Author: Art Diamond

Forecasts “of Doom and Gloom” Fail Because “Lot of Moving Parts That Are Not Well Understood”

(p. A3) The science community now believes tornadoes most likely build from the ground up and not from a storm cloud down, potentially making them harder to spot via radar early in the formation process. But scientists still struggle to say with certainty when and where a tornado will form, or why some storms spawn them and neighboring storms don’t.

“Sometimes the science and the atmosphere remind us of the limitations of what we can predict,” said Bill Bunting, chief of forecast operations at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Storm Prediction Center.

. . .

“We have big outlooks of doom and gloom, and nothing happens because there are a lot of moving parts that are not well understood yet,” said Erik Rasmussen, a research scientist with NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory.

For the full story, see:

Erin Ailworth. “Tornadoes Outrun Forecaster Data.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, May 30, 2019): A3.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 29, 2019, and the title “New Science Explains Why Tornadoes Are So Hard to Forecast.”)

Art Diamond on EconTalk 8/12/19 Podcast with Russ Roberts

The podcast will posted sometime during the morning of Mon., 8/12/19. EconTalk podcasts can be downloaded from (or listened to at) econtalk.org.

Much of the “Intelligence” in Artificial Intelligence Is Human, Not Artificial

(p. B5) Everything we’re injecting artificial intelligence into—self-driving vehicles, robot doctors, the social-credit scores of more than a billion Chinese citizens and more—hinges on a debate about how to make AI do things it can’t, at present.

. . .

On one side of this debate are the proponents of “deep learning”—an approach that, since a landmark paper in 2012 by a trio of researchers at the University of Toronto, has exploded in popularity.

. . .

On the other side of this debate are researchers such as Gary Marcus, former head of Uber Technologies Inc.’s AI division and currently a New York University professor, who argues that deep learning is woefully insufficient for accomplishing the sorts of things we’ve been promised. It could never, for instance, be able to usurp all white collar jobs and lead us to a glorious future of fully automated luxury communism.

Dr. Marcus says that to get to “general intelligence”—which requires the ability to reason, learn on one’s own and build mental models of the world—will take more than what today’s AI can achieve.

“That they get a lot of mileage out of [deep learning] doesn’t mean that it’s the right tool for theory of mind or abstract reasoning,” says Dr. Marcus.

To go further with AI, “we need to take inspiration from nature,” say Dr. Marcus. That means coming up with other kinds of artificial neural networks, and in some cases giving them innate, pre-programmed knowledge—like the instincts that all living things are born with.

. . .

Until we figure out how to make our AIs more intelligent and robust, we’re going to have to hand-code into them a great deal of existing human knowledge, says Dr. Marcus. That is, a lot of the “intelligence” in artificial intelligence systems like self-driving software isn’t artificial at all. As much as companies need to train their vehicles on as many miles of real roads as possible, for now, making these systems truly capable will still require inputting a great deal of logic that reflects the decisions made by the engineers who build and test them.

For the full commentary, see:

Christopher Mims. “KEYWORDS; Should Artificial Intelligence Copy the Brain?” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, October 26, 2017): B5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the same date as the print version, and has the title “KEYWORDS; Should Artificial Intelligence Copy the Human Brain?”)

Big, Frequent Meetings Are Unproductive and Crowd Out Deep Thought

(p. 7) To figure out why the workers in Microsoft’s device unit were so dissatisfied with their work-life balance, the organizational analytics team examined the metadata from their emails and calendar appointments. The team divided the business unit into smaller groups and looked for differences in the patterns between those where people were satisfied and those where they were unhappy.

It seemed as if the problem would involve something about after-hours work. But no matter how Ms. Klinghoffer and Mr. Fuller crunched the data, there weren’t any meaningful correlations to be found between groups that had a lot of tasks to do at odd times and those that were unhappy. Gut instincts about overwork just weren’t supported by the numbers.

The two kept iterating until something emerged in the data. People in Mr. Ostrum’s division were spending an awful lot of time in meetings: an average of 27 hours a week. That wasn’t so much more than the typical team at Microsoft. But what really distinguished those teams with low satisfaction scores from the rest was that their meetings tended to include a lot of people — 10 or 20 bodies arrayed around a conference table coordinating plans, as opposed to two or three people brainstorming ideas.

The issue wasn’t that people had to fly to China or make late-night calls. People who had taken jobs requiring that sort of commitment seemed to accept these things as part of the deal. The issue was that their managers were clogging their schedules with overcrowded meetings, reducing available hours for tasks that rewarded more focused concentration — thinking deeply about trying to solve a problem.

Data alone isn’t insight. But once the Microsoft executives had shaped the data into a form they could understand, they could better question employees about the source of their frustrations. Staffers’ complaints about spending evenings and weekends catching up with more solitary forms of work started to make more sense. Now it was clearer why the first cuts of the data didn’t reveal the problem. An engineer sitting down to do individual work for several hours on a Saturday afternoon probably wouldn’t bother putting it on her calendar, or create digital exhaust in the form of trading emails with colleagues during that time.

Anyone familiar with the office-drone lifestyle might scoff at what it took Microsoft to get here. Does it really take that much analytical firepower, and the acquisition of an entire start-up, to figure out that big meetings make people sad?

For the full story, see:

Neil Irwin. “How to Win at Winner-Take-All.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sunday, June 15, 2019): 1 & 6-7.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 15, 2019, and has the title “The Mystery of the Miserable Employees: How to Win in the Winner-Take-All Economy.”)

The article quoted above, is adapted from:

Irwin, Neil. How to Win in a Winner-Take-All World: The Definitive Guide to Adapting and Succeeding in High-Performance Careers. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2019.

“If You Lower the Hurdles to Innovation . . . , You’ll Get More of It”

(p. A2) You’d think from the debate raging in Washington that taxes are the key to economic growth. They aren’t. In the long run, innovation matters way more, and that depends on inspiration, experimentation and luck, not tax-law changes.

Yet presidents matter for promoting innovation even if it’s less glamorous than taxes. Their support often takes the form of directing money toward basic research or favored industries such as defense or renewable energy.

Under President Donald Trump the place to look is the regulators. Two of his appointees in particular, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, have prioritized reducing regulatory hurdles to private investment as a way of boosting innovation. It’s too early to gauge their success, but the efforts merit more attention at a time when the growth debate is focused on steep, deficit-financed tax cuts.

. . .

At the FCC, Mr. Pai has targeted the “digital divide,” the gap in broadband access between some communities, especially in rural areas, and others. The share of U.S. households with a fixed broadband connection has stalled at roughly a third in recent years. Mr. Pai thinks the solution is “setting rules that maximize private investment in high-speed networks.”

Controversially, that includes a proposed rollback of his predecessor’s imposition of utility-like regulation so that internet service providers (ISPs) adhere to “net neutrality”—charging all content providers the same to access their networks. Without those limitations, he reckons ISPs will have more incentive to expand capacity and thus access; critics worry this will favor rich, established content providers over innovative newcomers.

. . .

. . . , Mr. Gottlieb’s and Mr. Pai’s theory is that if you lower the hurdles to innovation in specific sectors, you’ll get more of it. It offers a potentially more tangible payoff than fiddling with the tax code.

For the full commentary, see:

Greg Ip. “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; Why Innovation Tops Tax Cuts.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, October 26, 2017): A2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Oct. 25, 2017, and the title “CAPITAL ACCOUNT; Trump’s Regulators Aim to Boost Growth by Lowering Hurdles to Innovation.”)

Robots Relieve Restaurant Workers of Small, Mundane, Tedious Tasks

(p. A1) John Miller, chief executive and founder of CaliBurger LLC, finds it harder to find employees these days. His solution is Flippy, a robot that turns the burgers and cleans the hot, greasy grill.

The chain plans to install Flippy in up to ten of its 50 restaurants by year end. CaliBurger doesn’t intend to kick humans to the curb as a result. Flippy will handle the gruntwork, freeing employees to tidy the dining rooms and refill drinks, less arduous work that might make it easier to recruit and retain workers.

“We’re a long way from teaching a robot to walk the restaurant and do those things,” Mr. Miller said.

Experts have warned for years that robots will replace humans in restaurants. Instead, a twist on that prediction is unfolding. Amid the lowest unemployment in years, fast-food restaurants are turning to machines—not to get rid of workers, but because they can’t find enough.

. . .

(p. A10) Dunkin’ conducted focus groups with former employees to pinpoint the mundane tasks that made them want to leave and geared automation around that.

Workers used to create thousands of hand-written labels daily for everything from coffee to cheese expirations. Last year, Dunkin’ installed small terminals that print out expiration times.

Brewing a single pot involved grinding and weighing coffee and comparing its fineness and coarseness to a perfect sample. Now, some Dunkin’ shops use digital refractometers to determine if coffee meets specifications.

. . .

Alexandra Guajardo, the morning shift leader at a Dunkin’ Donuts shop in Corona, Calif. said she’s likely to stick with the job longer now than she otherwise would have.

“I don’t have to constantly be worried about other smaller tasks that were tedious,” she said. “I can focus on other things that need my attention in the restaurant.”

Mr. Murphy said he can’t see a time when a Dunkin’ Donuts shop is fully automated. The company experimented with a robot barista nearly two years ago at an innovation lab in Massachusetts. The robot did fine at making simple drinks, but couldn’t grasp custom orders, such as “light sugar.”

The machine also required a lot of cleaning and maintenance, and at up to $100,000 per robot, Mr. Murphy said he couldn’t see a return on the investment.

For the full story, see:

Julie Jargon and Eric Morath. “Short of Workers, Robots Man the Grill.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, June 25, 2018): A1 & A10.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 24, 2018, and the title “Short of Workers, Fast-Food Restaurants Turn to Robots.”)

More Workers Satisfied with Jobs Than in Recent Years

(p. B6) Just more than half of U.S. workers—51%—said they were satisfied with their jobs in 2017, the highest level since 2005, according to a new report from The Conference Board, a business-research group.

Over the past seven years, Americans report feeling better about their pay along with a greater sense of job security, both features of an economy with a low unemployment rate and a long decline in layoffs. In July [2018], jobless claims continued an extended post-recession slide and hit their lowest level in nearly 50 years.

For the full story, see:

Weber, Lauren. “Fewer Workers Move for New Jobs.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, August 30, 2018): B6.

(Note: bracketed year added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug. 29, 2018, and the title “Fewer Americans Uproot Themselves for a New Job.”)

To Be Dangerous with Crispr Takes a Lot of Genetics Knowledge

(p. A11) “I frankly have been flabbergasted at the pace of the field,” says Jennifer Doudna, a Crispr pioneer who runs a lab at the University of California, Berkeley. “We’re barely five years out, and it’s already in early clinical trials for cancer. It’s unbelievable.”

. . .

Scientists have fiddled with genes for decades, but in clumsy ways.

. . .

Crispr is much more precise, as Ms. Doudna explains in her new book, “A Crack in Creation.” It works like this: An enzyme called Cas9 can be programmed to latch onto any 20-letter sequence of DNA. Once there, the enzyme cuts the double helix, splitting the DNA strand in two. Scientists supply a snippet of genetic material they want to insert, making sure its ends match up with the cut strands. When the cell’s repair mechanism kicks in to fix the cut, it pastes in the new DNA.

. . .

A . . . Crispr worry is that it makes DNA editing so easy anybody can do it. Simple hobby kits sell online for $150, and a community biotech lab in Brooklyn offers a class for $400. Jennifer Lopez is reportedly working on a TV drama called “C.R.I.S.P.R.” that, according to the Hollywood Reporter, “explores the next generation of terror: DNA hacking.”

Ms. Doudna provides a bit of assurance. “Genetics is complicated. You have to have quite a bit of knowledge, I think, to be able to do anything that’s truly dangerous,” she says. “There’s been a little bit of hype, in my opinion, about DIY kits and are we going to have rogue scientists—or even nonscientists—randomly doing crazy stuff. I think that’s not too likely.”

For the full interview, see:

Peterson, Kyle, interviewer. “THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW; The Gene Editors Are Only Getting Started; Would you eradicate malaria-carrying insects? Change your baby’s DNA? Scientists soon may have the power to do both.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, July 8, 2017): A11.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the interview has the date July 7, 2017, and the same title as the print versio.)

Doudna’s book, mentioned above, is:

Doudna, Jennifer A., and Samuel H. Sternberg. A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

Job-Related Relocations Declining

(p. A1) Fewer U.S. workers are moving around the country to seek new job opportunities, as changing family ties and more openings near home make people less willing to uproot their lives for work.

About 3.5 million people relocated for a new job last year, according to U.S. census data, a 10% drop from 3.8 million in 2015. The numbers have fluctuated between 2.8 million and 4.5 million since the government started tracking annual job-related relocations in 1999—but have been trending lower overall, even as the U.S. population grew by nearly 20% over that stretch.

Experts cite a number of factors that in some periods have kept people in one place, including a depressed value for their home or limited job openings. In the current strong economy, real-estate values have rebounded, but that has made housing costs prohibitively high in some regions where jobs are abundant, such as major East and West Coast cities.

For the full story, see:

Rachel Feintzeig and Lauren Weber. “Fewer Workers Move for New Jobs.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, August 20, 2018): A1-A2.

(Note: the online version of the story did not give a date, and has the title “Fewer Americans Uproot Themselves for a New Job.”)

“Freakin’ Ridiculous” Regulation

(p. A1) REHOBOTH BEACH, Del.—Capt. Kent Buckson’s radio crackled with word of a situation on the beach. A lifeguard had spotted a large canopy amid the sea of umbrellas. That meant one thing. Time for a takedown.

“We’ve got to get to that one,” said Mr. Buckson, the soft-spoken beach patrol boss. He and his deputy, Aaron Tartal, jumped into an all-terrain vehicle and headed over. Mr. Tartal, shirtless and in red swim trunks, strode over to the canopy owner.

“Good morning, sir. I’ve got bad news,” Mr. Tartal told the man. Then he laid out the new law on the two-mile beach. No tents or canopies allowed, except baby tents up to 3 feet high, wide or deep.

“Freakin’ ridiculous,” groused the man, who declined to give his name, as he dismantled the black 8-by-10-foot canopy he had just erected.

“New city ordinance, it’s a little bit of a learning curve,” Mr. Tartal gamely replied, pointing out the nearby shacks that rent umbrellas for $12 a day.

. . .

(p. A14) . . . , the 25-year-old Mr. Tartal, who is a lifeguard in addition to Capt. Buckson’s beach patrol deputy, told Marjorie Danko, a receptionist from Hershey, Pa., that the $40 three-sided tent she bought for her grandchildren didn’t pass muster, either.

“I don’t understand this,” she said. “I think umbrellas are much more dangerous. What kind of ordinance is that? I mean, really dumb.”

Mr. Tartal apologized but didn’t debate her. “We don’t write the ordinances,” he said, “we just enforce them.”

Clutching some cash, Ms. Danko marched off to go rent an umbrella.

For the full story, see:

Scott Calvert. “Beach Patrol Draws a Line In the Sand: No More Tents.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, July 5, 2017): A1 & A10.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 4, 2017, and the title “Beach Patrol Confronts a New Menace: Oversize Tents.”)

If You Have Lost Your Spouse, Chatbot Asks: “What’s Your Tracking Number?”

(p. B4) When LivePerson Inc. started piloting chatbots in early 2018, one of them made an embarrassing faux pas, assuming a client’s customer was talking about a lost package after mentioning losing a spouse.

“And the bot goes, ‘All right, great, I can help you with that. What’s your tracking number?’” said Malik Jenkins, an employee at the artificial-intelligence software company who was involved in the pilots. He said the issue was immediately flagged by someone at the client company and his team tweaked the bot to avoid such responses in the future.

For the full story, see:

Jared Council. “A Human Touch Is Given to Chatbots.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, June 13, 2019): B4.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 12, 2019, and the title “When Chatbots Falter, Humans Steer Them the Right Way.”)