Don't know how else to say it, Cochrane: I thought this when I read the Times of India story. Better you say it in public. This guy is out of his mind, but probably not out of his social circle.
if only we (inclusive, including russians, public accountants, and family dogs) have embeddings of the language of diplomacy and curved representation of "we" in their mental manifolds
Love how accelerationist this is. Agree we should not regulate AI technology and it should cause the extinction of the human race. Humans are a bridge to the ubersmench
Insanity. And in Acemoglu and Johnson's book, Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity, they strongly advocate for government control and massive redistribution - I almost thought I was reading some book by Mao or Lenin.
This was my take on the book as well. They constantly elude to some unnamed “we” which would wisely direct societal, technological and economic forces. As best I could tell the “we” was a stand-in for “control and over-ride by people who agree with the authors.” The idea that such a sloppy and biased writer could qualify for a Nobel specifically in this field is simply bizarre.
This is how I used to think about solving problems as a teenager. Just put me in charge and…
"Build strong countervailing powers, such as labour unions and civil society organisations, to balance the power of tech companies." What really needs to be done is to stop tech companies from being able to suppress information. Texas passed a law requiring Internet platforms such as Twitter and You-Tube to adopt a content-neutral acceptance of user posts rather than censoring them as their executives desired-- and as they were pressured to censor by the government, we've discovered. In NetChoice v. Paxton, a consortium of the techlords sued, saying the Texas law infringed on their freedom of speech, because they could not ban Republicans from their platform. I argue that the platforms are more like the phone company than like magazines, but the Supreme Court didn't buy that argument. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-555/298407/20240123110046414_Rasmusen%20Amicus%20Brief%20Filing.pdf
My point: liberals worry vaguely about Big Tech is too independent, but except perhaps for Musk, the techlords are already suppressing information-- but suppressing the Right, and sometimes under pressure from the federal government.
It's true that new technologies could be unfairly used by some companies, but new technologies tend to spread quickly, and it is very difficult for a company, without the help of the government, to have monopoly for a long period of time.
In my mind, the government is the real danger. If you read the "Twitter Files", the government has been actively pressing the Big Techs to suppress information.
Alternatively, we could simply move away from the naive Section 230 view of platforms as neutral carriers of content. The moment you have algorithmic boosting of one kind of another, you are no longer neutral, even if all you do is push pictures of puppies more than kittens. The platforms are now publishers, with editorial discretion, and we should think of them as such and regulate them accordingly.
We have plenty of experience with this: our media ecosystem has MSNBC coexisting with Fox News and Newsmax, and none of them are viewed as neutral. Nor do they need to be.
Agreed 10,000% that platforms that choose to censor (other than child porn, direct incitement to violence and actual fraud) need to be stripped of Sec 230 protection from lawsuits.
That is the *only* change that should be - and needs to be - made re: Big Tech censorship.
Let them each be either the NYT or AT&T. They can’t be both.
I think this Nobel Laureate used up his wisdom on his research. His research is like a laser beam which brilliantly illuminates a topic. But you need a flashlight to navigate in the dark not a laser beam. He's tripping over some very obvious points.
The dream of AI is labor saving/elimination technology. MRTS confirms this. Businesses want *reliable* factors of production. All these word salads on ethics and humanity are mirages to mask the real intent: effort and cost minimization, leading to profits.
Capitalism really doesn't work without cost minimization. Oh no, what will people do without work? Enter the MMT and UBI nonsense.
And to boot, none of these econ laureates really get the math and algorithms from the ground up. They don't know the limitations baked in with "mathineering" while channeling Nostradamus. Ridiculous. They also don't really get how cognition works. It's glorified fear mongering disguised as "rational thought."
there is a huge disconnect. there are people that think they can control everything. change interest rates, pull a string and the puppet moves. they have no idea how innovation and markets work. amazingly, Ro Khanna the house rep for Silicon Valley is extremely pro-regulation to solve problems. Such a disconnect between the "permissionless" and innovative people that elect him.
Zeroing in on just who this “we” is and what coercive state power they will use echo’s Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Was looking for a good quote on state coercion, but found a better fit on the wisdom of letting experts run wild:
“From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step. Though it is the resentment of the frustrated specialist which gives the demand for planning its strongest impetus, there could hardly be a more unbearable— and more irrational—world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization of their ideals. Nor can “coordination,” as some planners seem to imagine, become a new specialism. The economist is the last to claim that he has the knowledge which the coordinator would need. His plea is for a method which effects such coordination without the need for an omniscient dictator.”
What is opposite of being educated ? Perhaps having a Phd in Economics. :)
Jokes apart, these "Nobel" winning economists go to a developing country like India and offer such nonsensical advice which is precisely why India is poor. Worse his ideas might be taken seriously there where the government actively banned basic technologies like Google Streetview or even classified weather forecasting reports as "state secrets". Indian government has already decided that it wont allow automated vehicles on the road as it will take away employment of drivers.
That was the most fun thing I read today. Thanks! (Of course it's scary that such a pretentious jackass could get published, let alone win a Nobel prize.)
"It’s too bad we don’t have any economists who study societal institutions, and deep historical lessons anymore."
Touché, John.
How fitting this came from Marginal Revolution, since Tyler always includes an "underrated" or "overrated" section in his podcast. The Nobel makes it official: Acemoglu is massively overrated.
It's especially interesting that Acemoglu is not even among those who claim AI is about to cause mass unemployment -- to the contrary he has sensibly estimated that at most 5% of jobs will be affected (not eliminated) in the next few years. So his is a deeper, more fundamental ideological call for state control over innovation. The "governments do it better" school of thought seems to be gaining strength (Mariana Mazzucato being another stark example), which is bizarre given the mounting evidence of the damage government intervention has already done in recent years.
“The ‘governments do it better’ school of thought seems to be gaining strength (Mariana Mazzucato being another stark example), which is bizarre given the mounting evidence of the damage government intervention has already done in recent years.”
But it not bizarre, it’s quite easily understood:
It is the primary way that leftists gain political power. If people believe it to be true, they will vote for leftists. And since the mainstream media, Big Tech, academia and Hollywood promote that message at every turn - and triply so around election season - it works fairly often. Unfortunately.
And “in recent years” said message has only been ramped up even more.
We should be glad that the message only seems to work about half the time in our country, given how prevalent it is.
Don't know how else to say it, Cochrane: I thought this when I read the Times of India story. Better you say it in public. This guy is out of his mind, but probably not out of his social circle.
if only we (inclusive, including russians, public accountants, and family dogs) have embeddings of the language of diplomacy and curved representation of "we" in their mental manifolds
What does that mean?
I am not being critical. I genuinely want to understand what you mean to say, and now do not.
Love how accelerationist this is. Agree we should not regulate AI technology and it should cause the extinction of the human race. Humans are a bridge to the ubersmench
lol!!
I had just finished reading the excerpt and was thinking WTF?!?! ... then I hit your 1st paragraph </grin>
I'm glad we're on the same page.
Happy Weekend BTW
Insanity. And in Acemoglu and Johnson's book, Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity, they strongly advocate for government control and massive redistribution - I almost thought I was reading some book by Mao or Lenin.
This was my take on the book as well. They constantly elude to some unnamed “we” which would wisely direct societal, technological and economic forces. As best I could tell the “we” was a stand-in for “control and over-ride by people who agree with the authors.” The idea that such a sloppy and biased writer could qualify for a Nobel specifically in this field is simply bizarre.
This is how I used to think about solving problems as a teenager. Just put me in charge and…
Yes. It's shocking that they fundamentally don't believe in free markets at all, although they consider themselves "economists"...
"Build strong countervailing powers, such as labour unions and civil society organisations, to balance the power of tech companies." What really needs to be done is to stop tech companies from being able to suppress information. Texas passed a law requiring Internet platforms such as Twitter and You-Tube to adopt a content-neutral acceptance of user posts rather than censoring them as their executives desired-- and as they were pressured to censor by the government, we've discovered. In NetChoice v. Paxton, a consortium of the techlords sued, saying the Texas law infringed on their freedom of speech, because they could not ban Republicans from their platform. I argue that the platforms are more like the phone company than like magazines, but the Supreme Court didn't buy that argument. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-555/298407/20240123110046414_Rasmusen%20Amicus%20Brief%20Filing.pdf
My point: liberals worry vaguely about Big Tech is too independent, but except perhaps for Musk, the techlords are already suppressing information-- but suppressing the Right, and sometimes under pressure from the federal government.
It's true that new technologies could be unfairly used by some companies, but new technologies tend to spread quickly, and it is very difficult for a company, without the help of the government, to have monopoly for a long period of time.
In my mind, the government is the real danger. If you read the "Twitter Files", the government has been actively pressing the Big Techs to suppress information.
What does “unfairly used” mean? I truly don’t get what you’re saying with this phrase. Can you explain?
I was loosely referring to concerns such as big tech suppressing information as Eric brought up.
Alternatively, we could simply move away from the naive Section 230 view of platforms as neutral carriers of content. The moment you have algorithmic boosting of one kind of another, you are no longer neutral, even if all you do is push pictures of puppies more than kittens. The platforms are now publishers, with editorial discretion, and we should think of them as such and regulate them accordingly.
We have plenty of experience with this: our media ecosystem has MSNBC coexisting with Fox News and Newsmax, and none of them are viewed as neutral. Nor do they need to be.
Agreed 10,000% that platforms that choose to censor (other than child porn, direct incitement to violence and actual fraud) need to be stripped of Sec 230 protection from lawsuits.
That is the *only* change that should be - and needs to be - made re: Big Tech censorship.
Let them each be either the NYT or AT&T. They can’t be both.
I think this Nobel Laureate used up his wisdom on his research. His research is like a laser beam which brilliantly illuminates a topic. But you need a flashlight to navigate in the dark not a laser beam. He's tripping over some very obvious points.
What an impeccable analogy
I almost said it's one more example of how bad a measure of intelligence IQ is...
Dr. Cochrane,
The dream of AI is labor saving/elimination technology. MRTS confirms this. Businesses want *reliable* factors of production. All these word salads on ethics and humanity are mirages to mask the real intent: effort and cost minimization, leading to profits.
Capitalism really doesn't work without cost minimization. Oh no, what will people do without work? Enter the MMT and UBI nonsense.
It's infuriating, I agree.
And to boot, none of these econ laureates really get the math and algorithms from the ground up. They don't know the limitations baked in with "mathineering" while channeling Nostradamus. Ridiculous. They also don't really get how cognition works. It's glorified fear mongering disguised as "rational thought."
Nobody really gets how cognition works.
True. But you got people who think they do and it's incomplete. Gödel strikes again.
For a large number of conceivable things, there are people who believe those things. This is a fact of profound insignificance.
What a crock! State control? Marginal Revolution says it as it should be.
there is a huge disconnect. there are people that think they can control everything. change interest rates, pull a string and the puppet moves. they have no idea how innovation and markets work. amazingly, Ro Khanna the house rep for Silicon Valley is extremely pro-regulation to solve problems. Such a disconnect between the "permissionless" and innovative people that elect him.
On the contrary. Check out the history of the politics favored by captains of industry. This is no dumber—and no less dumb—than usual.
Zeroing in on just who this “we” is and what coercive state power they will use echo’s Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Was looking for a good quote on state coercion, but found a better fit on the wisdom of letting experts run wild:
“From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step. Though it is the resentment of the frustrated specialist which gives the demand for planning its strongest impetus, there could hardly be a more unbearable— and more irrational—world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization of their ideals. Nor can “coordination,” as some planners seem to imagine, become a new specialism. The economist is the last to claim that he has the knowledge which the coordinator would need. His plea is for a method which effects such coordination without the need for an omniscient dictator.”
What is opposite of being educated ? Perhaps having a Phd in Economics. :)
Jokes apart, these "Nobel" winning economists go to a developing country like India and offer such nonsensical advice which is precisely why India is poor. Worse his ideas might be taken seriously there where the government actively banned basic technologies like Google Streetview or even classified weather forecasting reports as "state secrets". Indian government has already decided that it wont allow automated vehicles on the road as it will take away employment of drivers.
It depends on which Nobel economist you choose, of course.
After Bernanke everything is possible. :-)
That was the most fun thing I read today. Thanks! (Of course it's scary that such a pretentious jackass could get published, let alone win a Nobel prize.)
Have you forgotten Paul Krugman?
Ah yes, another pretentious jackass.
I hope and trust you mean him and not me. There is a lot of sarcasm around.
I definitely meant Krugman.
"It’s too bad we don’t have any economists who study societal institutions, and deep historical lessons anymore."
Touché, John.
How fitting this came from Marginal Revolution, since Tyler always includes an "underrated" or "overrated" section in his podcast. The Nobel makes it official: Acemoglu is massively overrated.
It's especially interesting that Acemoglu is not even among those who claim AI is about to cause mass unemployment -- to the contrary he has sensibly estimated that at most 5% of jobs will be affected (not eliminated) in the next few years. So his is a deeper, more fundamental ideological call for state control over innovation. The "governments do it better" school of thought seems to be gaining strength (Mariana Mazzucato being another stark example), which is bizarre given the mounting evidence of the damage government intervention has already done in recent years.
“The ‘governments do it better’ school of thought seems to be gaining strength (Mariana Mazzucato being another stark example), which is bizarre given the mounting evidence of the damage government intervention has already done in recent years.”
But it not bizarre, it’s quite easily understood:
It is the primary way that leftists gain political power. If people believe it to be true, they will vote for leftists. And since the mainstream media, Big Tech, academia and Hollywood promote that message at every turn - and triply so around election season - it works fairly often. Unfortunately.
And “in recent years” said message has only been ramped up even more.
We should be glad that the message only seems to work about half the time in our country, given how prevalent it is.