Sunday assorted links
3. Dead brains and the piano??
4. “A real contribution of AI is showing the critical weaknesses of humans and human structures.” But can we take it?
5. When did the Chinese reach New Zealand? (speculative)
7. “you have no idea how fast the world will accelerate AI progress if a world war began” — no major war (in addition to the status quo) would be one excellent move in the direction of AI (and other) safety.
Muse
It is excellent. It has one of the best user interfaces I have seen on any product. The model is good and the speed and clarity exemplary. It integrates with your calendar and email, if that is want you want, very easily and smoothly. It all feels very…American.
Kudos to the team!
Empathy gaps
I observed, for example, that when I got an invitation to travel to give a talk in a different time zone, it mattered what time zone I was in when I got the invitation. if well rested, in my home time zone, I would think, No big deal, about making a long trip and would likely accept. However, if I was jet-lagged in a different time zone when the invitation came in, and in reach with the misery of travel, I would be far more likely to decline.
…Perhaps you’ve noticed when taking a long-haul flight that waiting for a connecting flight feels much worse if your layover is close to your final destination.
That is from the new and very stimulating The Opposite of Happiness: How Bad Feelings Make and Break Us, by George Loewenstein. A very Smithian book I might add. Reading this book, one also wonders if the researchers who do behavioral economics are more depressed than average? (“I’ve met many depressive characters in my life, but one of the most reliably miserable people I’ve ever known is my friend and collaborator Matthew Rabin.”)
UK productivity higher than we had thought
UK productivity rose at almost twice the pace previously estimated in the decade after the 2008 global financial crisis, according to new official figures that make Britain look much less of an international outlier.
Output per hour worked, the main measure of labour productivity, grew by an average of 1.3 per cent per year between 2009 and 2019, the Office for National Statistics said on Thursday. The ONS had previously estimated average annual growth of 0.7 per cent over the period.
The figure is based on a new “component-based” methodology that has already been adopted by many other national statistics institutes. It draws on a range of data sources to improve the ONS’s count of both the number of workers contributing to UK output and the number of hours worked.
Here is more from Delphine Strauss at the FT.
The polity that is Singapore
…this month, Singapore launched a scheme promising actual cash to citizens as a reward for logging reading time on a government website.
It’s unlikely to make you megabucks – you have to rack up 50 reading sessions of at least 15 minutes to earn one Singapore dollar (£0.59), with only one logged session allowed per day. But behavioural scientists and psychologists told the Guardian such a scheme could still help boost a habit in precipitous decline…
We all know reading has long-term benefits, but a key element of the Singapore scheme hinges on introducing a short-term reward for the activity, mimicking the immediate dopamine hit of scrolling. In fact, the “gamified” element may be “smarter” than the financial reward offered, says Patrick Taylor, director of education at the Behavioural Insights Team (which originated in David Cameron’s Cabinet Office, also known as the “nudge unit”). “Having a manageable 15-minute daily goal, built around existing routines like commuting or bedtime, with streaks and tracking to keep progress visible” are the aspects that could make the scheme a success, he says.
Here is the full article.
Saturday assorted links
The Age of Wonders and Terrors
Scott Aaranson, theoretical computer scientist writes:
My position on AI is merely the conservative, skeptical position of 2006, updated with intellectual honesty for the reality of late 2026. And that position, if you need me to spell it out, is as follows:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIt seems to me that the Singularity has already started; it’s just wildly unevenly distributed. Yes, I still unload the dishwasher and clip my toenails. On the other hand, in whatever years I have left, I don’t expect that I’ll ever again prove a theorem because I’m actually needed to prove it. If I do, it will only be for my or others’ enjoyment or edification.
The test is this: if we took the news of these past few weeks and sent it back in time twenty years, would I agree that it looked like the beginning of an AI Singularity? The intellectually honest answer is: yes, absolutely. But then that’s all we need. No backsies.
I feel like it would be healthy for everyone to stop grinding their ideological axes, their sentiments about Dario Amodei or Sam Altman, for long enough simply to acknowledge that the wonders and terrors are here. They couldn’t be here more clearly if the sky had turned reddish-orange like in the Matrix movies.
It’s here clearly enough that, when I put my kids to sleep at night, I now feel it in the pit of my stomach: what sort of future can they possibly have? What could they learn today that could possibly be relevant to that future? (Yesterday, my 13-year-old daughter joked unprompted that, if she wants to become a mathematician, it now looks like she has maybe two more weeks.) Certainly when my grad students want to discuss what sort of careers might await them on graduation, I no longer have any clue what to tell them.
…For anyone who says AI doom sounds like an apocalyptic religion, that the rationalists/Singulatarians seem like a Bay Area cult, that Eliezer Yudkowsky gives off the vibes of a messianic prophet: yes, yes, and yes. But crucially, today you’re no longer being asked to believe in arguments and extrapolations, but only in the front-page news. Accepting the reality of the coming machine god after it’s solved Navier-Stokes and dozens of other longstanding open math problems (while dramatically ramping up in capability every month), is sort of like accepting Jesus after he’s returned to earth on the gleaming cloud. It’s the epistemic bare minimum.
Yes, there’s still enormous uncertainty about what the rest of our lives will look like, but as far as I can tell, there’s no longer any real uncertainty that it’ll all mostly revolve around AI, and the extent to which we succeed or fail at directing its power toward human flourishing.
By any accounting that doesn’t stack the deck, Eliezer Yudkowsky was right about what the greatest challenge facing civilization in our lifetimes was going to be, and you and I were wrong about it. Why I was wrong is a question I’ll ask myself every day in whatever time remains. But, you know, at least I updated once the prophesied wonders and terrors actually started arriving! If you haven’t done likewise, why haven’t you?
Internet diffusion and religious decline?
Using a panel of 81 countries across six World Values Survey waves (1990–2022), we examine whether growth in internet diffusion is associated with religious decline. We construct a six-item composite religiosity index, align annual macro series to wave periods, and estimate country fixed-effects models with one-wave lags and a broad set of modernization, demographic, welfare-state, and cultural controls. We also estimate models separately for individual dimensions of religiosity. Across specifications, lagged internet penetration is negatively associated with religiosity within countries over time. These results remain robust under period dummies and in models estimated without lags, although reverse-ordering tests indicate that prior religiosity can also predict later internet use. Associations are strongest for denominational belonging and self-identification as a religious person. Overall, internet diffusion emerges as a robust macro-level correlate of within-country religious decline.
Here is the full article by Miran Lavrič and Tibor Rutar. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Emergent Ventures India, 19th cohort
Asit Singh, founder of Syngi, received his grant to develop sub-angstrom optical MEMS sensors for next-generation semiconductor lithography.
Rishabh received his grant to build a platform for real-time updates from Delhi courts, making judicial activity easier to track and understand.
Hari and Naveen received their grant for Archgen AI, an agentic ecosystem connecting legacy EDA tools with AI workflows for semiconductor chip design.
Shubh, 18, received his grant to scale robotics using world models.
Sarthak Ahuja received his grant for Hypertensight, a smartphone-based system for detecting hypertensive retinopathy, now deployed in over 18 Indian villages. His project was also published in the International Journal of Computer Science and Engineering in 2024.
Michaela Talwar, received her grant for AltShows.com, an artist-run ticketing and discovery platform for India’s alternative arts ecosystem.
Avyukt Jindal, 16, received his grant to develop a nonlinear operator framework and pursue related work in condensed matter and other fields.
Anirudh Anilkumar, 29, and AV Surya Vardhan, 26, received their grant for Fe-rry, developing IoT-enabled modular point-of-care diagnostics for blood testing anywhere.
Bhanvi Kumar, a fourth-year Biotechnology and Biochemical Engineering undergraduate at IIT Kharagpur, received her grant to study cellular reprogramming and cancer cell-state transitions.
Samanvya Hooda received his grant for nuclear strategy research in the Indo-Pacific using Mandarin sources and quantitative methods.
Pradyumn Chaudhary received his grant to build a low-cost, customizable augmented-reality prototype for practical use.
Jay Handa, 16, received his grant to build SMAC (Swing Match AI for Coaches), an AI-powered golf swing analysis platform for coaches.
Sajeeva Ratnam Nepala, 28, founder of Helen Bikes, received his grant to develop a series-hybrid pedal system for the first fully electric hubless bicycle.
Hitendra Singh, cofounder of Spantrik, received his grant to develop reusable rockets, including the Leapfrogger demonstrator; he has built and flown over 100 high-powered rockets.
Avi Mohan Kumar Shuklaa, 17, received his grant for a solar-powered AI elephant deterrent using seismic and radar sensor fusion, already field-deployed in Jharkhand.
Surya Uthkarsha, 14, received his grant for Flake AI, infrastructure that converts websites into editable designs and reflects changes in the underlying codebase.
Kritarth Agrawal received his grant for Sakshya, an AI-powered document-intelligence platform for India’s compliance and regulatory ecosystem.
Tejas Pugalia, 13, received his grant to advance his research on the Ramanujan-tau function and prepare for the International Mathematical Olympiad.
Arnav, 17, from Navi Mumbai, received his grant to build a $200 diagnostic pen intended as an alternative to a $3,000 Parkinson’s scan.
Arjan Chaudhary, 15, received his grant for GGameChamps, which structures competitive-gameplay data for analytics and AI use.
Satadru Chakrabarty, Ph.D., received his grant to develop an affordable multiplexed point-of-care diagnostic using de novo antibodies for liver-function testing in rural India.
Varun Bajpai received his grant for the Biological Data Network (BDN-04), a bio-integrated communication architecture exploring human muscle tissue for data transmission.
Semil Vaghasiya, 24, received his grant to develop sensor-free, 3D-printed hoof pads that use wear-deformation to predict equine injuries.
Kanukant Om Gupta and Mansi Gupta received their grant for Clearquik, to make customs clearance in India simpler, more transparent, and legitimate.
Parth Anand, 15, received his grant for research on temporal hallucinations in large language models across Western and non-Western domains. His paper was accepted for an oral presentation by the Society for Study for Artificial Intelligence and Simulation Behaviour XTAI symposium.
Shadman Sakib received his grant for youth development, communication, practical career guidance, and accessible learning initiatives in Bangladesh; his content reaches over 160,000 subscribers.
Sk Reezaal Arafat, 16, received his grant for Project SATARK, a decentralized agricultural fire-interception grid combining AI, IoT sensors, and a local response network in rural West Bengal.
Manan Gupta received his grant for Artemis, a proactive AI layer that lets users control their digital life through a phone call.
Srijal Dutta received his grant for ZSMC Co., an independent research initiative working across emerging technologies and engineering.
Those unfamiliar with Emergent Ventures can learn more here and here. The EV India announcement is here. More about the winners of EV India second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth , sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth cohorts. To apply for EV India, use the EV application, click the “Apply Now” button and select India from the “My Project Will Affect” drop-down menu.
And here is Nabeel’s AI engine for other EV winners. Here are the other EV cohorts.
If you are interested in supporting the India tranche of Emergent Ventures, please write to me or to Shruti at [email protected].
Scott Beaulier interviews me, in part about Wyoming
Friday assorted links
1. Gender differences in financial information processing.
2. Urban harassment of women in India.
3. The making of Roger Scruton?
4. Astra vs. Enigma.
6. Dan Ariely update. And running for office in Israel.
7. A more sober look at the HuggingFace incident (WSJ).
Reimagining research papers as interactive and reliable AI agents
That is a new Nature paper by Jiacheng Miao, Joe R. Davis, Yaohui Zhang, Jonathan K. Pritchard, and James Zou. Here goes:
Here we introduce Paper2Agent, an automated framework that converts research papers into artificial intelligence (AI) agents. Paper2Agent transforms research output from passive artefacts into active systems that accelerate use and discovery. Conventional research papers require readers to understand and adapt the paper’s code, data and methods to their work, creating barriers to dissemination and reuse. Paper2Agent addresses this challenge by converting a paper into an AI agent that functions as a virtual corresponding author, exposing its manuscript, supplementary materials, datasets, code and workflows as active, agent-native knowledge rather than static text. It analyses the paper and codebase using multiple agents to construct a model context protocol (MCP) server, then generates and runs tests to refine and increase robustness of the MCP. These paper MCPs can be connected to a chat agent (such as Claude Code) to carry out complex scientific queries through natural language while invoking tools and workflows from the paper. We demonstrate Paper2Agent’s effectiveness through case studies. Paper2Agent created an agent that leveraged AlphaGenome1 to interpret genomic variants and agents based on Scanpy2 and TISSUE (transcript imputation with spatial single-cell uncertainty estimation)3 to conduct single-cell and spatial transcriptomics analyses. We validate that these agents reproduce the results of the original papers and carry out novel user queries. Paper2Agent created multiple agents that collaborate to prioritize a causal gene for psoriasis. By turning static papers into interactive AI agents, Paper2Agent introduces a paradigm for knowledge dissemination and a collaborative ecosystem of AI co-scientists.
As I have been saying for a while now, there is much more of this coming down the pike. Via Charles Klingman.
Why Papua New Guinea is so interesting
And this leads to the most interesting part of this story: how the highlanders were so isolated for so long.
I want to acknowledge that the highlanders were not completely, hermetically sealed off from the outside world – it’s just that knowledge of outside world never actually made it to them or vice versa.
Over time, a few goods did make their way up to the highlands: pigs, about 3,000 years ago; the sweet potato, which is South American and arrived about 300 to 400 years ago; and tobacco, also American, which came the same way.
The journey the sweet potato and tobacco took to get there is a good example of how this all worked without transmitting further information. The Spanish and Portuguese brought both plants to the spice islands (in what is now Indonesia), just off the western tip of New Guinea, in the 1500s. The sultanates had been trading with the western tip of the coastal region of New Guinea for centuries. So the plants crossed over and started moving east along the coast and up into the interior. Beyond that point, there were no merchants. But when a woman married into the next clan over, she took cuttings from her family’s garden with her. Each new family then planted the same, saw that it worked, and passed it on. At that pace the sweet potato crossed the highlands in a century or two, with nobody knowing where it came from beyond the tribe beside them.
And what fascinates me is that even with the highlands as sealed off as they were, such significant goods still got in. Sweet potatoes allowed a population explosion in the highlands: they give far more calories per acre, and pigs can live off them. So in a 10,000 year sealed off universe, after the invention of agriculture, the biggest change to highland life happened in the last 500 years, which I guess isn’t a coincidence, as the sweet potato got there through the same structural forces that later brought the Australians.
Here is much more from Daniel Frank, fascinating throughout.
Thursday assorted links
1. An American at Brazil’s largest rodeo.
2. Ingeborg Bachmann centenary.
3. “Huawei Technologies Co. predicted on Wednesday that global computing demand will surge 100,000-fold by 2035, with AI agents generating over 90% of network traffic.” And a report from someone who has done AI diplomacy with China (NYT).
4. “US Gov Federal Register use distilled Qwen models in their search mode.”
Pandemic Preparation is AI Safety
I am not a big fan of the “now more than ever” post, which interprets recent events to support—surprise!—something the writer already believed. And yet…is it not obvious that AI risk increases the value of pandemic preparation?
If COVID began with a laboratory leak—plausible, though unproven—then a research accident has already killed millions. Whatever its origin, COVID demonstrated the scale of the potential damage. AI surely increases pandemic risks. If you have ever used AI to fix your washing machine, you understand the difference between reading a manual and having a tutor by your side helping to troubleshoot each problem. The same distinction matters for biological research at the laboratory bench.
Anthropic’s threat report documents five cases of researchers using its models in ways that “could support biological weapons development.” These included military-linked virus research and plans for work on pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential. Did the researchers intend to build weapons? We don’t know. But some users circumvented access controls and concealed sensitive aspects of their research.
Some safeguards appear to have worked but we don’t know the base rate. And what will happen with open-weight models and AIs not under the control of a large corporation? The safeguards also burden legitimate researchers. We should accept that AI will magnify the power of small groups, ill-intentioned or not.
Of course, AI can accelerate vaccines and treatments too. But faster science does not automatically mean faster defense. Turning discoveries into deployed vaccines and treatments requires institutions that can act quickly. We should not assume those institutions will keep pace with the technology.
That makes the recommendations in my 2025 paper, Pandemic Preparation Without Romance, more urgent (surprise!): wastewater surveillance; prediction markets; pre-developed vaccine libraries; human challenge trials planned in advance; a Pandemic Trust Fund; and temporary Operation Warp Speed–style public–private partnerships.
My paper argues that pandemic policy should not depend on unusually farsighted or wise politicians. Public tripwires and banked resources are what you build when you don’t trust the authorities to move quickly in a crisis hence the value of ideas like wastewater surveillance, vaccine libraries, and ready challenge-trial protocols. None of these technologies is highly expensive nor do they require much in the way of continued investment and attention, hence pandemic preparation without romance.