2026-02-17 15:57:27
One of the leading tasks of our time:
We develop a machine-automated approach for extracting results from papers, which we assess via a comprehensive review of the entire eLife corpus. Our method facilitates a direct comparison of machine and peer review, and sheds light on key challenges that must be overcome in order to facilitate AI-assisted science. In particular, the results point the way towards a machine-readable framework for disseminating scientific information. We therefore argue that publication systems should optimize separately for the dissemination of data and results versus the conveying of novel ideas, and the former should be machine-readable.
Here is the paper by A. Sina Booeshagh, Laura Luebbert, and Lior Pachter. Via John Tierney.
The post Science should be machine-readable appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-02-17 14:00:58
When 2012 passed into 2013, we did not have to rebuild our world, not in most countries at least. It sufficed to make adjustments at the margin.
After the Roman Empire fell, parts of Europe had to rebuild their worlds. It took a long time, but they ended up doing pretty well.
After the American Revolution, the newly independent colonies had to rebuild their own world. They did so brutally, but with considerable success.
After WWII, Western Europe had the chance to rebuild its own world, and did a great job.
We moderns are not used to having to rebuild our world.
It is now the case that strong AI is here/coming, and we will have to rebuild our own world. Many of us are terrified at this prospect, others are just extremely pessimistic. It seems so impossible. How are all the new pieces supposed to fit together? Who amongst us can explain that process in a reassuring way?
Yet we have done it many times before. Not always with success, however. After WWI ended, Europe was supposed to rebuild its own world, but they came up with something far worse than what they had before. Nonetheless, in the broader sweep of history world rebuilding projects have had positive expected value.
And so we will rebuilding our world yet again. Or maybe you think we are simply incapable of that.
As this happens, it can be useful to distinguish “criticisms of AI” from “people who cannot imagine that world rebuilding will go well.” A lot of what parades as the former is actually the latter.
In any case, it all will be quite something to witness.
The post Rebuilding our world, with reference to strong AI appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-02-17 03:02:04
How many times have I heard versions of that claim? Erik Brynjolfsson picks up the telephone in the FT:
While initial reports suggested a year of steady labour expansion in the US, the new figures reveal that total payroll growth was revised downward by approximately 403,000 jobs. Crucially, this downward revision occurred while real GDP remained robust, including a 3.7 per cent growth rate in the fourth quarter. This decoupling — maintaining high output with significantly lower labour input — is the hallmark of productivity growth.
My own updated analysis suggests a US productivity increase of roughly 2.7 per cent for 2025. This is a near doubling from the sluggish 1.4 per cent annual average that characterised the past decade.
It is fine to suggest caution in interpreting such statistics, but they hardly push the other way.
The post “You see tech and AI everywhere but in the productivity statistics” appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-02-17 01:11:34
1. Andrew Hall on improving the operation of prediction markets.
2. A new aesthetic for San Francisco.
3. Intelligent AI delegation. And Seb Krier. And Abigail Shrier. All of this can change your life.
4. Krugman on tariff incidence.
5. The century of the maxxer (“How many apricots can fit in your mouth?”). Excellent piece.
6. Andy Goldsworthy (New Yorker). Ditto.
7. Claims.
The post Monday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-02-16 20:18:53
In 2017, I analyzed the Uber Tipping Equilibrium:
What is the effect of tipping on the take-home pay of Uber drivers? Economic theory offers a clear answer. Tipping has no effect on take home pay. The supply of Uber driver-hours is very elastic. Drivers can easily work more hours when the payment per ride increases and since every person with a decent car is a potential Uber driver it’s also easy for the number of drivers to expand when payments increase. As a good approximation, we can think of the supply of driver-hours as being perfectly elastic at a fixed market wage. What this means is that take home pay must stay constant even when tipping increases.
…If Uber holds fares constant, the higher net wage (tips plus fares) will attract more drivers but as the number of drivers increases their probability of finding a rider will fall. The drivers will earn more when driving but spend less time driving and more time idling. In other words, tipping will increase the “driving wage,” but reduce paid driving-time until the net hourly wage is pushed back down to the market wage.
A paper by Hall, Horton and Knoepfle showed that’s exactly what happened.
More recently, in 2024, Seattle implemented “PayUp”, a pay package for gig workers like DoorDash workers that required a minimum wage based on the time worked and miles travelled for each offer. Note that this is not a minimum wage for all workers but for one type of worker in a large market. For this reason, we can use the same analysis as with Uber tipping. The supply of workers is very elastic and essentially fixed at the market wage for workers of similar skill. Thus, we would expect a zero effect on net pay.
Here is a recent NBER paper by An, Garin and Kovak looking at the effects of the Seattle law:
We find that the minimum pay law raised delivery pay per task….At the same time, the policy led to a reduction in the number of tasks completed by highly attached incumbent drivers (but not an increase in exit from delivery work), completely offsetting increased pay per task and leading to zero effect on monthly earnings. We find evidence that drivers experienced more unpaid idle time and longer distances driven between tasks…Using a simple model of the labor market for platform delivery drivers, we show that our evidence is consistent with free entry of drivers into the delivery market driving down the task-finding rate until expected earnings return to their pre-reform level.
All of this is a general result of the Happy Meal Fallacy.
The post Minimum Wages for Gig Workers Can’t Work appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-02-16 14:02:20
From a recent paper by Eric Robertson:
Public officials often fail to implement government policy as directed, yet the role of economic ideas in shaping these implementation choices is poorly understood. This paper provides causal evidence that exposure to economic ideas can durably influence bureaucrat behavior. I study British colonial bureaucrats in India, exploiting a natural experiment created by the abrupt death of Thomas Malthus in 1834, replacing his economics instruction at a bureaucrat training college for that of a contemporary critic, Richard Jones. Whereas Malthus regarded economic distress as a natural mechanism for restoring equilibrium by reducing population growth, Jones disagreed with this view. Linking rainfall shocks to district-level fiscal responses, I show that officials trained by Malthus delivered less relief during droughts, providing 0.10-0.25 SD less aid across all major measures compared with officials taught by Jones. The results reveal that exposure to abstract economic ideas can shape real-world policy implementation for decades.
This may be a case where using rainfall shocks in a paper actually makes sense. Via Krzysztof Tyszka-Drozdowski.
The post Malthus had real influence appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.