Forgive the informality, but the medium seems to require it. I am very struck by your emphasis on the importance of the "Corporate Research Laboratory". My cursory understanding is that the great god 'Shareholder Returns' had pretty much killed these off by the 1990's. Some would argue that they were replaced by venture capital. It strikes me however, that this is not a one for one replacement, even if it is dollar for dollar. A corporate research laboratory has institutional memory. It looks for things that might be useful and develops those that appear promising. Venture capital by contrast invests in silos. This idea. This company. Make or break. It may well be more "efficient" from a financial perspective. I wonder however, if it is not much less likely to promote the broad productivity improvements that you write of.
It's complicated. Take pharma as an example. Much (most?) of the research is conducted by the public sector or smallish commercial labs, the former working for grants and the latter working for a lottery ticket. (One of them often morphs into another.) Their work is then licensed by Big Pharma, which specializes in drug trials, marketing, and rent extraction. In a sense, the "corporate research laboratory" remains, but is substantially outsourced.
If you look at the labs and the research that led to broad productivity improvements, you'll see AT&T, IBM and Xerox as major contributors. All three created their labs to defuse anti-trust complaints with varying degrees of success. Those labs were funded with monopoly profits that otherwise would have gone to the shareholders and high ranking executives, but were instead extorted by the government as part of a public relations effort. Those labs did help the company, but the broad productivity improvements were a result of the corporate management's failure to exploit the research, usually because that broad change and increased productivity would lessen the value of their monopoly.
This kind of article misses the actual danger of AI. It's not with AI itself. It's about people and institutions using it as an excuse to do bad things. It's about the "computer told me to do that" excuse. We already have that with individuals, corporations and governments seduced and enabled by their adopted ideologies. AI just offers new opportunities.
I am, in a certain sense, glad to see the Fallows article, since it's a good one and says some things that need to be said (again), given the fact that Pro Publica is still stuck in damage control and not interested in addressing whatever structural problem is responsible for this situation. It has been a valuable resource, and I hope it can continue to be one.
You and Quiggin puzzle me. Social Democrats are not socialists or communists. That's why it's called Social Democracy. Social Democracy is a capitalist system, having private property and limited government control of the economy. It's a mixed economy and welfare state system. That's what we have. What neoliberalism can only mean in the real world is the group of people who developed a totally bullshit agenda to influence the government and a lot of the public to help them advance their special interests. All the talk about libertarianism and classical liberalism from these people was kabuki on steroids. It sounded good by seeming to advocate more choice, etc. These people are the people who were buying insurance from the government to protect them in a major economic crisis. All of this was clear in the Savings and Loan debacle. They did not care about moral hazard at all. They did talk about it all the time to fool people, which they did. This group of people are not Cato scholars, but they will tell you they are. Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. At least now, with Trump, this should be obvious even to the visually impaired. The morality talk and values talk was total bs. But you two are doing the same thing, trying to sound like real radicals when you aren't. But if you don't drop the real leftist face, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
Perhaps much of it is that we cannot understand why neoliberalism was so appealing, and are thrashing around trying to figure out why so many people succumbed (and wsuccumb) to it?
My own view is that it was a rhetorical movement, developed to sound impressive, incisive, etc. . Take me. I went to an awful high school in Hanford, California. I wasn't prepared to come to Cal, but I did, and then survived a hellish freshman year. There is no doubt I was given a hand up to come to Cal. Now, to me, this chance was a good thing. If I would have failed, I would gone back to the local community college. Somehow, if you help a black student , the black student will be traumatized by having to go back to community college. The black student isn't ready. Neither was I, but some students, like me, will make it. Some will be blacks and Chicanos. Now a perfectly sensible and decent attempt to help students less prepared for college go to colleges that have enormous advantages to farm country students from the first day, is slandered by one of the most asinine responses ever put forth. And it worked to a shocking degree. Instead of saying what they meant, namely we don't want to give special help to Blacks, they developed a bs viewpoint totally focused on sounding plausible to the addled by bigotry. Plus, it fails their test of not being perfect when they don't like it. People who will go crazy over a study based on nothing because they like it will hold their ideological opponents to a standard beyond certainty. The game was to come up with bullshit and hold to it no matter how idiotic . It worked by making crass self-interest sound generous.
When I applied to Harvard, my teachers said in their recommendations, that, although a hayseed, we think he can handle Harvard. I didn't get in, nor to Stanford. I did get into Cal. I wanted to apply to more colleges, but I couldn't afford it. College was expensive to apply to. One more thing I never expected.
Dear Brad,
Forgive the informality, but the medium seems to require it. I am very struck by your emphasis on the importance of the "Corporate Research Laboratory". My cursory understanding is that the great god 'Shareholder Returns' had pretty much killed these off by the 1990's. Some would argue that they were replaced by venture capital. It strikes me however, that this is not a one for one replacement, even if it is dollar for dollar. A corporate research laboratory has institutional memory. It looks for things that might be useful and develops those that appear promising. Venture capital by contrast invests in silos. This idea. This company. Make or break. It may well be more "efficient" from a financial perspective. I wonder however, if it is not much less likely to promote the broad productivity improvements that you write of.
Best regards,
Grenville
It's complicated. Take pharma as an example. Much (most?) of the research is conducted by the public sector or smallish commercial labs, the former working for grants and the latter working for a lottery ticket. (One of them often morphs into another.) Their work is then licensed by Big Pharma, which specializes in drug trials, marketing, and rent extraction. In a sense, the "corporate research laboratory" remains, but is substantially outsourced.
A combination of government & “research studios”… It is very complex...
If you look at the labs and the research that led to broad productivity improvements, you'll see AT&T, IBM and Xerox as major contributors. All three created their labs to defuse anti-trust complaints with varying degrees of success. Those labs were funded with monopoly profits that otherwise would have gone to the shareholders and high ranking executives, but were instead extorted by the government as part of a public relations effort. Those labs did help the company, but the broad productivity improvements were a result of the corporate management's failure to exploit the research, usually because that broad change and increased productivity would lessen the value of their monopoly.
P.S. This is still topical (long read):
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6823
AI and such. Missed it at the time.
Thx...
This kind of article misses the actual danger of AI. It's not with AI itself. It's about people and institutions using it as an excuse to do bad things. It's about the "computer told me to do that" excuse. We already have that with individuals, corporations and governments seduced and enabled by their adopted ideologies. AI just offers new opportunities.
The rest of it is just hype and window dressing.
I am, in a certain sense, glad to see the Fallows article, since it's a good one and says some things that need to be said (again), given the fact that Pro Publica is still stuck in damage control and not interested in addressing whatever structural problem is responsible for this situation. It has been a valuable resource, and I hope it can continue to be one.
Yes. It would be really sad...
You and Quiggin puzzle me. Social Democrats are not socialists or communists. That's why it's called Social Democracy. Social Democracy is a capitalist system, having private property and limited government control of the economy. It's a mixed economy and welfare state system. That's what we have. What neoliberalism can only mean in the real world is the group of people who developed a totally bullshit agenda to influence the government and a lot of the public to help them advance their special interests. All the talk about libertarianism and classical liberalism from these people was kabuki on steroids. It sounded good by seeming to advocate more choice, etc. These people are the people who were buying insurance from the government to protect them in a major economic crisis. All of this was clear in the Savings and Loan debacle. They did not care about moral hazard at all. They did talk about it all the time to fool people, which they did. This group of people are not Cato scholars, but they will tell you they are. Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. At least now, with Trump, this should be obvious even to the visually impaired. The morality talk and values talk was total bs. But you two are doing the same thing, trying to sound like real radicals when you aren't. But if you don't drop the real leftist face, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
Perhaps much of it is that we cannot understand why neoliberalism was so appealing, and are thrashing around trying to figure out why so many people succumbed (and wsuccumb) to it?
My own view is that it was a rhetorical movement, developed to sound impressive, incisive, etc. . Take me. I went to an awful high school in Hanford, California. I wasn't prepared to come to Cal, but I did, and then survived a hellish freshman year. There is no doubt I was given a hand up to come to Cal. Now, to me, this chance was a good thing. If I would have failed, I would gone back to the local community college. Somehow, if you help a black student , the black student will be traumatized by having to go back to community college. The black student isn't ready. Neither was I, but some students, like me, will make it. Some will be blacks and Chicanos. Now a perfectly sensible and decent attempt to help students less prepared for college go to colleges that have enormous advantages to farm country students from the first day, is slandered by one of the most asinine responses ever put forth. And it worked to a shocking degree. Instead of saying what they meant, namely we don't want to give special help to Blacks, they developed a bs viewpoint totally focused on sounding plausible to the addled by bigotry. Plus, it fails their test of not being perfect when they don't like it. People who will go crazy over a study based on nothing because they like it will hold their ideological opponents to a standard beyond certainty. The game was to come up with bullshit and hold to it no matter how idiotic . It worked by making crass self-interest sound generous.
There is substantial evidence that students given the opportunity to level up to a more demanding program on average do very well...
When I applied to Harvard, my teachers said in their recommendations, that, although a hayseed, we think he can handle Harvard. I didn't get in, nor to Stanford. I did get into Cal. I wanted to apply to more colleges, but I couldn't afford it. College was expensive to apply to. One more thing I never expected.