Results for “YouTube” 1346 found
Overcoming Baumol
One way to overcome the Baumol effect is to replace labor with capital. AI and robots are making that possible. Here’s a clip of the Carmelite Monks of Wyoming who are building a monastery in the Gothic style using CNC machines:
CNC machines and robots have unlocked the ability to relatively quickly carve the intense details of a Gothic church. Ornate pieces that used to take months for a skilled carver, now can be accomplished in a matter of days. Instead of cutting out the beauty, using the excuse that it takes too long, thus doesn’t fit into the budget, modern technology can be used to make true Gothic in all its beauty a reality again today.
Bring back the beauty!
The single best introduction to LLMs?
From Andrej Karpathy of Open AI. What else would you recommend to learn more about LLMs?
Monday assorted links
1. Black athletes discuss Thomas Sowell.
2. GPT4V watches an NBA game (and roots for the Clippers).
3. No economic growth in South Africa for the last fifteen years.
4. Rasheed Griffith interviews the guy designated to lead the dollarization of Argentina.
5. Katherine Boyle speech on American dynamism.
6. Hart and Moore on property rights and the theory of the firm (1990, still relevant). And Aghion and Tirole.
The Indian Challenge to Blockchains: Digital Public Goods
In my post, Blockchains and the Opportunity of the Commons, I explored the potential of blockchains to create new commons:
Blockchains and tokenization are a way to incentivize the creation of a commons. A commons is an unowned place, platform, or protocol that helps people to meet, communicate and transact. Commons underlying modern life include TCP/IP, SMTP, HTTP, GPS and the English language. We don’t see these commons clearly because they are free, ubiquitous and, like air, taken for granted. What we do see are platforms like Airbnb, Uber and the NYSE and places to meet and communicate like OkCupid, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. What blockchain and tokenization offer is the possibility of creating commons to replace all of these services and much more.
For the most part, the potential has not been realized. But the core idea of substituting a protocol for a firm has been taken in a different direction in India. Instead of blockchains, India has been experimenting with digital public goods. A digital public good is open source software with open data and open standards–available for use or even modification and adaption by anyone. The blockchain community, for example, has long aspired to develop a blockchain-based Uber, connecting drivers and riders without a corporate intermediary. India has achieved this through digital public goods instead.
Namma Yatri is an open-source, open-data Uber-like protocol with 100% of the commission flowing directly from rider to driver. Namma Yatri is built on the Beckn Protocol, a product of the Beckn Foundation which is backed by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani (Tyler and I had the opportunity to talk with many people behind the project including Nandan on a recent trip to India). Namma Yatri has booked over 15 million trips in just one year of operation, mostly in one city, Bangalore. I expect it will expand rapidly.
Namma Yatri is only one example of a digital public good in the India Stack, a collection that includes identity (Aadhaar), payments (UPI) and digital data sharing (e.g. digital lockers). Since its launch in 2008, for example, India’s Aadhaar system has created a digital identity for over 1.2 billion people allowing them to open some 650 million bank accounts. This has enhanced financial inclusion and facilitated direct government payments of pensions and rations, reducing corruption. Likewise, the UPI system built modern payment rails which are then leveraged by banks and firms such as Google Pay and WhatsApp. The resulting payments system does some 10 billion transactions a month and is one of the fastest and lowest cost in the world.
Challenges remain. The development of digital public goods relies on funding from non-profits, governments, and private consortiums, raising questions about long-term sustainability. These goods need regular maintenance and updates, and some require backend support. Namma Yatri began as a completely free app for drivers and users but if there is a problem who do you call? To support the back-end office, and to pay for updated inputs (such as maps) the service has started to use a subscription fee. Nothing wrong with that but it’s a reminder that firms are not so easily dispensed with. Privacy is another concern. While blockchains offer privacy at the technology layer, privacy for digital public goods depend on legal and normative frameworks. For instance, India’s Aadhaar system is legally restricted from police use, a smart balance that needs to be maintained in changing times.
Despite these challenges, there is no denying that India has built digital public goods at scale in a way that demonstrates an alternative pathway for digital infrastructure and a challenge to blockchains.
Wednesday assorted links
1. Teacher-driven changes in ideas during the Scientific Revolution at Oxford and Cambridge (Julius Koschnick of LSE is on the job market).
2. ChatGPT grey markets in everything.
3. Kiwi family goes to Walmart for the first time (video).
4. Zero-sum thinking and political divides.
5. The course of Brazil’s trade surplus.
6. Why are Canadian remote workers right across the border paid less?
7. Ross on religion (NYT).
Zoning Deregulation Increases Affordable Housing
Geetika Nagpal and Sahil Gandhi study zoning deregulation in Mumbai, India. As I pointed out in my video, Skyscrapers and Slums: What’s Driving Mumbai’s Housing Crisis?, Mumbai has very restrictive floor area ratio regulations (also called Floor Space Index, FSI, regulations, see the video for an explanation) which means taller buildings require more unused land. In 2018, however, FAR was liberalized for some streets:
Mumbai’s stringent FAR limits, which are much lower than those of comparable megacities, are often criticized for causing housing unaffordability (Bertaud, 2004). Despite the criticism, establishing a causal effect has been challenging because of a lack of changes in FAR regulations. The relaxation in 2018 linked a parcel’s FAR to the width of its bordering road, providing incremental FAR relaxation for parcels on roads wider than 12 meters. Parcels on narrower roads remained ineligible for the relaxation. Our reduced-form specification uses a DID design to compare developments built between 2014 and 2022 on wider roads with FAR relaxation with those on narrower roads that remained ineligible.
…The FAR relaxation results in a significant supply response, driven by less expensive, smaller housing units. Developers fully utilize the FAR relaxation, increasing the average
number of apartments in each treated multifamily development by 28% relative to the control.…We develop a structural model of housing supply and demand that incorporates the provision of amenity floorspace and shows that average home buyer incomes are 3.18% lower post-relaxation.
GO YIMBY!
Geetika Nagpal is on the market from Brown.
Should I keep an eye on Spain? (from my email)
Keep an eye on Spain. What is happening politically is very serious and the tension is increasing.
Fernando Savater: Spain is formally a democracy, sure, but it is ceasing at a forced march from being a rule of law state.
https://theobjective.com/elsubjetivo/opinion/2023-11-05/resignados-sumisos-luchar-sanchez/
Felix de Azúa: The reactionary left will face the coup right with a predictable result: economic ruin and institutional chaos.
https://theobjective.com/elsubjetivo/opinion/2023-11-11/irse-preparando-sanchez/
…Felipe González is very worried, as well.
That is all from Mario Abbagliati.
Thursday assorted links
1. Maxims from Larry Gagosian.
2. How might California regulate AI?
3. Why has growth in medical knowledge been so stagnant? Northwestern job market paper by Megumi Murakami.
4. My AI webinar for Macmillan. And also from Macmillan here is an Eric Parsons profile video.
5. Are Singaporean couples who are funny more satisfied with each other?
6. Pakistan starts to expel 1.7 million undocumented Afghani migrants. That is perhaps the largest forced expulsion since the 1950s?
7. Paul’s latest (video). And the song itself.
Monday assorted links
1. That was then, this is now, railway compartment edition.
2. Harriet Taylor is underrated.
3. “My data show that nearly half of my study participants report meaningful and regular interactions with deceased relatives and friends who were important in their lives.” — solve for the AI equilibrium.
4. Yet another paper showing that the evidence for YouTube radicalization is weak.
5. Russ Roberts Substack on current life in Israel.
6. Patrick O’Shaughnessy interview John and Patrick Collison.
The SEC Burned LBRY to the Ground
LBRY was YouTube on the blockchain, a public good protocol for delivering video content. Unfortunately, after years of protracted and extremely expensive legal wrangling with the SEC, LBRY has been driven into bankruptcy and forced to shut down as an organization (although the code lives on). I was a long-time LBRY advisor.
It makes me angry that with all the scams in the crypto world, the SEC chose to go after a working product with real customers and users. No one, not the customers, the content creators or the investors has benefitted or been protected by the SEC. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Here is SEC commissioner Hester Peirce’s compelling Statement of Dissent:
The Commission has brought many troubling crypto enforcement actions, but the LBRY, Inc. (“LBRY”) case has especially unsettled me. A statement on the case is overdue. I did not support bringing the case, but have been unable to speak publicly about my concerns while the case has been in litigation. Last week, after losing in federal district court on the question of whether the sale of LBRY tokens was an unregistered securities offering, LBRY announced that it will not move forward with an appeal of the decision.[1] Instead, the company will shut down and its assets will be placed in receivership and used to satisfy its debts, including the civil money penalty owed to the Commission.[2] Are investors and the market really better off now after the Commission’s litigation contributed to the demise of a company that had built a functioning blockchain with a real-world application running on top of it? This case illustrates the arbitrariness and real-life consequences of the Commission’s misguided enforcement-driven approach to crypto.
One does not have to dig deep to find fraudulent crypto projects that sold tokens with promises that they did nothing to fulfill. This sad reality makes the Commission’s decision to bring a case against LBRY especially puzzling. LBRY’s approach was more conservative than the approach many other projects took.[3]Here, the blockchain was up and running at the time most tokens were sold, and the Commission’s complaint did not allege, and the court did not find, evidence of fraud. LBRY built a blockchain to facilitate data sharing, afford greater control to content creators, and make censorship more difficult. LBRY created a popular platform on the blockchain for sharing videos and other media.[4] The open-source LBRY blockchain was available for anyone else to use.[5] Why go after a company that sold a token for a functioning blockchain with an established use when we could have pursued plenty of other projects that were outright frauds and did not attempt to comply with the securities laws? To make matters worse, the Commission took an extremely hardline approach in this case. For example, after winning on summary judgment, the Commission sought monetary remedies of $44 million and asserted that LBRY’s offer to burn all tokens in its possession was not sufficient assurance that LBRY would not violate the registration provisions in the future.[6] The Commission’s requested remedies were entirely out of proportion to any harm. Indeed, the court stated during the remedies hearing that “the absence of fraud allegations, [and] the fact that there was some measure of uncertainty” regarding the application of the securities laws when LBRY commenced its offering were facts that “should be taken into account when considering a penalty.”[7] After the remedies hearing, the Commission pared its penalty request back to a significantly lower $111,614, which the court approved.[8]
The application of the securities laws to token projects is not clear, despite the Commission’s continuous protestations to the contrary. There is no path for a company like LBRY to come in and register its functional token offering.[9] Even if a company did manage to register its token offering, it would not be a particularly useful effort. Compliance with the securities laws is important because we want to ensure that people buying securities receive accurate and reliable information so they can assess the risks and rewards of an investment. Here, LBRY made significant disclosures outside of the registration process—disclosures that the Commission did not allege were fraudulent or misleading—and there is little to indicate that LBRY’s disclosures did not provide token purchasers with information adequate to assess whether the tokens were a good fit for them.[10] The time and resources we expended on this case could have been devoted to building a workable regulatory framework that companies like LBRY could have followed. Then the market could have decided LBRY’s fate.
Even if, as the judge ruled here, the offering of tokens should have been registered, our scorched earth approach in remedying the violation was completely out of proportion to any investor harm. How does the result in this case protect LBRY investors, who likely would have preferred that the company continue to exist to support the blockchain, which is still in its infancy? The judge did not rule on whether the token itself was a security or on the status of secondary sales of LBRY tokens,[11] which means that the LBRY blockchain may live on, but its path forward is difficult. The Commission’s action forced a group of entrepreneurs to abandon what they built. Our disproportionate reaction in this case will dissuade people from experimenting with blockchain technology, which LBRY aptly describes as “technology that enables dissent.”[12] A government of a free people should welcome dissent and the technologies that enable it.
Earlier this year, LBRY tweeted: “It’s the year 2028, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been jailed for using illegally cryptocurrency instead of CBDCs, and Hester Pierce [sic] is still just writing dissenting memos.”[13] Although I will be tending bees, not writing dissents, in 2028, I think often about the crux of that criticism and ask myself: “What could I do to help prevent another group of people with a big idea for changing the world from going through what LBRY has over the past several years?” I have not come up with an answer to that question; however, I urge people who have suggestions about how the Commission can right its course on crypto and innovation more broadly, to send them my way.[14]
*George Harrison: The Reluctant Beatle*
By Philip Norman, a wonderful book of course. My “problem” (not with the book of course) is just how much John and Paul tower over the proceedings, from the very beginning. Here is one excerpt:
He [Hanton, an early drummer for the Quarrymen, a Beatles precursor] felt excluded from the others’ practice sessions at the art college and resented Paul, who was more than competent on drums as well as guitar and piano, for continually finding fault with his performances.
And:
John’s leadership remained unchallenged, but Paul was ever his zealous adjutant; convinced that they could be spotted by some talent scout at any moment, he called for maximum effort, however late the hour or sparse the audience. And Stu Sutcliffe’s bass playing, though now reasonably competent, was clearly never going to satisfy Paul.
Recommended, I will read every page. You can order here, Norman’s other bios are great too. And if you are wondering, a few of the most underrated George songs are the early instrumental “Cry for a Shadow,” “Don’t Bother Me,” and the much later “You.”
Friday assorted links
1. Robin Hanson theorizes about aliens.
2. Wokeness is maybe the source of lower well-being on the Left?
3. Rubber Soul but only bass and drums.
4. Dror Poleg is running “a ventures approach to peace.”
5. Italy will ban “synthetic meat.”
6. Salim Furth book review on Japanese urbanism.
8. Poll data on shifting U.S. views on Israel and Palestine.
Wednesday assorted links
How will we know when higher education is reforming itself?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column. Here is the intro:
When the revolution in higher education finally arrives, how will we know? I have a simple metric: When universities change how they measure faculty work time. Using this yardstick, the US system remains very far from a fundamental transformation.
And:
This system [of numerically well-defined courseloads], which has been in place for decades, does not allow for much flexibility. If a professor is a great and prolific mentor, for instance, she receives no explicit credit for that activity. Nor would she if she innovates and discovers a new way to use AI to improve teaching for everyone.
This courseload system, which minimizes conflict and maximizes perceptions of fairness, is fine for static times with little innovation. If the university administration asks you for two classes, and you deliver two classes, everyone is happy.
But today’s education system is dynamic, and needs to become even more so. There is already the internet, YouTube, and a flurry of potential innovations coming from AI. If professors really are a society’s best minds, shouldn’t they be working to improve the entire educational process, not just punching the equivalent of a time clock at a university?
Such a change would require giving them credit for innovations, which in turn would require a broader conception of their responsibilities. Ideally, a department chair or dean or provost ought to be able to tell them to add a certain amount of value to the teaching and student development process — through mentoring, time in the classroom or other ways. The definition of a good job would not be just fulfilling the “2-2” teaching load called for in a contract, it would be more discretionary.
This would be hard to make work, of course, and many faculty would hate it. If the teaching requirement is discretionary, and in the hands of administrators, many professors will fear being bargained into a higher workload. Almost certainly, many (not all) professors would be bargained into a higher workload.
Definitely worth a ponder. The problem of course is that universities are in some regards low trust institutions, so renegotiating class load requirements simply isn’t going to go very well.