Colin McGinn’s “My Honest Views”
I think David Lewis was off his rocker, I think Donald Davidson was far too impressed by elementary logic and decision theory, I think Willard Quine was a mediocre logician with some philosophical side-interests, I think Daniel Dennett never understood philosophy, I think Michael Dummett was a dimwit outside of his narrow specializations, I think P.F. Strawson struggled to understand much of philosophy, I think Gilbert Ryle was a classicist who wanted philosophy gone by any means necessary, I think Gareth Evans had no philosophical depth, I think John Searle was a philosophical lightweight, I think Jerry Fodor had no idea about philosophy and didn’t care, I think Saul Kripke was a mathematician with a passing interest in certain limited areas of philosophy, I think Hilary Putnam was a scientist-linguist who found philosophy incomprehensible, I think Ludwig Wittgenstein was a philosophical ignoramus too arrogant to learn some history, I think Bertrand Russell was only interested in skepticism, I think Gottlob Frege was a middling mathematician with no other philosophical interests, I think the positivists were well-meaning idiots, I think Edmund Husserl had no interest in anything outside his own consciousness, I think Martin Heidegger and John-Paul Sartre were mainly psychological politicians, I think John Austin was a scientifically illiterate language student, I think Noam Chomsky was neither a professional linguist nor a philosopher nor a psychologist but some sort of uneasy combination, I think the vast majority of current philosophers have no idea what philosophy is about and struggle to come to terms with it, I think philosophy has been a shambles since Descartes, I think Plato and Aristotle were philosophical preschoolers, I think no one has ever really grasped the nature of philosophical problems, I think the human brain is a hotbed of bad philosophy (and that is its great glory).
Here is the link, via The Browser. My honest view is that he is worrying too much about other people, and not enough about issues.
Thursday assorted links
India AI Data MCP
The Government of India’s Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation has created an impressive Model Context Protocol (MCP) to connect AI’s to Indian datasets. An AI connected to data via an MCP essentially knows the entire codebook and can make use of the data like an expert. Once connected one can query the data in natural language and quickly create graphs and statistical analysis. I connected Claude to the MCP and created an elegant dashboard with data from India’s Annual Survey of Industries. Check it out.
My excellent Conversation with Joe Studwell
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. The conversation is based around Joe’s new and very good book How Africa Works: Success and Failure in the World’s Last Developmental Frontier. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and Joe explore whether population density actually solves development, which African countries are likely to achieve stable growth, whether Africa has a manufacturing future, why state infrastructure projects decay while farmer-led irrigation thrives, what progress looks like in education and public health, whether charter cities or special economic zones can work, and how permanent Africa’s colonial borders really are. After testing Joe’s optimism about Africa, Tyler shifts back to Asia: what Japan and South Korea will do about depopulation, why industrial policy worked in East Asia but failed in India and Brazil, what went wrong in Thailand, and what Joe will tackle next.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Does Africa have a manufacturing future? Is robotics coming, AI, possibly some reshoring?
STUDWELL: Yes. I believe that Africa does have a manufacturing future.
COWEN: But making what? And at what cost of energy?
STUDWELL: They will start, as everybody does, producing garments, producing textiles, which in certain enclaves is already going on in Madagascar, in Lasutu, in Morocco, and they’ll move on to other things. They’ll start with those things because they are the most labor cost-sensitive products.
Africa is now in a position where — depending on which state you’re looking at, and taking China as a reference point — the cost of labor is now between a half and one-tenth of what it is in China. Factory labor is now around $600 a month at its cheapest. In a country like Ethiopia or Madagascar, it’s $60 or $65 a month. So, it’s a 10th of the cost, and that’s already beginning to have a bit of effect, often with Chinese firms moving production to Africa.
So, I think there is a future for manufacturing. It will depend on the extent to which African governments understand that you don’t really move forward fast for very long without manufacturing, that every developed country — apart from a few petro states and financial centers — has gone through a manufacturing phase of development. It depends on the extent to which African governments engage with that, but some, without doubt, will.
The Ethiopians, for instance, have already attempted to do that. What they’re trying to do has been somewhat derailed by the two-year civil war that took place from 2020, but they’re back on it now, and they’re trying to move forward.
The idea that robotics and AI are going to change the story I personally do not buy, principally for two reasons. One is the cost reason, because whenever people talk about what’s happening with robotics, no one ever talks about the cost of robots. In garmenting, for instance, even a basic robot will cost you in excess of $100,000, and you pay the cost upfront, and you’ve then paid that, whether there’s demand for your products or not. Also, in garmenting and in textiles, robots don’t work very well because they can’t work with material very well. They’re much better at working with solid things.
So, you’ve spent $100,000 for a robot when you can go out in somewhere like Tana in Madagascar and get another skilled — because they’ve been doing it now for 20 years — garmenting employee for $60 or $65 to make the new order that you just got. And if the order doesn’t come through, you can sack them. You see what I’m saying? There’s a point about the cost of robotics.
COWEN: But think of automation more generally — it’s not that expensive. Most countries are de-industrializing. Even South Africa has been de-industrializing for a while, and China maybe has peaked out at industrialization, measured in terms of employment. It’s hard to trust their numbers. But maybe just everywhere is going to deindustrialize, and that will be very bad for Africa.
STUDWELL: I don’t think so. I think South Africa is deindustrializing because the ANC has followed a hyper-liberal approach to economic policy. I don’t think the ANC has ever really understood economic policy, frankly, so South Africa is an outlier in that respect. There are many other states in Africa, whether Nigeria or Ethiopia, which understand they’ve got to have a manufacturing future and intend to pursue one.
Then, as I was saying, the other point is, what people miss is the flexibility with robotics and AI. There’s very limited flexibility with robotic and automated production. When demand goes up, you can’t just stick in more robots, but when demand goes up in a people-operated factory, where the cost of labor is low, you can stick in more people and produce more.
Just one example: during COVID, when everybody was having home deliveries of supermarket goods, the price of a UK firm called Ocado, which runs a supermarket, but was also developing the software and consulting around building blind warehouses went up through the roof, but now it’s down through the floor.
And only last week, Kroger supermarket in the US said, “We’re closing five of these super-modern blind warehouses.” And the reason, fundamentally, is because they lack the flexibility that human labor brings to the job. So, I’m not saying that robots, automation, and AI are not important. They are important. What I am saying is that they are not going to derail a manufacturing future for a number of African countries that aggressively pursue it.
COWEN: But there’re a lot of developing nations around the world — you could look at India, you could look at Pakistan, even Thailand — where manufacturing has not taken off the way one might have wanted. There’re just major forces operating against it. And in the US, manufacturing employment was once 37 percent of the workforce; now it’s 7 percent to 8 percent.
It just seems like it’s swimming upstream for Africa — which again, has quite expensive energy — to think it will do that well. And again, South Africa had very good technology, pretty high state capacity. I don’t see the alternate world state where a wiser ANC would have made that work.
STUDWELL: Well, oddly enough, before the end of Apartheid, the manufacturing performance of South Africa was really not bad at all, with classic industrial policy, quite high levels of protection, and so forth. I think that demand for manufactured goods will continue to be high around the world, and the labor cost will continue to be a prime determinant of where producers go for low value-added goods. So, I think that the opportunity is there for African countries.
COWEN: But say there’re transportation costs internally, energy costs, political order uncertainty. Where’s the place where people really want to put all these manufacturing firms?
Interesting throughout, recommended.
Germany projection of the day
Germany’s population is projected to shrink by nearly 5 per cent within 25 years — a significantly steeper decline than previously forecast, according to an Ifo study.
The German economic think-tank on Tuesday revised its forecast for a 1 per cent population decline by 2050 to nearly 5 per cent — a drop that would leave Germany with its smallest population since 1990. The revision is based on updated figures from the country’s statistical office.
“Demographic change will have significant effects on all areas of the economy and society,” Ifo economist Joachim Ragnitz warned in the study.
Here is more from the FT.
The mainstream view
Multiple studies have either shown that smartphone and social media use among teens has minimal effects on their mental health or none at all. As a 2024 review published by an American Psychological Association journal put it: “There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems.”
And this:
Advocates of bans compare social media to alcohol or tobacco, where the harms are indisputable and the benefits are minimal. But the internet, including social media, is more analogous to books, magazines or television. I may not want my sons watching “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” or reading “Fifty Shades of Grey,” but it would be crazy to ban books and films for kids altogether.
But that is the nature of these social media bans. Australia’s law not only restricted access to platforms such as Instagram and TikTok but also banned kids under 16 from having YouTube, X and Reddit accounts. Even Substack had to modify its practices.
Here is more from the excellent Sam Bowman. And many teens make money through “digital side hustles,” in this day and age that is what a teenage job often means.
Wednesday assorted links
2. Richard Ngo on educational signaling theories.
3. “There is no secular alternative. There has never been one.”
5. Dominicans vs. Franciscans.
7. Is Europe’s problem labor law?
8. Arbitrage in Singaporean aunties? The country is getting more interesting again.
The Cassidy Report on the FDA
Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) released a new report on how to modernize the FDA. It has some good material.
… FDA’s process for reviewing new products can be an unpredictable “black box.” FDA teams can differ greatly in the extent to which they require testing or impose standards that are not calibrated to the relevant risks. The perceived disconnect between the forward leaning rhetoric and thought leadership of senior FDA officials and cautious reviewer practice creates further unpredictability. This uncertainty dampens investment and increases the time it takes for patients to receive new therapies.
Companies report that they face a “reviewer lottery,” where critical questions hinge on the approach of a small number of individuals at FDA. Some FDA review teams are creative and forward-leaning, helping developers design programs and overcome obstacles to get needed products to patients, without cutting corners. FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE), for example, is repeatedly identified as a model for providing predictable yet flexible options for bringing new drugs to cancer patients. OCE is now a dialogue-based regulatory paradigm that has facilitated efforts by academia, industry, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others to develop new cancer therapies and launch innovative programs and pilots like Project Orbis, RealTime Oncology Review.
That’s quite right. In my report with DiMasi and Milne, we show that review times vary markedly within the FDA, across divisions, without clear cause. Put aside the big questions of FDA or no FDA–scaling the practices of the better-performing divisions would likely yield large gains.
Mike Doherty further asks the AI what Alex Tabarrok would think of the Cassidy report. It replies:
Strongest features: It correctly diagnoses FDA as a bottleneck to innovation, emphasizes “least burdensome” evidence, calls for streamlined pathways (505(b)(2)-style for biologics, biosimilar simplification), and worries about U.S. losing early-phase trials to other countries. This is very much in Tabarrok’s wheelhouse: regulation as a hidden tax on innovation and growth.
Weakest features: It rarely quantifies tradeoffs, almost never confronts the “invisible graveyard” of patients who never see therapies because of delay, and treats reforms as marginal tweaks rather than testing fundamentally different regulatory models (e.g., insurance-based approval, private certification, or sunset/experimentation with parallel regimes).
If you imagine this as a draft memo handed to Tabarrok, he’d likely say: “Good directionally; now add 50% more economics, 50% more quantification, and 100% more willingness to experiment with institutional competition.”
Yeah, pretty good.
Addendum: In other FDA news see also Adam Kroetsch on Will Bayesian Statistics Transform Trials?
Addendum 2: FDA has now agreed to review Moderna’s flu vaccine which is good although the course reversal obviously speaks to the unpredictability of the FDA.
A simple test of how immigration really is going
I suggest looking at whether real estate prices in a particular locale have been rising or falling. If immigration is “ruining” a particular city, we would expect homes and other property values in that place to become much cheaper.
Home values have historically served as a strong indicator of the health of a city. Consider Detroit. It was one of the premier American cities in the mid-20th century, but the region lost a lot of its automobile industry to foreign competition, and crime rose precipitously. The city also was poorly managed. The result in real estate markets was a collapse in prices. If anyone asked you to point to quantifiable evidence for the decline in Detroit, it was easy to do so.
Detroit has undergone a renaissance since its nadir. New businesses have opened, crime rates have fallen, and the city feels more lively again. And since that turn of fortune, often dated around the 1990s, Detroit real estate has made a major comeback, putting aside the price collapse of the Great Recession in 2008. Home prices are not a perfect measure of how the city is doing, but they do pick up major and radical trends, both on the downside and on the upside.
The nice thing about market prices is that they show how buyers weigh the benefits of immigration against costs. Say some new immigrants have moved into your community and the quality of the schools has declined somewhat and traffic is modestly worse. At the same time, there are new businesses, the streets feel more lively, and it is easier to get a good local plumber. In the abstract, it is hard to tell which effects might be most important. But individuals, when bidding for homes or deciding to sell, make their own judgments. What happens to the home prices is a reflection of the collective judgments of people with major decisions about their lives on the line.
Of course in most of the Western world, including Malmo, real estate prices are healthy and very often rising. Here is the full Free Press link, by yours truly. The piece of course does cover the usual caveats, such as bubbles and busts, but note NIMBY factors will not alone reverse the basic conclusions.
Liberal AI
Can AI be liberal? In what sense? One answer points to the liberal insistence on freedom of choice, understood as a product of the commitment to personal autonomy and individual dignity. Mill and Hayek are of course defining figures here, emphasizing the epistemic foundations for freedom of choice. “Choice Engines,” powered by AI and authorized or required by law, might promote liberal goals (and in the process, produce significant increases in human welfare). A key reason is that they can simultaneously (1) preserve autonomy, (2) respect dignity, and (3) help people to overcome inadequate information and behavioral biases, which can produce internalities, understood as costs that people impose on their future selves, and also externalities, understood as costs that people impose on others. Different consumers care about different things, of course, which is a reason to insist on a high degree of freedom of choice, even in the presence of internalities and externalities. AI-powered Choice Engines can respect that freedom, not least through personalization. Nonetheless, AI-powered Choice Engines might be enlisted by insufficiently informed or self-interested actors, who might exploit inadequate information or behavioral biases, and thus co5mpromise liberal goals. AI-powered Choice Engines might also be deceptive or manipulative, again compromising liberal goals, and legal safeguards are necessary to reduce the relevant risks. Illiberal or antiliberal AI is not merely imaginable; it is in place. Still, liberal AI is not an oxymoron. It could make life less nasty, less brutish, less short, and less hard – and more free.
The fertility asymptote?
From a recent paper by Sebastian Galiani and Raul A. Sosa:
Fertility rates have fallen below replacement in most countries, fueling predictions of demographic collapse. We show these forecasts overlook a crucial fact: societies are not homogeneous. Using the Bisin–Verdier model of cultural transmission with endogenous fertility and direct socialization, calibrated to U.S. and global data, we find that high-fertility, high-retention groups persist, gain share, and lead the total population to grow. Even if fertility remains below replacement in every country, extinction is unlikely. Simulations imply continued growth with pronounced compositional change, driven especially by religious communities with high fertility. In our ten-generation world calibration, Muslims become the largest tradition.
I am pleased to hear that extinction is unlikely.
Tuesday assorted links
1. The separating equilibrium.
2. Can speed revitalize American manufacturing?
3, Malmo real estate prices are doing fine.
4. AI and economics summer institute at University of Chicago.
5. Why total legal services costs may not fall with AI. Correct working link here.
6. Sylvia Plath in her journals.
7. Stephen Kinsella Substack on the economy of Ireland.
p.s. hbsk!
The Journal for AI Generated Papers
Science should be machine-readable
One of the leading tasks of our time:
We develop a machine-automated approach for extracting results from papers, which we assess via a comprehensive review of the entire eLife corpus. Our method facilitates a direct comparison of machine and peer review, and sheds light on key challenges that must be overcome in order to facilitate AI-assisted science. In particular, the results point the way towards a machine-readable framework for disseminating scientific information. We therefore argue that publication systems should optimize separately for the dissemination of data and results versus the conveying of novel ideas, and the former should be machine-readable.
Here is the paper by A. Sina Booeshagh, Laura Luebbert, and Lior Pachter. Via John Tierney.
Rebuilding our world, with reference to strong AI
When 2012 passed into 2013, we did not have to rebuild our world, not in most countries at least. It sufficed to make adjustments at the margin.
After the Roman Empire fell, parts of Europe had to rebuild their worlds. It took a long time, but they ended up doing pretty well.
After the American Revolution, the newly independent colonies had to rebuild their own world. They did so brutally, but with considerable success.
After WWII, Western Europe had the chance to rebuild its own world, and did a great job.
We moderns are not used to having to rebuild our world.
It is now the case that strong AI is here/coming, and we will have to rebuild our own world. Many of us are terrified at this prospect, others are just extremely pessimistic. It seems so impossible. How are all the new pieces supposed to fit together? Who amongst us can explain that process in a reassuring way?
Yet we have done it many times before. Not always with success, however. After WWI ended, Europe was supposed to rebuild its own world, but they came up with something far worse than what they had before. Nonetheless, in the broader sweep of history world rebuilding projects have had positive expected value.
And so we will rebuilding our world yet again. Or maybe you think we are simply incapable of that.
As this happens, it can be useful to distinguish “criticisms of AI” from “people who cannot imagine that world rebuilding will go well.” A lot of what parades as the former is actually the latter.
In any case, it all will be quite something to witness.