previous year are used as an instrument for opioid misuse in order to estimate the causal impact of someone misusing opioids on the probability that their best friends also misuse. The estimated peer effects are significant: Having a best friend with a reported serious injury in the previous year increases the probability of own opioid misuse by around 7 percentage points in a population where 17 percent ever misuses opioids. The effect is driven by individuals without a college degree and those who live in the same county as their best friends.

That is from a new NBER working paper by Effrosyni Adamopoulou, Jeremy Greenwood, Nezih Guner, and Karen Kopecky.