Is the AI bubble bursting?

Apparently trying to answer this question is consuming a lot of bandwidth in the financial, tech, and even geopolitical arenas right now. Here is one answer from Larry Johnson, whose politics and past statements I do not necessarily endorse. Just to very briefly summarize his article: YES.

A few insights of my own:

  • The AI “hype bubble” has almost certainly reached a commanding height, and will pop at some point. This will probably be felt in stock market index valuations, which are dominated by a handful of large tech companies at the moment. In my lifetime now covering half a century, we have seen this cycle first with the personal computer itself and then with the internet. In both cases, the expectation that these technologies would super-charge economic growth in a few years did not happen, and led to financial market declines. Both technologies have in fact transformed the economy drastically, it just took a few decades rather than years. Things do seem to be happening faster this time around, I admit.
  • When it comes to stock market crashes, there is usually some precipitating event like the Asian financial crisis in 1997 or U.S. derivative bubble in 2007. The combination of technology bubble bursting and external financial shock seems to be particularly powerful. In fact, when I look back, I think I can argue the forward progress of the U.S. halted around that 1997 (financial crisis) to 2000 (Bush v. Gore) to 2001 to 2003 (9/11 attacks and Iraq invasion) period, and went into outright decline between the 2007 financial crisis and 2020 Covid crisis.
  • Apparently some in Silicon Valley thought the artificial general intelligence singularity was so near when the LLMs first came out, and that US tech companies were so far ahead of international peers, that it justified huge short-term investments in order to gain a first mover advantage that would then be insurmountable. This particular bubble seems to be popping at the moment, with AGI clearly not here right now, and perhaps a loose, emerging consensus that LLMs are a useful technology but not a likely path to AGI. So companies may have over-invested in infrastructure that will hurt some of them badly in the short term, while possibly benefitting us all in the longer term (think about 19th century railroads for a fairly obvious analogy).

So there is somewhat of a race here – will we start to see significant economic benefits of these new technologies before some external shocker hits us? This is the luck of the draw. It seems luck has not been on our side for the last 25 years or so. Perhaps we’re due.

mayors, governors, and senators

In a random AI experiment (Microsoft’s Copilot in this case), I have generated a list of 2028 US presidential candidates. Here were my criteria:

  • Current or previous mayors of the largest 100 US cities, re-elected at least once. Alive and under 70.
  • Current or previous governors of US states, re-elected at least once. Alive and under 70.
  • Current or previous US Senators, re-elected at least once. Alive and under 70.

No, Donald Trump would never have passed this screen, and nor does J.D. Vance because he has not been re-elected to any office so far. But my reasoning is these are people who showed they have what it takes to win high-stakes elections, then perform well enough in the eyes of voters and donors to get re-elected. Sorry to the 70 and up crowd, but for the Democrats in particular it is just time for the older generation to turn over the reigns.

A few familiar names: One person who is familiar, Barrack Obama, would not be eligible. People who have run before and not done all that well (Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Tim Walz, Nikki Hailey, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, I’m looking squarely at all of you) should step aside and give others a shot. Marco Rubio and Rahm Emanuel are a couple household names that jump out at me from this list. Does anyone on this list actually excite me? Michael Nutter, best ever (and only really good) mayor of Philadelphia, your country needs you!

I also asked Copilot to help me encode the table as HTML, which it was able to do. There are undoubtedly better ways to add tables in WordPress, which maybe I will be smart enough to learn about some day. So without further ado, here is the list sorted from youngest to my mandatory retirement age of 69:

Name City/State Party Years in Office Estimated Age Role
Quinton LucasKansas City, MODemocrat2019–present40Mayor
Kate GallegoPhoenix, AZDemocrat2019–present43Mayor
Jacob FreyMinneapolis, MNDemocrat2018–present43Mayor
Pete ButtigiegSouth Bend, INDemocrat2012–202043Mayor
David HoltOklahoma City, OKRepublican2018–present46Mayor
Todd GloriaSan Diego, CADemocrat2020–present47Mayor
Tim KellerAlbuquerque, NMDemocrat2017–present47Mayor
Andy BeshearKentuckyDemocrat2019–present47Governor
Eric JohnsonDallas, TXRepublican2019–present48Mayor
Tom CottonArkansasRepublican2015–present48Senator
Regina RomeroTucson, AZDemocrat2019–present49Mayor
Andrew GintherColumbus, OHDemocrat2016–present50Mayor
Jared PolisColoradoDemocrat2019–present50Governor
Cory GardnerColoradoRepublican2015–202150Senator
Julian CastroSan Antonio, TXDemocrat2009–201451Mayor
Chris MurphyConnecticutDemocrat2013–present51Senator
Muriel BowserWashington, D.C.Democrat2015–present52Mayor
Kevin StittOklahomaRepublican2019–present52Governor
Brian SchatzHawaiiDemocrat2012–present52Senator
Alex PadillaCaliforniaDemocrat2021–present52Senator
Gretchen WhitmerMichiganDemocrat2019–present53Governor
Nikki HaleySouth CarolinaRepublican2011–201753Governor
Ben SasseNebraskaRepublican2015–202353Senator
Bobby JindalLouisianaRepublican2008–201654Governor
Marco RubioFloridaRepublican2011–present54Senator
Kasim ReedAtlanta, GADemocrat2010–201855Mayor
Cory BookerNewark, NJDemocrat2006–201356Mayor, Senator
Gavin NewsomSan Francisco, CADemocrat2004–201157Mayor, Governor
Scott WalkerWisconsinRepublican2011–201957Governor
Tammy DuckworthIllinoisDemocrat2017–present57Senator
Kelly AyotteNew HampshireRepublican2011–201757Senator
Michael BennetColoradoDemocrat2009–present60Senator
Brian KempGeorgiaRepublican2019–present61Governor
Tim WalzMinnesotaDemocrat2019–present61Governor
Chris CoonsDelawareDemocrat2010–present61Senator
Martin O’MalleyBaltimore, MDDemocrat1999–200762Mayor, Governor
Chris ChristieNew JerseyRepublican2010–201862Governor
Jeff FlakeArizonaRepublican2013–201962Senator
Barack ObamaIllinoisDemocrat2005–200863Senator
Mark BegichAlaskaDemocrat2009–201563Senator
Jane CastorTampa, FLDemocrat2019–present64Mayor
Rahm EmanuelChicago, ILDemocrat2011–201965Mayor
Mitch LandrieuNew Orleans, LADemocrat2010–201865Mayor
Kim ReynoldsIowaRepublican2017–present65Governor
Michelle Lujan GrishamNew MexicoDemocrat2019–present65Governor
Dean HellerNevadaRepublican2011–201965Senator
Mike DugganDetroit, MIIndependent2014–present66Mayor
Phil MurphyNew JerseyDemocrat2018–present67Governor
Andrew CuomoNew YorkDemocrat2011–202167Governor
Joe HogsettIndianapolis, INDemocrat2016–present68Mayor
Michael NutterPhiladelphia, PADemocrat2008–201668Mayor
Deval PatrickMassachusettsDemocrat2007–201568Governor
Terry McAuliffeVirginiaDemocrat2014–201868Governor
Jon TesterMontanaDemocrat2007–present68Senator
Heidi HeitkampNorth DakotaDemocrat2013–201969Senator
Joe DonnellyIndianaDemocrat2013–201969Senator

How weak was Kamala Harris?

Maybe it’s time to stop rehashing the 2024 and 2016 elections, you say, but I keep hearing people say that “America will never elect a woman”. I suspect being female, or black, or Muslim, or any minority, puts a candidate at a small disadvantage that they have to overcome through political talent. In other words, a female and/or minority candidate may need to be a little bit more talented than a white male just to draw even. Barrack Obama comes to mind – he was such a strong and charismatic candidate that his minority status didn’t seem to matter. Reagan and Bill Clinton were other particularly strong, charismatic candidates from my lifetime (seriously, where are the TV-cowboy-turned-governors today?) So the important question going forward is, were Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris just particularly weak candidates to being with?

One way to objectively measure this is to look at whether a candidate underperforms or overperforms other candidates from their party in particular jurisdictions. And on this measure, Kamala Harris was weak according to Nate Silver’s analysis.

One piece of evidence for this is her inferior performance compared to most Democratic Senate candidates. On net, Harris underperformed the Democratic Senate candidate by an average of 2.6 points and a median of 2.4. Yes, this includes three “Democrats” who were actually independents — nontrivially so in the case of Dan Osborn of Nebraska, who hadn’t said which party he’d caucasus with. (The independents are highlighted in green in the table.) Still, in the five swing states to also feature Senate races (highlighted in gold), Harris underperformed the Senate candidate by an average of 3.5 points, and Democrats won 4 out of the 5 contests in states that Harris lost.

So while “messaging” and policy communication certainly matter, the Democrats (and post-Trump Republicans for that matter) need to try to find strong, charismatic candidates. One obvious problem is that this measure is backward looking, requiring past election results to analyze. But that could be an argument for looking at candidates with past election results, like mayors, governors, and senators.

I’m an amateur here, and smart professional political people must be doing this, surely? Well then why have we had such poor leadership choices put before us in this country since approximately 2012 (sorry McCain, Romney, H. Clinton, Trump, Biden, Harris – none of you inspired me). In a country of 350 million people or so, there just has to be more talent out there. Either the incentives or the political gatekeepers or both are preventing them from running.

7 philosophy books for beginners

Openculture.com has a list of where to start on philosophy. Perhaps I’ll add these to my retirement reading list.

They are as follows: Bertrand Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn’s Think, the complete works of Plato, Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, St. Augustine’s Confessions, René Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.

the AMOC tipping point

AMOC is of course the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current, and a new study summarized by Guardian suggests we are on a path to its tipping point.

Climate models recently indicated that a collapse before 2100 was unlikely but the new analysis examined models that were run for longer, to 2300 and 2500. These show the tipping point that makes an Amoc shutdown inevitable is likely to be passed within a few decades, but that the collapse itself may not happen until 50 to 100 years later.

The research found that if carbon emissions continued to rise, 70% of the model runs led to collapse, while an intermediate level of emissions resulted in collapse in 37% of the models. Even in the case of low future emissions, an Amoc shutdown happened in 25% of the models.

Scientists have warned previously that Amoc collapse must be avoided “at all costs”. It would shift the tropical rainfall belt on which many millions of people rely to grow their food, plunge western Europe into extreme cold winters and summer droughts, and add 50cm to already rising sea levels.

I admit that when I am sort of lazily thinking about this, I don’t distinguish in my mind between the tipping point and the collapse. But they are different, as this article illustrates. The tipping point is the point of no return, but because there is a time lag between the tipping point and the consequences, the tipping point is going to be called in hindsight rather than in real time. And this is very bad for our increasingly short-attention-span species and civilization.

what’s the story with Musk brain implants?

Well, Musk himself has not volunteered for invasive brain surgery as far as we know. But some people do in fact have small electrodes implanted in their brains. I learned from Startalk that this has legitimate medical uses. If a person has brain cancer and would die without brain surgery to remove a portion of the brain, surgeons will implant these electrodes and monitor the brain’s signals for a period of time to understand exactly which part of the brain needs to be removed, and to do that as safely as possible. The ethics of this are pretty clear. Technologically, the next step after this invasive form of brain monitoring is to advance non-invasive brain monitoring technologies, which exist but are currently not as good. And after that, still in the realm of science fiction for now, would come the injectable nanobots that can connect your brain to the internet. According to Ray Kurzweil, that fabulous science fiction future is scheduled to arrive in 2029.

Now back to Musk and Neuralink. A person who had the technology installed about 18 months ago has chosen to speak publicly. The person was paralyzed after an accident, and this has given him the ability to do many things he would otherwise not be able to do.

a Neuralink-made robotic surgery device implanted the chip and connected tiny threads with more than 1,000 electrodes to the neurons in his brain. Now the device can measure electrical activity, process signals, then translate those signals into commands to a digital device. In layman’s speak, the BCI, or brain-computer interface, allows Arbaugh to control a computer with his mind. As a result, Arbaugh can do things like play Mario Kart, control his television, and turn his Dyson air purifier on and off without physically moving his fingers or any other part of his body…

When Arbaugh became Participant 1—or “P1” as he is often referred to by Neuralink employees and subsequent study participants—he joined a list of about 80 people to ever receive such a device. Brain chip interfaces have been a focus of neurological study for more than 50 years, and a dozen companies in the U.S. and China have been conducting limited human trials since 1998.

But becoming the first patient to get a Neuralink implant, in particular, is its own right of passage. For one, Neuralink’s device has threads with more than 1,000 electrodes, giving the device a much higher connectivity rate than most of the BCIs currently being studied in humans in the market. But Neuralink also places its electrodes in the motor cortex, the part of the brain that controls movement—a more invasive approach than competitors like Synchron or Precision Neuroscience, which also have ongoing studies of multiple patients. Neuralink’s device is also wireless, versus competitors like Blackrock Neurotech that require a wired connection from the implant through the skull to an external receiver for signal capture and decoding (Blackrock Neurotech sells a wireless processor that has been used for research).

So there you have it. This brain control (as in brain controlling something other than a human body part) technology is farther along than us laymen not paying attention might have thought.

August 2025 in Review

Good bye summer 2025!

Most frightening and/or depressing story: A gigantic incoming object could be the alien ship that will put us out of our misery. Okay, probably not. The interesting and scary thing is that as our ability to look at the nearby universe improves, we are seeing more surprising stuff. But how are we supposed to think about let alone do anything about a very low probability existential threat like this one? We are not even responding to the “somewhat likely” (nuclear war, pandemics) and “likely happening right now” (a climate tipping point leading to future collapse) existential threats in front of us. I suggested that the tipping point will be called in retrospect, and 2025 might be a nice round number for the history books.

Most hopeful story: No matter what impression we are being given in the U.S., economic forces continue to push towards renewable energy and electrification worldwide.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Designer babies are here, and the trend towards the rich and powerful accelerating their own evolution (and a few governments making this available to the masses) can only accelerate.

Philadelphia transit cuts

It’s sad – Philadelphia’s public transportation, which was already creaky and unreliable due to decades of deferred maintenance and capital investment, is being financially starved due to dysfunctional politics at the state level. At the heart of the political game is a willful misunderstanding of a fundamental truth – most economic activity occurs where the most people are. Is this really not so obvious that we need to debate it? And this means that most taxes in a state like Pennsylvania are paid in its metropolitan areas. It makes sense to spend some of that money disproportionately in rural areas which by definition can’t generate the net economic activity to support themselves. But people and politicians in these rural areas not only do not appreciate this, they believe the exact opposite thing to be true – that they are subsidizing metropolitan areas. Which is logically, financially, and physically impossible. But mirroring the larger country, these irrational rural politicians have disproportionate political power relative to the number of people they represent. I have no political answers to this political problem, and I am getting closer to considering leaving the state. Delaware and New Jersey have their own problems but are much more rationally governed.

Anyway, having said all that, Philadelphia’s public transportation is not exactly cutting edge or visionary. It’s dirty, old, slow, and communication is poor. And it’s not cheap – one person riding a bus can save money relative to Uber, assuming they don’t place a high value on time. But several people traveling together will not save money. Tourists and business travelers have no hope of understanding it, if they were willing to brave the urine and feces and garbage and rats in the stations and bus stops and on the vehicles themselves. A system like this is at risk of losing out to more innovative competition, even if that innovative competition is bad for the environment and dangerous for people. So let’s look at some of the alternatives mentioned in this ABC article.

  • ride sharing databases – The local one is run by our metropolitan planning organization. Basically just a message board for people to find each other who want to carpool. Makes sense, just seems low tech and clunky. Enterprising individuals could probably build a business around this, which may or may not be against the rules.
  • Rideshare (Uber, etc.) – Sure they’ve been around for awhile, but they have some new ideas. With “Group Rides”, you can invite specific friends to share your ride. “The company’s latest option, Route Share, is designed to function like a commuter shuttle running every 20 minutes during peak times from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.. with designated pick-up and drop-off points.” … “For even more significant savings, try Uber Transit, which provides a public transit route, sometimes combined with an Uber ride.”
  • van pools run by rental car companies – “The rental car company teams up with companies to match employees who live near each other, then provides them with vehicles to use… Each ride consists of 4-15 riders who live near each other or along a route, and share rides to and from work. Enterprise takes care of maintenance and vehicle liability insurance.”
  • New Jersey and Delaware also have “Transportation Management Associations” which seem vague to me but again have something to do with organizing carpools and vanpools.

A couple thoughts. First, we see tech solutions like Uber adapting to public transportation, and starting to cover the gap between whatever public transportation can provide and what people actually need to get from Point A to Point B. This is basically good, although if public transportation can’t compete on cost it may eventually disappear. Governments might do the math and decide to subsidize the more flexible private options instead. Self-driving and self-parking wheeled vehicles may change the dynamics of how all this works, and relatively soon. All of this is likely to exacerbating sprawling land uses rather than the more compact urban areas we know are best for economic growth, innovation, human health, and the environment. But that has been the trend for a century at least.

I have some hope that self-parking vehicles may enable less waste of the most economically valuable land for parking. Because the point of parking is to make transportation easily accessible where you are working/shopping/recreating, and a self-driving vehicle can park efficiently farther away but still show up when and where you need it. Instead of a store having to have a parking lot that is bigger than the store, you can now have two stores next to each other and a large parking lot/garage out of sight on the edge of town. And that garage or lot won’t have to be as big because the self-parking cars will be able to maneuver more efficiently not to mention infinitely patiently compared to human drivers.

Telecommuting and work travel in Australia

This might seem esoteric, but it is somewhat germane to some points I made recently. One part of a big-picture solution to housing supply challenges lies in, well, housing. But another angle (at least from an economic growth perspective) lies in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure allowing people to live in one place and work in others with less friction (i.e., travel time and cost.)

A tale of two cities: Patterns and drivers of Australia’s intercity non-local employment from an industry perspective

Under conditions of spatial mismatch between labor supply and demand, intercity non-local employment, including intercity-commuting-based employment and remote work, has become increasingly common worldwide. However, research examining intercity non-local employment from an industry perspective remains limited. Using census data from 2011, 2016, and 2021 for Australia’s significant urban areas, this study adopts an industry lens to examine patterns of intercity non-local employment and their associations with industry diversity, industry disparity, and the location quotients of different industries. The findings reveal that: (1) Intercity non-local employment in Australia intensified during 2011–2021, with Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth serving as key network nodes; (2) Although industry diversity is not significantly associated with non-local employment, work-residence connections are more likely to form between industrially diverse cities over longer distances; (3) Industry disparity between work and residential cities reduces the likelihood of non-local employment, reflecting a tendency toward employment self-containment; (4) Cities with higher location quotients in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing exhibit a stronger capacity to attract non-local workers. This study supports developing regional industrial diversity centers as hubs for labor mobility and interaction. Furthermore, it highlights the rationality of industry complementarity, particularly between capital and non-capital cities, as a strategy to balance labor supply and demand, and calls for further evaluation of the long-term impacts of non-local employment on cities reliant on specific workforce sectors. Overall, this research advances the understanding of Australia’s urban structure and offers valuable insights for targeted industrial development strategies aimed at fostering balanced and sustainable urban systems.

I did work and travel in Australia a bit about 10-15 years ago, and one thing that struck this American is that their cities are just really far apart, and there is not much in between. So I got the impression that a lot of their white collar business travel is by plane. What is blue collar business travel you ask – there I am thinking of long haul trucking. And no, if I am thinking about long haul trucking in Australia I can’t get Mad Max out of my head. One really hopes this is not our future.

unifying “Green Area Factor” and “No Net Loss of Biodiversity” measures

Here in the US, implementing these types of policies seems mostly like a political pipedream at the moment. I could imagine a really smart developer doing this as a marketing scheme, maybe. maybe. But this is a great article that gives us a window into some things that are being tried in Europe (although, I also hear voices in Europe speaking longingly of the perceived lack of regulation in the US). I don’t know – our regulations may be equally strong or stronger in some areas like hydrology and water quality (which is missing from the framework discussed here btw) wetland and floodplain protection, and endangered species (although these are under constant political threat). Ideally in my view, species would not have to get endangered first before we will do anything for them.

More than the sum of its parts – Integrating the use of green area factor tool and biodiversity offsetting for no net loss urban planning

As part of the actions to fight biodiversity loss, the European Union is working on a restoration regulation demanding the principle of no net loss (NNL) state of biodiversity of urban green space. Applying this principle in urban planning may raise conflicts between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision. Furthermore, integrating the NNL of biodiversity principle into urban planning cannot be isolated from existing planning tools or processes. Here we present a novel approach where the green area factor tool and biodiversity offsetting are integrated to achieve NNL of biodiversity in urban planning, while maintaining the necessary ecosystem services and avoiding the negative, unintended tradeoffs that may occur if only one of these tools is used in the planning process. We provide a model which combines the two approaches to create a holistic method to understand and govern both biodiversity and ecosystem services of urban greenery. The model is intended to be used as part of urban planning processes.