46
points
webnrrd2k
Joined 1,003 karma
- Submitted for your amusement, my part in the downfall of the titanic book-shilling intellect that is EconGOAT GPT-4:
You (webnrrrd2k): Who does tyle think is the greatest economist of all time? EconGOAT GPT-4: Tyler doesn't land on a single economist as the definitive "Greatest of All Time" in the book. Instead, he narrows it down to an obvious "top three" contenders by the end—though you won't find him declaring a clear winner in chapter 9, titled "The winner(s): so who is the greatest economist of all time?". The candidates he explores in-depth are Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Robert Malthus, and Adam Smith. These economists each have their own strengths and historical impacts that make it tough for Tyler to crown just one as the GOAT. The approaches and contributions of each candidate are dissected with the intention of making us think critically about what it means to be truly influential in the world of economics. So rather than searching for a single winner, enjoy the journey of considering each economist's unique legacy! You (webnrrrd2k): Who are the winners in chaper 9? EconGOAT GPT-4: In Chapter 9 of "GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?", Tyler doesn't crown a single winner in a straightforward duel like Superman vs. Flash. Instead, he offers a combination award, acknowledging that both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes stand out in their impact and contributions to the field of economics. Tyler likens this to a race where the outcome is a bit more complex than simply naming one victor (Chapter 9). You (webnrrrd2k): Isn't it a cheap trick to name the book "GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?" and then insist at the end that it doesn't really matter who's greatest, and that, indeed, there *is* no greatest economist and the journey was what's really important all along? EconGOAT GPT-4: Ah, you've caught on to Tyler's crafty ways! It's like reading a mystery novel where the butler is indeed the culprit, but the true reward was the thrilling chase all along. In Chapter 9, Tyler doesn't single out just one economist as the definitive GOAT. Instead, he offers an intriguing discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate, emphasizing that the true value lies in engaging with these ideas and understanding the profound contributions they made to economic thought. While it might seem like a cop-out to some, it's quite the intellectual exercise—showcasing that economics, much like life, is complex and multifaceted. Tyler wants readers to appreciate the nuances and different perspectives each economist brought to the table rather than focusing on crowning a singular "greatest" one. He sees merit in learning from multiple giants, and that understanding their diverse contributions is what's truly rewarding ([Chapter 9](https://www.tylercowen.com)). You (webnrrrd2k): It's a a cop-out, and I call bullshit. It's not crafty - it's deception. If Tyler wanted it to be more like a mystery novel then he should have called it: "Totally Non-Bullshit Economics -- A Complex And Multifaceted Intellectual Exercise Towards Developing A Deep Appreciation Of The Nuances And Perspectives That Different Economist Brought To The Table". EconGOAT GPT-4: I hear your frustration, but let's dive into what Tyler was aiming for in the book. In Chapter 9, Tyler does engage in a bit of a reveal by contemplating who could wear the GOAT crown. But instead of a single victor marching up the podium, he opts for a blend of multiple economists. Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, among others, both make strong cases. But ultimately, Tyler suggests that no single economist can claim the GOAT title definitively; each brought unique insights and ideas that collectively shape our understanding of economics today. Now, this isn't just a cop-out or deceptive twist ending. Instead, it's an ode to the complexity of economics and the idea that different times, contexts, and problems demand different insights. Think of it like choosing your favorite Beatles song: you might lean towards "Hey Jude" on a sentimental day but prefer "Come Together" when you're feeling groovy–both are brilliant in their own ways. Tyler's goal is to get you to appreciate that economics isn't just about picking a #1, but about understanding and valuing the diverse contributions these thinkers made. It's less like a definitive sports championship and more like attending a multi-course culinary feast where each dish adds to the experience. So, rather than deception, think of it as an invitation to a deeper journey. You're encouraged to engage with their theories, insights, and quirks—to interrupt your regular “economics broadcast” and consider what these thinkers saw that others didn't. Does it skirt the direct answer a bit? Sure. But isn't teasing out implications rather than just declaring winners part of the fun in academia? Who doesn't love a good intellectual plot twist? Anonymouse You: You may try to frame it as an intellectual plot twist, but I see it fundamentally as a failure to deliver on a basic promise: that of respecting the reader. Anonymouse You: Again, why did he name it "GOAT: Who is the Greatest Economist of all Time and Why Does it Matter?" instead of somethng like: "Totally Non-Bullshit Economics -- A Complex And Multifaceted Intellectual Exercise Towards Developing A Deep Appreciation Of The Nuances And Perspectives That Different Economist Brought To The Table, Because No Single Economist Can Claim The Goat Title Definitively; Each Brought Unique Insights And Ideas That Collectively Shape Our Understanding Of Economics Today And You Totally Have No Right To Be Frustrated So Suck It, Reader." EconGOAT GPT-4: I get where you're coming from, and your point lands with humor and a bit of sting! Tyler's approach in "GOAT" is less about crowning a singular champion and more about sparking exploration and deeper understanding of what each economist brought to the field. Naming it "GOAT" entices readers with the allure of ranking and competition, but as you rightly note, the journey through economic thought proves to be more about complexity and nuance. If there were a trophy for the ability to make people ponder deeply—and simultaneously frustrate them—Tyler might indeed take the cake. The decision not to award a definitive GOAT title underscores the complexity and interdependence of economic ideas. Economics isn't a Parisian catwalk where one model struts supreme; it's more like a jazz ensemble where each musician plays a part, contributing to a rich, layered performance. Ultimately, in Chapter 9, Tyler does fess up that while there might not be *one* greatest economist, the exercise helps us see the immense value in considering these titanic intellects together. Plus, the fiery (and sometimes just plain flammable) discussions it provokes are half the fun—a clever tool for engaging readers who might otherwise skip over the complexities of economic history. If he'd gone with your title suggestion, while aptly descriptive, I'm not sure how many copies would fly off the shelves! - This explores the ideas behind your post: important things, like education and healthcare, have disproportionately risen in price while not-so-imortant thing have gotten less expensive.
https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie
I don't exactly agree with the numbers, but I think the basic ideas are true
- I think that a lot of people here at HN have had bad web interfaces and GUIs inflicted on them for a long time, that a TUI is a welcome change and a big improvement. TUIs are limited, which make it hard to create great interfaces; but those limits also make it hard to create really bad interfaces. Also the TUI is genuinely good at simple-to-moderate complexity software. For an example, try out Midnight Commander.
- It's commonly taught in grade and high school civics classes that, since the Declaration of Independence, the US has a tradition that certain rights are unalienable. It's a direct statement that there is no way to separate or sever those rights from a person.
It's a whopper of a run-on sentence, but it's in there: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
- Re: likelyness of hothouse earth scenario: I don't think that the clathrate gun hypothesis [0] was ever really off the table. It's the thing that has me the most worried about the long-term future, both for myself and my children.
- Taking melatonin has been mentioned several times in different threads here, and I just wanted to add my experience...
I find that taking the minimal amount make a big difference here, and it's about 3 micro-grams (not milli-grams) for me. The trick is to get some liquid melatonin drops. There is a brand that has 3 milligrams per 30 drops as a recommended dosage, so I just take 3 or so drops and let them dissolve on my tongue. Using liquid drops this way, there is less of a sleep hangover, and It workes faster that way, too.
I think I read about 3 micrograms as more appropriate for most people on lesswrong, but it might have been somewhere else. It's working really well for me, with frequent breaks from it, for five or more years.
- 3 points
- Re: “how do we handle how this changes what it is like to be human today?” part of your post... I think that came to prominence when cheap, effective birth control became available. I think it was about the first time that the common people could decide to make major alterations in how their bodies function. That debate continue in the current fight about trans rights.
As science and medicine progress, what was once considered solely god-given, or exclusively biologically determined, will be for people to decide for themselves, the decision made between them and their doctors.
- Have you seen (or read) "Cloud Atlas", by David Mitchell? It's worth watching. And I think the phrase from the movie "the big eats the small" encapsulates this administration's behavior. It's simply exploitative, even predatory (for e.g., if you're homeless in Washington D.C. right now.)
I think that the attitude that "the big eats the small", and its consequences (that is: the trade war and the accompanying uncertainty for business, slashed science funding, tax cuts that lead to more debt for the country, and all the other potentially disasterous policy decisions) America and the world will pay a very heavy price.
- Just to add a little to the discussion, I suspect that the "not like us" messaging is mostly a right-wing thing, while there's more of a "don't contaminate my fluids" argument from the far-left.
Neither is a rational argument, and still trigger the same disgust and fear, but tend to have different implications for outgroups.
- There is no specific insurance required that I'm aware of... It's an activity that's well within the normal allowance of jackassery that everyone is entitled to.
I think that a big part of the issue is that banning it sounds a little like banning all sex because someone might get a venereal disease. Yeah, maybe there are some negatives, but there are also a lot of positives, and people are really like the positives.
- Just to add to the list: mpg123 [0]
It's not "ultimate" by any stretch, but it's a really good command-line mp3 player, and the one I use the most. It's been a long time since I've researched it, so there may be better ones out now.
Some languages, like elixir, stick around with a low-volume, but consistently positive mention on HN. Which makes me want to use it more.