Solve for the wartime presentation equilibrium
Ukrainian officials have run more than 8,600 facial recognition searches on dead or captured Russian soldiers in the 50 days since Moscow’s invasion began, using the scans to identify bodies and contact hundreds of their families in what may be one of the most gruesome applications of the technology to date.
The country’s IT Army, a volunteer force of hackers and activists that takes its direction from the Ukrainian government, says it has used those identifications to inform the families of the deaths of 582 Russians, including by sending them photos of the abandoned corpses.
The Ukrainians champion the use of face-scanning software from the U.S. tech firm Clearview AI as a brutal but effective way to stir up dissent inside Russia, discourage other fighters and hasten an end to a devastating war.
Here is the full story. Maybe this feels gruesome, but I am not sure we should let ourselves be led by the nose of our intuitions here. Furthermore, we have zero information on its effectiveness, or lack thereof. So I am not ready to have an opinion on this practice. We all seem fine with the idea of killing, so squeamishness on the “presentation side” probably is undertheorized.
I am more interested in what the next step looks like. If this stands a chance of being effective, how might you try to “improve” the presentation? Record death screams and send them in audio files? A virtual reality version? A “director’s cut” for the more committed audience members?
How about AI that scans the battlefield for fights your preferred side seems to be winning? Then do face scans of the opposing soldiers and using internet, text, or phone calls, invite their relatives to watch the struggle. Wouldn’t a fair number of family members click on that link?
Might some people crowdsource funding for extra footage, or shoot it themselves? I read this (New Yorker) report about the recent Brooklyn terror attack:
Many [bystanders] also responded as no one should ever do in an active-shooter scenario—when presented with an escape route, they instead stopped to record videos.
A yet more advanced version of the footage could throw in deep fakes of some kind? CGI?
Do you find this all more repulsive yet? Ever watched a war movie? We seem to accept those in full stride. It would be weird — but perhaps a coherent view nonetheless — to think “killing fine, phony movie of killing fine, movie of real killing just terrible.”
What do you all think?
For the initial pointer I thank Maxwell.
U.S.A. poll fact of the day
Only one poll, yes, but here goes:
61% of Democrats say “improving border security and restricting illegal immigration” would strengthen democracy
To be clear, I don’t consider this good news. The broader point is that I genuinely do not understand Bryan Caplan’s argument that there is no backlash worry from humongous levels of immigration. I see that Angela Merkel let in one million Syrian refugees (which I favored and still favor, by the way), and that strengthened “Far Right” anti-immigrant parties throughout Europe. I see Brexit as in part motivated by a fear of loss of control of immigration. I see that Donald Trump focused on the immigration issue to win the Republican primaries and debates leading up to the 2016 election. The government in Singapore is now facing a major backlash from earlier high levels of in-migration.
How can there not be a backlash from open borders?
The actual, in practice backlash against open borders simply would be to close the borders/limit entry once again, rather than anything too dramatic. But if you continue with a “this lectern is made of ice” counterfactual where the open borders continue against what would otherwise be the political equilibrium, what exactly would be the backlash? I, for one, am afraid to find out. So we want “more open” borders, but not open borders per se.
And no, I am not persuaded by data from pre-1920 America, when borders were largely open and most parts of the world sent basically nobody, and furthermore there was not much of a welfare state. And we did in fact restrict Chinese immigration to California, because of (irrational) backlash.
Friday assorted links
Infrared Mind Control
The science of mind control is advancing at a furious rate. In 2011, the NYTimes reported that scientists had engineered neurons to be sensitive to light and then using fiber optic cables and brain implants they were able to quickly turn mice neurons on and off, instantly changing the behavior of the mice (paper here). The setup, which required genetic engineering, brain implants and cables worked incredibly well but a rather expensive method of mind control.
In 2021, scientists eliminated the fiber optic cable (see also the NYTimes coverage):
Nature: Advanced technologies for controlled delivery of light to targeted locations in biological tissues are essential to neuroscience research that applies optogenetics in animal models. Fully implantable, miniaturized devices with wireless control and power-harvesting strategies offer an appealing set of attributes in this context, particularly for studies that are incompatible with conventional fiber-optic approaches or battery-powered head stages. Limited programmable control and narrow options in illumination profiles constrain the use of existing devices. The results reported here overcome these drawbacks via two platforms…Neuroscience applications demonstrate that induction of interbrain neuronal synchrony in the medial prefrontal cortex shapes social interaction within groups of mice, highlighting the power of real-time subject-specific programmability of the wireless optogenetic platforms introduced here.
Now, if I am reading this 2022 paper and announcement correctly, scientists have eliminated the need for any implant or cable but can instead program the brain using infrared:
Now, scientists at the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute at Stanford University have developed the first non-invasive technique for controlling targeted brain circuits in behaving animals from a distance. The tool has the potential to solve one of the biggest unmet needs in neuroscience: a way to flexibly test the functions of particular brain cells and circuits deep in the brain during normal behavior — such as mice freely socializing with one another.
The research was published March 21, 2022 in Nature Biomedical Engineering by Guosong Hong and colleagues at Stanford and Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University. Hong is a Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute Faculty Scholar and assistant professor of materials science and engineering in the Stanford School of Engineering who uses his background in chemistry and materials science to devise biocompatible tools and materials to advance the study of the brain.
Moreover, the scientists think that the genetic modifications can be done with a simple injection:
Hong and colleagues are also developing nanoscopic beads that can convert focused beams of ultrasound into light, and which can be injected directly into the bloodstream, making it possible to optogenetically target cells anywhere in the brain and to change this targeting at will within a single experiment.
If the tools for mind control can be injected then it doesn’t seem fanciful to think that they can be ingested. Mind control in a bottle. The fear is outside mind control but the reality will be self mind-control. Humans have been altering their minds for thousands of years but neuronal level adjustment at the flick of a switch is something new.
Hat tip: Kevin Lewis.
The best fiction in recent times
Here are my picks, in no particular order:
W.G. Sebald, The Emigrants (1992, maybe not recent?).
Elena Ferrante, The Neapolitan quadrology.
Karl Knausgaard, My Struggle, volumes one and two.
Philip Pullman, His Dark Materials.
Michel Houellebecq, Submission.
Min Lee, Pachinko.
Liu Cixin, The Three-Body Problem.
Roberto Bolaño, The Savage Detectives.
And addended:
Haruki Murakami, IQ84.
Vikrram Seth, A Suitable Boy.
Orhan Pamuk, Museum of Innocence.
Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon.
David Grossman, To the End of the Land.
David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas.
Jose Saramago, Blindness.
China Mieville, The City and the City.
J.M. Coetzee, Disgrace.
I do not feel that recent times lag far so behind some of the earlier, more classic literary eras. Which books am I forgetting?
Germany facts of the day
That’s why the six nuclear reactors that were operating in Germany in 2021 generated 80% as much power as all the gas power plants…
If you turned back on all the nuclear reactors, you could eliminate nearly all the need for gas electricity—and some coal too, which is quite polluting.
Conversely, if you closed the three nuclear reactors remaining and covered that through gas, you’d need to increase your gas burning for electricity by 30%, which could increase gas from Russia by an equivalent amount5.
Put in another way: turning all the German nuclear reactors back on could approximately stop gas imports from Russia. Shutting the remaining ones down could increase the dependency on Russian gas by about 30%.
Here is more from Tomas Pueyo, via Hazel Meade. There is also an interesting discussion of transition problems for “back to nuclear” at the link.
Thursday assorted links
1. Some of the most effective people to have died from Covid.
2. Yellowstone is Offering a $1,500 Annual Pass That You Won’t Be Able to Use for 150 Years.
3. A Caribbean micronation off Belize?
4. Taylor Swift fans want to crash NYU graduation markets in everything.
5. Spencer Haywood almost became a billionaire.
6. The Yuxi circle, the world’s most densely populated area.
Pakistan synthetic control estimate of the day
I find that Pakistan’s per capita GDP would have been an average of about $718 per year higher had the country not undertaken the effort to produce a nuclear weapon. This equates to per capita GDP being 27.8 percent lower on average over the 25-year weapons-development period. Results are robust to several alternative specifications, including country exclusion, sparse synthetic controls, non-outcome characteristics as predictors of GDP, and in-space placebo experiments of differing specifications.
Here is the paper by Anthony Mayberry, via TEKL.
Talent rules in the NBA
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:
With the basketball playoffs starting this week, it is worth asking what can be learned from the NBA’s more recent history. This year the NBA story is one of talent — extreme talent. Talent so plentiful that even the middling teams are full of strong players. The broader lessons for the world economy are very optimistic.
Consider the three players competing for the Most Valuable Player award — Nikola Jokic, Joel Embiid and Giannis Antetokounmpo. Their play and statistics have been stratospheric. Embiid, for instance, led the league scoring, is a leading rebounder and defender, and his team is in contention for an NBA title. Yet he is not favored to win the award because the other contenders are (at least in my eyes) better yet. My pick is Jokic, who is the first NBA player with 2,000 points, 1,000 rebounds and 500 assists in a season.
Other top players, such as Jayson Tatum, Luka Doncic and Ja Morant, might in other years be obvious MVP winners. But this year they don’t stand a chance. LeBron James, Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Stephen Curry — the best players from the recent past — are still amazing but are practically also-rans.
And:
The lessons and implications for the broader economy and society are insanely bullish. If the NBA can do this, other parts of the world can, too. Just imagine business and science (and maybe politics?) all improving at the rate of professional basketball. The most important form of wealth today is human capital. As the world moves further from a brute-force economy, human capital is also the major force driving productivity.
The NBA shows that it is possible, over time, to do a much better job of both finding and mobilizing talent. Granted, most parts of the world are not as well-run as the NBA, so the process will be slower than it ought to be. But it is underway.
The implications are staggering. Yes, global problems are piling up at an alarming rate. On the other hand, global talent is more accessible than ever. Which phenomenon is likely to turn out to be of greater consequence? As the co-author of a forthcoming book on the importance of talent, I suspect you can guess my view.
And I am still picking the Milwaukee Bucks to win the NBA title this year.
The fragmentation of France?
The less fortunate have their own cultural markers of Americanisation. Again, Fourquet analyses names. The Maries of French tradition were replaced by Kevins (after Home Alone) and Dylans (after Beverly Hills 90210). The map of these American names coincides with the places where Marine Le Pen can count on her firmest support. Many National Rally activists bear names such as Jordan Bardella, today the number two in the party, or Davy Rodriguez, who headed its youth organisation. More phenomena of this kitschy low-status Americanisation include the immense popularity of country music clubs, vintage US cars, and pole dancing across France, as well the spread of the Buffalo Grill restaurant chain in hundreds of locations.
And this sentence I found interesting:
Americanisation was the only component of globalisation that did not bitterly divide the French.
Here is more from Krzysztof Tyszka-Drozdowski. I wouldn’t say I have an opinion of my own on these issues — haven’t been there in a few years — but I found this piece stimulating.
Wednesday assorted links
1. Is Germany really with the program? (NYT) I liked this sentence: ““The government has made some courageous decisions, but it can seem afraid of its own courage.”
2. New Yorker profile of Nakamura.
3. Did Yves Klein sell the very first NFT?
4. Jason Furman on “running labor markets hot” — don’t expect higher real wages! (WSJ), #Thegreatforgetting
5. Complete works of Voltaire now available in 205 volumes.
6. The neurodiverse, work from home, and cybersecurity (WSJ).
From the comments (on war)
One of the really interesting contrasts that is widely known but highlighted by this war is just how well-provisioned and competent the USA is when it comes to manufacturing the needs of their armed forces as well as getting them where they are needed compared to their competitors.
The Afghanistan occupation may have been a failure but it was an unbelievable exercise in logistical execution. And even when the US had to leave in a hurry and left behind all that equipment, the controversy was all about “how could we let the Taliban get all that stuff?”. The cost of the equipment never really arose which indicates that the attitude to that was basically “there’s always more where that came from”.
Logistics wins wars…
That is from SpeculativeDiction.
GDP vs. GNP
As a metric of how well economes are doing, gdp is underrated, as I argue in my latest Bloomberg column. Here is one bit:
If a nation has a lot of foreign direct investment, as does Ireland, GDP will exceed GNP by a considerable amount. According to the Irish government, the country’s GDP is about 370 billion euros. Its GNP is less than 300 billion euros. The difference in GDP and GNP is largely accounted for by the outflow of profits to foreign-owned multinationals.
This isn’t just a story about Ireland. Many other nations have had significant differences between their GDP and GNP, including many developing nations and, at times, Singapore.
The conventional wisdom is that GNP is the proper measure of living standards, because domestic citizens do not have claims on the profits of foreign multinationals. That isn’t wrong, but it is also an incomplete answer. When it comes to the future prospects of a country, GDP is a better indicator. Countries that have a high ratio of GDP to GNP are especially promising, though there are some caveats.
A relatively high GDP is a sign that a large number of foreign companies view the future of the domestic economy as bright. They are “putting their money where their mouth is.”
In the case of Ireland, the country is now the only member of the European Union in which English is the main language not only for business but also for schools and public life. Foreign investors are drawn by that fact. They also see that Ireland is relatively underpopulated, and appears to be receptive to absorbing talented foreign immigrants. Furthermore, Ireland is ruled by mainstream parties and seems largely unaffected by the populism and nativism that are creating problems elsewhere in Europe.
All these realities are reason to be bullish. It is also reasonable to expect that the Irish government will be relatively friendly to business looking forward.
Note this:
There are also countries in which GNP is much higher than GDP, such as East Timor during its times of receiving lots of foreign aid. I regard that as a bearish sign, just as I regard the higher GDP number as a bullish sign.
Hope I get to visit East Timor some day!
*Like, Comment, Subscribe*
The author is Mark Bergen and the subtitle is How YouTube Conquered the World. This is that rare (only?) case where “conquered the world” in the subtitle actually is true!
You could call this work “the most important book about the world’s most important media service.” Recommended, due out in September.
Tuesday assorted links
3. Henry Oliver and his book on late bloomers. At least he waited to do it.
4. Drone delivery is not taking off.
5. Farmers in Jilin leave fields fallow as lockdown threatens corn supply.