Being a pseudoconservative, Cowen won’t consider anything a real problem until it negatively impacts him. At that moment it will cease being a regrettable but acceptable harm to others and become the worst thing in the world. Put that humming data center next to his house (hint: it’s many decibles above tolerable and never stops) and he will be agitating for someone to do something to stop his pain.
Then it becomes a serious negative externality that needs to be internalized rather than ajust a cost of doing business. Intellectual whoredom is his actual skill.
Cowen and his ilk are utterly vile. A significant percentage of the population is operating in psychopathic mode, with no genuine connection to other humans, no empathy or spiritual comprehension. Empty vessels going through life acquiring, competing, viewing and using others as objects rather than people. Self-satisfied and arrogant.
Illuminating good read. Unfortunately a description of perhaps the most ludicrous disconnect consistently held as useful on the right. The real receipts contradict all assessments. It’s an epidemic of a post truth world.But Cowen is the one that confesses the reality while sticking with the contradictory assessment. Which makes him either an exemplary liar or monumentally stupid.
Which I guess is what the condition of a dupe is.
I think it is past time to hold the dupes and the liars,no matter their status, morally responsible for the egregious and illegal treatment of our immigrant population. Even the Romans who chopped off heads for misdemeanors allowed immigrants a court hearing before making judgements.
We as a state have become barbarians. We should not,cannot look away. Dismantling ICE and the associated private incarceration system should be a nonnegotiable position for any politician worth voting for.
From the floor: Would you humor a developmental editor and consider some queries to the author re: your gnomic comment? A fact check/reality check.
~~~~~
You wrote,
"...You [MB] have your style and opinions; it's your prerogative, and your articles would be empty without them.
At the same time, in my opinion, Tyler Cowen is portrayed very vividly..."
IMO, the independent clause preceding the semicolon is a fair enough representation, while the independent clause that follows the semicolon is, tragically, only semi-accurate (at present anyway, here in what's left of our constitutional Republic.)
The qualifier in the second IC after the conjunction, however, seems mainly false on its face to me.
*Empty*? Of facts? Empty of reasoning? Of evidence/supporting data/relevant personal experience? Empty of understanding, insightful, incisive interpretive perspectives informed by the above?
Did you really mean to suggest that MB's articles are empty aside from "style and opinions"?
Mike I find it pretty hard to follow what you are saying.
In English English (but possibly not US English?) it is simply a phrase that indicates the writing is given substance, in this case by the addition of Mike Brock expressing his opinions.
That is, in a word, a good thing.
This is the second time I’ve commented on his writing to find someone spring to his defense unnecessarily.
And the third time my comments, which are fairly ordinary, have caused a reaction.
The first was from Mike Brock himself if I’m remembering correctly. I’m not sure I am.
Adam, I deleted the riposte I fired off to this reply. It was overwrought, went off on some tangents.
I think you're missing my point. My read of your paraphrase is that it still disses with faint & immaterial praise the substantive factual content, clarity of reasoning, and incisive insider's perspective in his articles. I don't want to bore readers here with a turgid demonstration why I think that's true of both of your brief comments, mostly because it seems obvious on its face.
His takes on techbro AI propaganda in particular are indispensable contributions to sane, reasoned discourse in the social media Bedlam we're drowning in. We should be grateful too for his courage.
I asked google AI, "Is Tyler Cowen stupid?" The answer was emphatic: "No" I suppose the follow-up should have been, Is he ever so slightly mendacious? But I didn't ask it and I've learned you must speak to AIs the way Dave speaks to HAL in 2001.
Yesterday, I listened to some Texans on my TV, and they sounded just like me.
They were eviscerating their representative, who had supported Trump's attempt to limit voter registration. They were angry, vocal, and confrontational. I wanted to reach out and shake their hands. This confirmed my belief that good people live in every state, and that if I could talk with them personally, we would agree that dramatic changes are needed. I believe they would agree with and support my new party's agenda for reforming our government.
One caveat is that we may be too large a country to find similar values, because we are larger than the European Union, which functions as a conglomeration of separate countries with different values that remain separate. We may be made up of different states that eventually have to separate into their own countries.
I think that in every state, regardless of party affiliation or physical location, most citizens are fed up with Trump and his MAGA program. I have referred to this group as the 70 percenters, distinct from the 30 percent who still support Trump. I think 70 percent of our population are reasonable, moral people ready to help create change in our country. I also believe that if I could talk with them and present my agenda for a new party, they would want to join.
This new party would be the party of the people, by the people, and for the people, and it would not be affiliated with the existing Democratic or Republican parties. This would be the party of the 70 percent of people in our country who have a sense of social morality and believe in the principles defined in the Declaration of Independence, people who are proud to be American.
The main objective of this party would be to run a government by the people and to serve the people. I think we have universally accepted values we can use as the basis for this party, and 70% of our citizens have approved of them. These values are easy to enumerate, as the voting public has acknowledged them: a national healthcare program covering all health issues, including care for seniors; a substantial retirement plan by expanding our Social Security program; eliminating ICE and redirecting its funds to other programs; eliminating the Electoral College so voting would be done by the people, not by a committee; providing free education, including advanced degrees; raising taxes on millionaires and legalizing abortion. The list of services is enormous, and I think it is universally accepted and can be found in all advanced countries. We, the richest country in the world, do not have a national free health plan. This list of programs is simple and, I think, universally accepted by most citizens.
This new party's structure would be radically different from today's parties, focusing on reestablishing the power and importance of citizen control. One major criticism of our founding fathers was that they replaced the vote of the many with the vote of a few. This party would correct that fault by returning responsibility to the states and, in turn, to the citizens in those states. Every citizen would form and vote on this party's values; it would eliminate politicians and political appointments. This party would have only administrators, not politicians. The public would have to approve every action and program. Arrangements would be made for direct voting on all or any policy changes.
The House of Representatives would be restructured and expanded, allowing better state representation because voters in each state would direct it. Voters could change or remove representatives at any time if they were dissatisfied with their performance. Representatives would have no guaranteed terms; their performance would be subject to review by their state. States would have more power. The Senate would be abolished, as it is a ridiculous idea that two representatives from each state would control the voting public. Control of our government would rest only with the voting states, and we, the people, would control their representatives.
We would reform our Supreme Court so that its only function would be to review the legality of decisions made by state supreme courts; it would not rehear cases presented to the states. No country has a judge in the court system remain active after age 75, and we will follow that age limit in our courts. We will establish a mechanism to review all judges' actions and performance, and citizens can initiate a review by voting. Also, the voting public, not the Federalist Society or political parties, will select candidates for Supreme Court positions.
We would review government structures and ways for voters to participate in government in countries like Denmark, Germany, and France, where, because of the Second World War, they had a chance to rethink and improve citizens' involvement in government. Denmark's government has stronger safety nets for its citizens than ours, and we could learn from them.
As in many countries, the president will not have a fixed four-year term, and citizens can initiate removal procedures through the states and into the House of Representatives. Conservative organizations have sought to increase the president's power and independence, reduce Congress's power, and control the courts by having judges selected by the Federalist Society rather than by the citizens of our country. They want to select judges who support their agenda to benefit MAGA-rich funding. Our new party would eliminate these procedures that benefit the rich at our expense. Again, to quote Lincoln, we would be the party of the people, by the people, and for the people.
If we want to call Cowen duped, we certainly can - and given that AI support is apparently worth every other aspect of government breaking down to him, it’s quite reasonable to do so. Shame; he’s got so much horsepower and an open mind. Wish he could do something better with it.
But let’s not act like most data center opponents, a majority of whom nationwide are reacting a problem that is not currently affecting them in the way they fear (imposition of physical infrastructure), and that they do not understand well, are not also being duped.
Everybody thinks it’s okay that people go on about water and other mitigable issues and non-issues, because the flat-out-wrong objections to data centers that are based on liberal environmental shibboleths are bringing people to the same conclusion as general AI skeptics. But I’d be very surprised if that is not an extremely fragile coalition.
I wish we could get 1% of the public animosity towards AI directed towards social media. But then, social media tells people who to be mad at, so.
Frankly, I’ll take Cowen over the people almost-literally foaming at the mouth over the “evil” of AI as seen in some of the comments here. I’m not “pro-AI” - I try to take the world as it is, and AI is well above my Serenity Prayer pay grade - but I appreciate you keeping moral absolutism out of your analysis as much as possible, because it really makes me shut down, and I’m not alone on that.
For people like Cowen and his ilk, as long as the money keeps flooding in to the right hands (theirs) then any amount of damage, any body count, any atrocity, is simply the cost of doing business and can be ignored. The industrialists who supported and funded the Nazis acted in exactly the same way.
I think it’s great for us normies that data centers are encountering a massive backlash from people of all backgrounds! And in the wake of OpenAIs debacle with hacking into other companies AI itself is part of this backlash. And of course who is the economic beneficiary of all this?? MAGA . Cowen sees nothing wrong… hah 😆
Ideologues, who must deny reality to maintain their ideology, are superseded only by those who have aligned their metaphysics to a desired worldview. Unlike the ideologue, no fact can confront their beliefs because the classification of a fact as a fact is done via a process that cannot be antagonistic to their beliefs.
Being a pseudoconservative, Cowen won’t consider anything a real problem until it negatively impacts him. At that moment it will cease being a regrettable but acceptable harm to others and become the worst thing in the world. Put that humming data center next to his house (hint: it’s many decibles above tolerable and never stops) and he will be agitating for someone to do something to stop his pain.
Then it becomes a serious negative externality that needs to be internalized rather than ajust a cost of doing business. Intellectual whoredom is his actual skill.
Cowen and his ilk are utterly vile. A significant percentage of the population is operating in psychopathic mode, with no genuine connection to other humans, no empathy or spiritual comprehension. Empty vessels going through life acquiring, competing, viewing and using others as objects rather than people. Self-satisfied and arrogant.
Illuminating good read. Unfortunately a description of perhaps the most ludicrous disconnect consistently held as useful on the right. The real receipts contradict all assessments. It’s an epidemic of a post truth world.But Cowen is the one that confesses the reality while sticking with the contradictory assessment. Which makes him either an exemplary liar or monumentally stupid.
Which I guess is what the condition of a dupe is.
I think it is past time to hold the dupes and the liars,no matter their status, morally responsible for the egregious and illegal treatment of our immigrant population. Even the Romans who chopped off heads for misdemeanors allowed immigrants a court hearing before making judgements.
We as a state have become barbarians. We should not,cannot look away. Dismantling ICE and the associated private incarceration system should be a nonnegotiable position for any politician worth voting for.
What do you make of the host? What is his role? Did he just help
normalize murdering people on boats?
Great work.
Mike Brock.
Good piece, very readable and informative.
You have your style and opinions; it's your prerogative, and your articles would be empty without them.
At the same time, in my opinion, Tyler Cowen is portrayed very vividly.
It's not a pretty picture.
From the floor: Would you humor a developmental editor and consider some queries to the author re: your gnomic comment? A fact check/reality check.
~~~~~
You wrote,
"...You [MB] have your style and opinions; it's your prerogative, and your articles would be empty without them.
At the same time, in my opinion, Tyler Cowen is portrayed very vividly..."
IMO, the independent clause preceding the semicolon is a fair enough representation, while the independent clause that follows the semicolon is, tragically, only semi-accurate (at present anyway, here in what's left of our constitutional Republic.)
The qualifier in the second IC after the conjunction, however, seems mainly false on its face to me.
*Empty*? Of facts? Empty of reasoning? Of evidence/supporting data/relevant personal experience? Empty of understanding, insightful, incisive interpretive perspectives informed by the above?
Did you really mean to suggest that MB's articles are empty aside from "style and opinions"?
{Pruned of needless verbiage 9/6}
Mike I find it pretty hard to follow what you are saying.
In English English (but possibly not US English?) it is simply a phrase that indicates the writing is given substance, in this case by the addition of Mike Brock expressing his opinions.
That is, in a word, a good thing.
This is the second time I’ve commented on his writing to find someone spring to his defense unnecessarily.
And the third time my comments, which are fairly ordinary, have caused a reaction.
The first was from Mike Brock himself if I’m remembering correctly. I’m not sure I am.
You know, the world goes on either way.
Adam, I deleted the riposte I fired off to this reply. It was overwrought, went off on some tangents.
I think you're missing my point. My read of your paraphrase is that it still disses with faint & immaterial praise the substantive factual content, clarity of reasoning, and incisive insider's perspective in his articles. I don't want to bore readers here with a turgid demonstration why I think that's true of both of your brief comments, mostly because it seems obvious on its face.
His takes on techbro AI propaganda in particular are indispensable contributions to sane, reasoned discourse in the social media Bedlam we're drowning in. We should be grateful too for his courage.
I asked google AI, "Is Tyler Cowen stupid?" The answer was emphatic: "No" I suppose the follow-up should have been, Is he ever so slightly mendacious? But I didn't ask it and I've learned you must speak to AIs the way Dave speaks to HAL in 2001.
How about- are his ethics sociopathis?
Yesterday, I listened to some Texans on my TV, and they sounded just like me.
They were eviscerating their representative, who had supported Trump's attempt to limit voter registration. They were angry, vocal, and confrontational. I wanted to reach out and shake their hands. This confirmed my belief that good people live in every state, and that if I could talk with them personally, we would agree that dramatic changes are needed. I believe they would agree with and support my new party's agenda for reforming our government.
One caveat is that we may be too large a country to find similar values, because we are larger than the European Union, which functions as a conglomeration of separate countries with different values that remain separate. We may be made up of different states that eventually have to separate into their own countries.
I think that in every state, regardless of party affiliation or physical location, most citizens are fed up with Trump and his MAGA program. I have referred to this group as the 70 percenters, distinct from the 30 percent who still support Trump. I think 70 percent of our population are reasonable, moral people ready to help create change in our country. I also believe that if I could talk with them and present my agenda for a new party, they would want to join.
This new party would be the party of the people, by the people, and for the people, and it would not be affiliated with the existing Democratic or Republican parties. This would be the party of the 70 percent of people in our country who have a sense of social morality and believe in the principles defined in the Declaration of Independence, people who are proud to be American.
The main objective of this party would be to run a government by the people and to serve the people. I think we have universally accepted values we can use as the basis for this party, and 70% of our citizens have approved of them. These values are easy to enumerate, as the voting public has acknowledged them: a national healthcare program covering all health issues, including care for seniors; a substantial retirement plan by expanding our Social Security program; eliminating ICE and redirecting its funds to other programs; eliminating the Electoral College so voting would be done by the people, not by a committee; providing free education, including advanced degrees; raising taxes on millionaires and legalizing abortion. The list of services is enormous, and I think it is universally accepted and can be found in all advanced countries. We, the richest country in the world, do not have a national free health plan. This list of programs is simple and, I think, universally accepted by most citizens.
This new party's structure would be radically different from today's parties, focusing on reestablishing the power and importance of citizen control. One major criticism of our founding fathers was that they replaced the vote of the many with the vote of a few. This party would correct that fault by returning responsibility to the states and, in turn, to the citizens in those states. Every citizen would form and vote on this party's values; it would eliminate politicians and political appointments. This party would have only administrators, not politicians. The public would have to approve every action and program. Arrangements would be made for direct voting on all or any policy changes.
The House of Representatives would be restructured and expanded, allowing better state representation because voters in each state would direct it. Voters could change or remove representatives at any time if they were dissatisfied with their performance. Representatives would have no guaranteed terms; their performance would be subject to review by their state. States would have more power. The Senate would be abolished, as it is a ridiculous idea that two representatives from each state would control the voting public. Control of our government would rest only with the voting states, and we, the people, would control their representatives.
We would reform our Supreme Court so that its only function would be to review the legality of decisions made by state supreme courts; it would not rehear cases presented to the states. No country has a judge in the court system remain active after age 75, and we will follow that age limit in our courts. We will establish a mechanism to review all judges' actions and performance, and citizens can initiate a review by voting. Also, the voting public, not the Federalist Society or political parties, will select candidates for Supreme Court positions.
We would review government structures and ways for voters to participate in government in countries like Denmark, Germany, and France, where, because of the Second World War, they had a chance to rethink and improve citizens' involvement in government. Denmark's government has stronger safety nets for its citizens than ours, and we could learn from them.
As in many countries, the president will not have a fixed four-year term, and citizens can initiate removal procedures through the states and into the House of Representatives. Conservative organizations have sought to increase the president's power and independence, reduce Congress's power, and control the courts by having judges selected by the Federalist Society rather than by the citizens of our country. They want to select judges who support their agenda to benefit MAGA-rich funding. Our new party would eliminate these procedures that benefit the rich at our expense. Again, to quote Lincoln, we would be the party of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Atlas Shlubbed.
If we want to call Cowen duped, we certainly can - and given that AI support is apparently worth every other aspect of government breaking down to him, it’s quite reasonable to do so. Shame; he’s got so much horsepower and an open mind. Wish he could do something better with it.
But let’s not act like most data center opponents, a majority of whom nationwide are reacting a problem that is not currently affecting them in the way they fear (imposition of physical infrastructure), and that they do not understand well, are not also being duped.
Everybody thinks it’s okay that people go on about water and other mitigable issues and non-issues, because the flat-out-wrong objections to data centers that are based on liberal environmental shibboleths are bringing people to the same conclusion as general AI skeptics. But I’d be very surprised if that is not an extremely fragile coalition.
I wish we could get 1% of the public animosity towards AI directed towards social media. But then, social media tells people who to be mad at, so.
Frankly, I’ll take Cowen over the people almost-literally foaming at the mouth over the “evil” of AI as seen in some of the comments here. I’m not “pro-AI” - I try to take the world as it is, and AI is well above my Serenity Prayer pay grade - but I appreciate you keeping moral absolutism out of your analysis as much as possible, because it really makes me shut down, and I’m not alone on that.
For people like Cowen and his ilk, as long as the money keeps flooding in to the right hands (theirs) then any amount of damage, any body count, any atrocity, is simply the cost of doing business and can be ignored. The industrialists who supported and funded the Nazis acted in exactly the same way.
I think it’s great for us normies that data centers are encountering a massive backlash from people of all backgrounds! And in the wake of OpenAIs debacle with hacking into other companies AI itself is part of this backlash. And of course who is the economic beneficiary of all this?? MAGA . Cowen sees nothing wrong… hah 😆
Ideologues, who must deny reality to maintain their ideology, are superseded only by those who have aligned their metaphysics to a desired worldview. Unlike the ideologue, no fact can confront their beliefs because the classification of a fact as a fact is done via a process that cannot be antagonistic to their beliefs.
Resistance is futile…