That the post-FTX bankruptcy team has managed to recover a lot of the value Sam Bankman-Fried stole does not mean he didn’t steal it; American commercial real estate sword-of-Damocles blogging...
Tett: I've no opinion on banks rolling over commercial real estate loans unless (and I'm afraid it does) it interferes with shifting the assets into some more useful employment (at probably a lower rent). There is certainly something odd about real estate standing vacant. It clearly has something to do with rents not easily adjusting downward and doesn't THAT have something to do with how commercial real estate is financed?
"The Dunning School"?! Oh come on. Now the writers are just mailing it in.
On one point Raybaud is surely wrong: to first order, and maybe to second order too, it is not the case that science advances "one funeral at a time." It is almost the definition of science that this claim is false, and it is also what is observed empirically. The old guard defend their theories stubbornly so long as it is feasible to do so; but once evidence against them gets strong enough, they all surrender together. The result is more like a phase change than a gradual decay. I remember Penrose describing this process well, with respect to his own ideas about black holes.
c.f. Plancks's Principle regarding paradigm changes with the edath of older scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle. Given that the senior university professors with tenure will die before being replaced, there is a reasobale argument that deaths allow paradigm changes as newer ideas taught by younger scientists replace them. Science is somewhat definitive about correctness than humanities, where different opinions can exist about the same subject. I believe economics is a good example. ;-)
Perhaps a counter-case is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, established by the immense charisma and status of Neils Bohr in spite of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever—and there were always EInsteins, Everetts, and Bohms pointing out possibilities forward that might someday make some kind of sense. Yet the Copenhagen interpretation is still around and still the default...
I am not sure what it this is a counter-case of. That science changes paradigms more readily than humanities? IMO, the true nature of quantum physics has not be demonstrated other than the Copenhagen interpretation has proven extremely robust with maths and every attempt to break it. The many worlds theory has no supporting evidence or any falsification of the Copenhagen interpretation. The same is true of Einstein's interpretation of gravity even though many physicists are trying, so far unsuccessfully, to devise a quantum explanation that works. Our current paradigm change hopeful is string theory that has apparently resulted in many physics departments becoming adherents that GUT even as it has proven untestable and not subject to falsification. Science does change what is understood as truth even if it requires enough counter-evidence to falsify the existing paradigm to cause a phase change in the accepted correct theory. Evidence from observations (e.g. continental drift) or experiment seems to work best. Logical math constructs, less so.
Fourie: As a physical/environmental scientist who has studied ecosystems for many years, IMO, Johan Fourie’s post is very one-sided to the opposite extreme from that he accuses humanity of teaching. He discusses the positives due to capitalism, but not the negatives. For example, the invention of the Haber-Bosch process that helped feed people in the twentieth century has unintentionally wreaked havoc on the world’s healthy soil supply and the oceanic coastal zone. See e.g. https://animistsramblings.substack.com/p/agriculture-diminishing-returns
Because of that and a global economy that runs on ever-increasing consumption of fossil fuels that have fueled climate change, it seems that we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns that could make life miserable for all (or most) of earth’s inhabitants. We are at a point of exponentially increasing environmental decay and exponential technological “progress” (in quotes because of all the potential negatives). Only time will tell which will win out.
The theory that the brain is a "rediction machine" is a useful one. It accounts for several phenomena including the loss of attention when doing routine things and quickly restoring alertness when the unexpected happens. The concept is that predictable events allow a low "energy state" (e.g. low synapse firing) but unpredicted events create a stome of firing.
In some way this is what is happening with training predicted word/phrase,sentence with LLMs, The most likely next vector is selected, whether it is correct or not. What we don't see is a good response to incorrect "hallucinations" that our brains pick up immediately. What I observe is LLMs prompted that they are incorrect are various resonses from "apologies" and selecting another response or insisting my correction is wrong.
As for the structure of memory. Despite the explanation of those with great memories using the the "memory palace" approach there are examples of subjects (autistic?) with excellent episodic memory, rather like a recording. Experiments with chimps show that recalling objects shown in a snapshot is superior to human recall. What I don't know is if either of these examples reduces the ability to predict events from prior reorganized memories - i.e. that our memory storage approach is a tradeoff for predicting, even visualizing/imagining events in our minds. Does it also help with building analogies. a key trait that a number of cognitive scientists think is important for human intelligence.
Fourie: [Too many] histories do no ignore economics; they just et it wrong. If I had a dinar for every historian that has said that debasing the coinage impoverished people, I could endow a chair.
Koyama: Not really, but I'd like to ask him or someone who knows why the Empire encouraged urban populations with subsidized food? Other empires did not do that right?
Davies: "you’re much better off listening to a generalist or newspaper commentator who will at least hopefully have glanced at the facts rather than trying to do it all on the back of an envelope
Mui: Financial conditions under Clinton were "somewhat looser" because unlike today, the Fed did not have to keep interest rate high enough to absorb federal deficits. And way was that? Because back in those days, [cue Wordsworth :)] Democrats were not afraid of raising tax revenue.
Macroeconomics is not everything, but why let it be a drag?
Public Reason: Let's stipulate the worst motives for Mansfield and Murry. But is the "uncomfortableness" they generate really worth the drama of preventing them from speaking on campus?
At Stanford, a conversation that should have happened was the provost calling in organizers and faculty sponsors and asking them: "Are you inviting Charles Murray because you think he is the most thoughtful and eloquent presenter of his particular social-science point of view, or because you hope it will make African-American students feel like they don't belong here?" Taking the formal mission of the university seriously has benefits—as does suggesting that people who have some other mission than teaching and learning should go do someplace else.
The honest answer would probably be to "own the libs," hopefully to get Murray noisily uninvited or better still invited and not be able to speak because of protests. Frankly I can't see why that culture war skirmish would make African American students feel the "don't belong here."
If "libs" didn't get owned so cheaply, Murry would be out of a job.
Now not allowing TOO much university time and space to pure culture war topics.
[And I am aware that my POV may be influenced by these not being the important issues at the University of Texas in 1960-64. :) It was desegregating the Longhorns football team.]
Tett: I've no opinion on banks rolling over commercial real estate loans unless (and I'm afraid it does) it interferes with shifting the assets into some more useful employment (at probably a lower rent). There is certainly something odd about real estate standing vacant. It clearly has something to do with rents not easily adjusting downward and doesn't THAT have something to do with how commercial real estate is financed?
"The Dunning School"?! Oh come on. Now the writers are just mailing it in.
On one point Raybaud is surely wrong: to first order, and maybe to second order too, it is not the case that science advances "one funeral at a time." It is almost the definition of science that this claim is false, and it is also what is observed empirically. The old guard defend their theories stubbornly so long as it is feasible to do so; but once evidence against them gets strong enough, they all surrender together. The result is more like a phase change than a gradual decay. I remember Penrose describing this process well, with respect to his own ideas about black holes.
c.f. Plancks's Principle regarding paradigm changes with the edath of older scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle. Given that the senior university professors with tenure will die before being replaced, there is a reasobale argument that deaths allow paradigm changes as newer ideas taught by younger scientists replace them. Science is somewhat definitive about correctness than humanities, where different opinions can exist about the same subject. I believe economics is a good example. ;-)
Perhaps a counter-case is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, established by the immense charisma and status of Neils Bohr in spite of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever—and there were always EInsteins, Everetts, and Bohms pointing out possibilities forward that might someday make some kind of sense. Yet the Copenhagen interpretation is still around and still the default...
I am not sure what it this is a counter-case of. That science changes paradigms more readily than humanities? IMO, the true nature of quantum physics has not be demonstrated other than the Copenhagen interpretation has proven extremely robust with maths and every attempt to break it. The many worlds theory has no supporting evidence or any falsification of the Copenhagen interpretation. The same is true of Einstein's interpretation of gravity even though many physicists are trying, so far unsuccessfully, to devise a quantum explanation that works. Our current paradigm change hopeful is string theory that has apparently resulted in many physics departments becoming adherents that GUT even as it has proven untestable and not subject to falsification. Science does change what is understood as truth even if it requires enough counter-evidence to falsify the existing paradigm to cause a phase change in the accepted correct theory. Evidence from observations (e.g. continental drift) or experiment seems to work best. Logical math constructs, less so.
Fourie: As a physical/environmental scientist who has studied ecosystems for many years, IMO, Johan Fourie’s post is very one-sided to the opposite extreme from that he accuses humanity of teaching. He discusses the positives due to capitalism, but not the negatives. For example, the invention of the Haber-Bosch process that helped feed people in the twentieth century has unintentionally wreaked havoc on the world’s healthy soil supply and the oceanic coastal zone. See e.g. https://animistsramblings.substack.com/p/agriculture-diminishing-returns
Because of that and a global economy that runs on ever-increasing consumption of fossil fuels that have fueled climate change, it seems that we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns that could make life miserable for all (or most) of earth’s inhabitants. We are at a point of exponentially increasing environmental decay and exponential technological “progress” (in quotes because of all the potential negatives). Only time will tell which will win out.
Re: Cognition: Kevin Dickinson
The theory that the brain is a "rediction machine" is a useful one. It accounts for several phenomena including the loss of attention when doing routine things and quickly restoring alertness when the unexpected happens. The concept is that predictable events allow a low "energy state" (e.g. low synapse firing) but unpredicted events create a stome of firing.
In some way this is what is happening with training predicted word/phrase,sentence with LLMs, The most likely next vector is selected, whether it is correct or not. What we don't see is a good response to incorrect "hallucinations" that our brains pick up immediately. What I observe is LLMs prompted that they are incorrect are various resonses from "apologies" and selecting another response or insisting my correction is wrong.
As for the structure of memory. Despite the explanation of those with great memories using the the "memory palace" approach there are examples of subjects (autistic?) with excellent episodic memory, rather like a recording. Experiments with chimps show that recalling objects shown in a snapshot is superior to human recall. What I don't know is if either of these examples reduces the ability to predict events from prior reorganized memories - i.e. that our memory storage approach is a tradeoff for predicting, even visualizing/imagining events in our minds. Does it also help with building analogies. a key trait that a number of cognitive scientists think is important for human intelligence.
Fourie: [Too many] histories do no ignore economics; they just et it wrong. If I had a dinar for every historian that has said that debasing the coinage impoverished people, I could endow a chair.
Koyama: Not really, but I'd like to ask him or someone who knows why the Empire encouraged urban populations with subsidized food? Other empires did not do that right?
Davies: "you’re much better off listening to a generalist or newspaper commentator who will at least hopefully have glanced at the facts rather than trying to do it all on the back of an envelope
..."
What newspaper on what planet does Davies read?
Unless by "generalist" he means _me_. :)
Mui: Financial conditions under Clinton were "somewhat looser" because unlike today, the Fed did not have to keep interest rate high enough to absorb federal deficits. And way was that? Because back in those days, [cue Wordsworth :)] Democrats were not afraid of raising tax revenue.
Macroeconomics is not everything, but why let it be a drag?
Public Reason: Let's stipulate the worst motives for Mansfield and Murry. But is the "uncomfortableness" they generate really worth the drama of preventing them from speaking on campus?
"But for Wales, Richard?"
At Stanford, a conversation that should have happened was the provost calling in organizers and faculty sponsors and asking them: "Are you inviting Charles Murray because you think he is the most thoughtful and eloquent presenter of his particular social-science point of view, or because you hope it will make African-American students feel like they don't belong here?" Taking the formal mission of the university seriously has benefits—as does suggesting that people who have some other mission than teaching and learning should go do someplace else.
The honest answer would probably be to "own the libs," hopefully to get Murray noisily uninvited or better still invited and not be able to speak because of protests. Frankly I can't see why that culture war skirmish would make African American students feel the "don't belong here."
If "libs" didn't get owned so cheaply, Murry would be out of a job.
Now not allowing TOO much university time and space to pure culture war topics.
[And I am aware that my POV may be influenced by these not being the important issues at the University of Texas in 1960-64. :) It was desegregating the Longhorns football team.]