Matt Ridley writes with his usual deep insightfulness about innovation. Three slices:
There is a paradox at the heart of innovation that I have yet to resolve in my own mind. Looking backwards, innovation looks inevitable and therefore predictable: once you invent the drone, warfare changes; once you invent the internet, social media arrives; once you invent electricity, the light bulb is unavoidable. Looking forwards, however, nobody sees these things coming.
…..
This unpredictability causes some very clever people to say some very stupid things when lured into speaking about the future. Talk of nuclear energy was “moonshine”, said Ernest Rutherford, the man who split the atom, in 1933. “There is no reason anyone would need a computer in their own home,” wrote Ken Olsen, the founder and chairman of the most successful computer company of the time, Digital Equipment Corporation, in 1977. “By 2005 or so it will become clear that the Internet’s effect on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s,” wrote the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman in 1998. “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance,” said Steve Ballmer of Microsoft in 2007.
This is why I insist there is no such thing as an expert on the future and “modellers” who pretend otherwise are often little better than those who practised “haruspicy” – interpreting the entrails of chickens. Complex dynamic systems like the economy, the weather or an epidemic just are not susceptible to anything resembling foresight, however sophisticated the mathematics that go into the models. In his 20-year study of expert predictions in economics, Philip Tetlock showed that the average expert was no better at foretelling what will happen in the future “than a dart-throwing chimpanzee”.
…..
Anyway, as I say, I still find it hard to reconcile the unpredictability of the future with the inevitability of innovations that follow certain inventions. One way to resolve this paradox, following Friedrich Hayek, is to remember that knowledge is dispersed throughout society – held as much between and among our heads as inside them. The wisdom of crowds decides when and how to apply a new technology and is far wiser than me, you or Ernest Rutherford.
Another solution is to invoke what I call Amara’s hype cycle. Roy Amara was a computer scientist in Silicon Valley in the 1960s. He was almost certainly not the first person who said this, but he was one of the clearest: that we underestimate the impact of a new technology in the long run but we overestimate it in the short run. That is why we are often disappointed by the early impacts of an invention (Krugman and the internet, for instance) but taken by surprise later. To put it in more technical terms, the adoption and development of an innovation is non-linear. It starts slowly, then takes off suddenly. That is inherently hard to forecast.
The Editorial Board of the Washington Post warns against the hysterical warnings about AI. Two slices:
These warnings have received outsize attention. Who can blame the public, already uncertain about the technology’s impact on their lives, for taking them seriously?
The forecasts are concerning, but they merit a certain skepticism. People working at the frontier may know more than most about what today’s models can do. But that does not give them special knowledge of what machines that do not yet exist will someday become — or how society will adapt to the challenge.
…..
Silicon Valley’s prophets of doom want government to fear AI enough to prohibit an unknowable future. The better answer is to make AI companies fear the consequences of behaving recklessly in the present.
In short, the latest escalation of the pointless trade war with Canada means that Americans will no longer have the option of paying a hefty tax for the opportunity to import Canadian beer, wine, or liquor. That choice has now been revoked by the whim of one man—who is determined to substitute his own preferences for the free will of American businesses and consumers, the vast majority of whom do not quarrel with their trading partners on the northern side of the border.
Jonah Goldberg makes clear that J.D. Vance has almost nothing of relevance in common with Ronald Reagan. Three slices:
More to the point, it’s not the fault of Vance’s critics that people call him a postliberal. Vance has said he considers himself part of the “postliberal right.” When he was a senator, he told fellow postliberals that he was “explicitly anti-regime.” Now, I will give Vance the benefit of the doubt that he meant the Biden administration. But since we’re dinging the misuse of terms, it’s worth noting that in America the “regime,” as committed postliberals will acknowledge, is not a presidential administration but the constitutional order, or republican system of government. Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, surely knows this. Though his defenses of Donald Trump’s attempt to steal an election suggest perhaps a more troubling understanding of the American regime. Vance’s association with “nationalism” isn’t as strong, but reasonable people can look at his speeches to Yoram Hazony’s National Conservatives as evidence that he sees himself as a nationalist as well. Hazony himself certainly thinks that’s the case.
…..
Whether you think Vance is a postliberal, a nationalist, or simply a more mainstream principled conservative political pragmatist, one thing you can’t persuade me—or many others—of is that he’s a Reaganesque politician in this regard. His big tent has a large and welcoming opening for edgelord Twitter addicts, traffickers in antisemitic bilge, and other fever-swampers, not to mention the aforementioned postliberals and nationalists who applaud “anti-regime” red meat. He encouraged the demonization of Haitian immigrants: “don’t let the crybabies in the media dissuade you, fellow patriots. Keep the cat memes flowing.” He rhetorically tilts to a form of nationalism that ranks heritage Americans and descendants of combatants—on either side!—of the Civil War above more recent arrivals. That is not how Reagan talked—or thought—about America.
Whether it’s just the need to impress his boss, or a sign of his online addictions, or pure pragmatic surrender to the nastiness of our politics, or the epiphenomena of some deeper phenomenological grievances and resentments, Vance embraces the idea that politics is mean and that meanness is self-justifying. Some of his fans can’t see it because fish don’t know they’re wet. Some do see it, but write it off as the price of politics in pursuit of the noble and necessary goal of purging what Michael describes as “an excess of liberal ideology in our ruling class and their institutions.” And some just love the meanness on its own terms.
…..
Vance is the chosen candidate of the very online, very angry, and very hostile factions of the right. He’s the choice of Kevin Roberts, Turning Point USA, and, at least until recently, Tucker Carlson—the same Carlson who Vance can’t bring himself to meaningfully criticize, even as Carlson seeps ever deeper into the antisemitic and paranoid swamp.
