I’d love an estimate from you (or anyone) about the marginal effect on the profession’s “care” (which is what? and how’s it measured?) from having the prize include Nobel’s name vs. not including it.
Since you stand by your statement so strongly, you should have it already, correct?
This is a persistent mythology of western economic history to "cleanwash" the past and "explain" the present inequality (or what was the present until recently)
Think about the components of all those innovations from the past and if they would have been possible (to scale) without violent and forcible extraction of resources from around the globe, incl forced labor.
Think about when GDP was constructed and how, and from which point stuff got counted into it (ie from which point in the production chain it added to a country´s gdp). If you take raw materials X and Y from somewhere, by force and for cheap, then make sth like a out of it and only count that topline, now you have a big gdp, congrats.
Eg even the "US" was not even "settled" (forcible land expansion) until the late 19th or early 20th century. So you have a steady influx of cheap/free land to support a growing population that keeps adding to the "gdp". Lo and behold, soon after this dynamic stopped, financial bubble and bust ensues.
The main lesson for me is that progress and growth are completely separate things/concepts. You can absolutely progress without "growing" (bloating) your gdp, if you change some things. You can absolutely regress while "growing" (bloating) your gdp. Look at "US" today.
Chicken are coming home to roost. This is why first instinct of Trump and his cohorts is now to expand again "US" borders. Go back to extraction to "grow", since they are institutionally and mentally incapable of progress without extraction. More importantly, without "growth" the system as it is will collapse. It behaves like a cancer that has close to killed its host. It´s over, and anyone who can see knows it on some level.
The west didn't get rich from colonizing the world.
It got rich domestically through industrialism. Then the newly rich countries went on to colonize the world, because now they could. If and how much the colonies made them even richer is debatable, but it was probably a net cost on average.
This is one of several insights counter to "common sense" that economists have figured out.
> If and how much the colonies made them even richer is debatable, but it was probably a net cost on average. This is one of several insights counter to "common sense" that economists have figured out.
I haven't heard this before, do you have sources where I could learn more?
Acemoglu has argued that colonialism helped develop European economies:
"Our hypothesis is that Atlantic trade—the
opening of the sea routes to the New World,
Africa, and Asia and the building of colonial
empires—contributed to the process of West
European growth between 1500 and 1850, not
only through direct economic effects, but also
indirectly by inducing fundamental institutional
change."
Aren't natural resources wealth? Isn't forced work wealth? "Stealing" seems like the best word to describe the situation without obfuscating the matter with grander narratives (the kind that might win you the "Nobel prize" for economy, incidentally).
You're implying that the colonial powers got rich by taking natural resources from Africa and forcing Africans to work without pay.
Since you don't offer any evidence for this scenario, I can't really refute it :)
But note that 90% of Africa didn't even get colonized before 1884. That was over a century into the Industrial Revolution era, during which Western Europe had roughly doubled it's population and tripled their GDP.
You could also see it as a double condemnation of colonialism - not just immoral, but an economically useless endeavor.
Looking to the future, I'd prefer colonialism not be considered a lucrative strategy (though the thesis doesn't deny that colonialism was profitable for specific interest groups - just that those groups were a small part of the newly industrializing economies, and that the nation-level balance sheet gained little from their pillaging, compared to the costs of empire-maintenance).
On the one hand my common sense wants to say of course, the more you transform a natural resource into something complex and desirable, the more value you create so yes all this wealth is the product of industrialism but on the other hand... all those natural resources had to come from somewhere no ? It would seem to me that colonialism was an essential part in this wealth creation even if the whole enterprise of getting your hands on those resources were in themselves a net cost
Natural resources are much less important for prosperity than people think.
I won't write an essay about it, but note that (1) Russia and Africa both have enormous natural resources and are very poor, and (2) Hong Kong and Singapore have no natural resources and are very rich.
Let me just add that the colonizing of the Americas in the 1500s was of course unrelated to industrialism emerging centuries later. Much of that was an accident of immunology.
Note that industrialized countries without colonial empires ended up at least as rich as the big European colonial powers.
May be progress is as simple as making energy very cheap, ensuring a diverse manufacturing capability with most efficient methods while making sure 1 or 2 inputs do not bottleneck you.
Larger and bigger powers can control different parts of 'supply chain' (for lack of a better word) and make it difficult to progress without them getting a royalty. In their minds they are justified as they made progress first and others are simply copying their IP
> Think about the components of all those innovations from the past and if they would have been possible (to scale) without violent and forcible extraction of resources from around the globe, incl forced labor.
This is just silly. Everywhere had forced labour, but didn't manage to build what the west did. The African slavers selling their fellow continent-dwellers didn't somehow manage to pick all the people who could build the most advanced things in the world at the time.
Oxford University was founded in 1096, long before what you're describing. This is very strong evidence that the UK has a thousand years of excellent investment in education, which much better explains all the advantages that built its empire, the good bits and bad. Its advances are in part due to the Roman colonisation, which allowed Britain to rediscover things that much more advanced civilisation had discovered 1000 years prior to that founding, and then push on to far greater heights.
There are entire countries that still wouldn't have universities today if left to their own devices. But they would still have slaves, because western powers wouldn't have ended this practice, either through Christianity or, if that didn't work, by force.
Other civilizations had great academic and scientific revolutions, much before Oxfordians did anything of note. Just look at the history of Indian, Chinese, Persian, and Arabic mathematics for a simple example, or Indian linguistic inquiry for another.
The romans did not discover anything the celts had built in the british isles; they largely existed in opposition to them.
> Other civilizations had great academic and scientific revolutions
I didn't say they didn't. The ancient Egyptians built the Pyramids, too. But that doesn't mean Egypt sustained that advantage and developed leading-edge science, values, and technology to the present day. They had a brief moment, and they are today in some ways a very cool country, but, as with most countries, they measure progress as "how far along the tech and culture trees we are compared to the West".
> The romans did not discover anything the celts had built in the british isles; they largely existed in opposition to them.
Maybe you should read my comment again tomorrow, with a clearer head.
I participated in the first batch and am not a shill, look through my comment history.
The dismissive comments here pain me as Ive seen them work hard on this over the last year as they integrated many of our feature requests and built out the platform. I’ve also had time to let the ideas sink in.
You definitely cant hang back and expect some magic ai to do all the work for you.
I also cant say „you will definitely benefit“ since everybody is difft.
But i can honestly say it‘s the real deal, no ifs and buts.
As someone who participated in the first cohort but is not part of their team, i would say it’s a programming environment for AI assisted literate programming.
It’s like an intelligent notebook. That means you could use this for many different things but at least to me the high order bit is „AI assisted literate programming“
Considering how the folks at answer.ai have been using (successive versions of) it to build this tool itself and judging by student projects and showcases, it definitely goes beyond exploratory. You can build big stuff with it.
Personally I’m using it to learn the whole fastai ecosystem.
Let me see.
Fastmail?
The first LLM which actually used transfer learning for NLP?
One of the most wildly useful and successful deep learning courses [available for free]?
A big chunk of what is Kaggle?
Can you provide some links? Because I see that Eric Ries has a resume on Wikipedia that mainly highlights his book, "The Lean Startup." I see that he was adjacent to some dot-com-bubble-era startups. I see he has a handsome photo. I don't see where he actually founded a successful startup; if anything, reading his resume makes me think he stopped coding and discovered a more successful career in selling promises to young people that his methodologies would turn them into successful entrepreneurs. To me, that does sound like a grift. I mean, why bother doing the actual work of starting a startup, coding and solving lots of problems, when you can present yourself as a guru in how startups work, right? Smart. Also, shady.
Apparently he also runs a stock exchange with two companies on it. And a lot of "core principles". Lol. Speaking as someone who coded and ran the first Bitcoin casino and was around a lot of early crypto bullshit in the nascent years of BTC when lots of dudes like this had crazy plans to commoditize it all sorts of ways, this is juvenile boiler room stuff that would have been laughed out of the Bitcoin Business Association Skype chat in 2010. (And yes, dread pirate roberts was there for a sec, and the general level of dialog was a far sight more intelligent than this dreck).
I got hell-banned here for criticizing PG for running this very site basically to achieve the same grift - to form a cult of young people who'd worship him in exchange for pie in the sky promises that they would become successful startup founders. But to be fair, PG has both actual experience and a ton of investment capital to prove it, so his cult followers have at least some chance of receiving an investment (or a gift, if you think kissing his ass is the essential requirement) that will catapult them into another echelon.
These guys are just living the mantra of "fake it til you make it." This reminds me of the $500 I spent when I turned 21 to take a bartending class for two weeks. Loads of fun. End result: There was one job on their board for graduees, for a bar that had been closed for a couple years. Turned out the best way to become a bartender was to learn on the job.
Turned out that was also the best way to become a software engineer.
the next mac pro (presumably next mar/apr) is the first that comes a full 3-year product cycle after ai hype started.
therefore I expect that mac pro (and in similar vein mac studio) will be repositioned as ai/ml dev machine, with apple leaning into their lucky strike of UMA fit with modern requirements.
my bet is m5 extreme exclusive to mac pro and 1 tb possibly even 2 tb ram, and mac studio limited to m5 ultra and 1 tb ram on the high ends.
but thats not based on rumors or "news" of any sort, just from logic extrapolated if i were in apple shoes
I like how everybody thinks this applies to others and they should change.
When in fact this entire genre should be read and addressed exclusively for oneself.
It reminds me how I was passionately discussing sth like this with a (former) friend and it seemed we agreed on the principles. When suddenly through some offhand remakr or turn of phrase it turned out he was thinking of others while I was thinking of myself
Meaning, he thought how easily others were misled (naturally, he himself was perfectly immune, his worldview correct) while I was talking about how I needed to protect myself from being seduced by agreeable nonsense.
Again, this genre applies to the reader, it is not a lecture material for you.
We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
What we can do is short or bet against them if we are so convinced that we are right. Place your bets and stick to yourself. If you are as right as you are convinced, you should do well over time. Physical and economic reality >> fantasy and cope.
> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
Assessing other peoples’ beliefs and ideas is, in my experience, one of the best ways to stay sane and learn. Ideas are ultimately independent of the people that hold them. I feel like it is people with unfounded ideas (religions, historically) that try mightily to stop other people from critically assessing them.
> Ideas are ultimately independent of the people that hold them
That's a nice thing to believe. I disagree.
The difference between good people and bad people literally is the things they believe. Nazis aren't born evil, they are made evil by naziism. Its not only OK, it's necessary to your survival to judge them by that metric.
> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
A kinder way to say "judging" is perhaps discrimination. As humans we must discriminate between the good and bad opinions of others, and even good and bad people, or we are doomed.
If you were to learn only from your own mistakes, or try to pretend that there is no such thing as a bad person, you would live a short and brutal life of victomhood.
> We have no business judging others`s beliefs when we have enough trouble keeping our own sane.
I agree with you except for this part here, because what other people believe can, and does, materially impact you when they vote. There's an incentive to try and influence others' beliefs when they're harmful to you or your communities.
Sure but then it also pays to be clear what you are doing: It it not about "truth" or epistemology but about influence/propaganda/persuasion/pick your own euphemism.
And the literature on this is completely difft and, more to the point, vastly more effective than the one on philosophy of science or striving for truth.
Not saying one is better than the other. My point is only those are difft and Sagan is not a good guide to make masses of people vote or act how you want.
> What we can do is short or bet against them if we are so convinced that we are right. Place your bets and stick to yourself. If you are as right as you are convinced, you should do well over time. Physical and economic reality >> fantasy and cope.
In a world with bad faith & ill-informed missionaries (meme-ssionaries?) this is an inadequate political/societal perspective. We should all have the humility to be wrong but the conviction of our current beliefs and tomes that represent them
