Economics of Technology – artdiamondblog.com

AI Algorithms Lack Intelligence Since They Are “Just Predicting the Next Word in a Text”

(p. B5) Yann LeCun helped give birth to today’s artificial-intelligence boom. But he thinks many experts are exaggerating its power and peril, and he wants people to know it.

. . .

On social media, in speeches and at debates, the college professor and Meta Platforms AI guru has sparred with the boosters and Cassandras who talk up generative AI’s superhuman potential, from Elon Musk to two of LeCun’s fellow pioneers, who share with him the unofficial title of “godfather” of the field. They include Geoffrey Hinton, a friend of nearly 40 years who on Tuesday was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics, and who has warned repeatedly about AI’s existential threats.

. . .

LeCun thinks AI is a powerful tool.

. . .

At the same time, he is convinced that today’s AIs aren’t, in any meaningful sense, intelligent—and that many others in the field, especially at AI startups, are ready to extrapolate its recent development in ways that he finds ridiculous.

If LeCun’s views are right, it spells trouble for some of today’s hottest startups, not to mention the tech giants pouring tens of billions of dollars into AI. Many of them are banking on the idea that today’s large language model-based AIs, like those from OpenAI, are on the near-term path to creating so-called “artificial general intelligence,” or AGI, that broadly exceeds human-level intelligence.

OpenAI’s Sam Altman last month said we could have AGI within “a few thousand days.” Elon Musk has said it could happen by 2026.

LeCun says such talk is likely premature. When a departing OpenAI researcher in May talked up the need to learn how to control ultra-intelligent AI, LeCun pounced. “It seems to me that before ‘urgently figuring out how to control AI systems much smarter than us’ we need to have the beginning of a hint of a design for a system smarter than a house cat,” he replied on X.

He likes the cat metaphor. Felines, after all, have a mental model of the physical world, persistent memory, some reasoning ability and a capacity for planning, he says. None of these qualities are present in today’s “frontier” AIs, including those made by Meta itself.

Léon Bottou, who has known LeCun since 1986, says LeCun is “stubborn in a good way”—that is, willing to listen to others’ views, but single-minded in his pursuit of what he believes is the right approach to building artificial intelligence.

Alexander Rives, a former Ph.D. student of LeCun’s who has since founded an AI startup, says his provocations are well thought out. “He has a history of really being able to see gaps in how the field is thinking about a problem, and pointing that out,” Rives says.

. . .

The large language models, or LLMs, used for ChatGPT and other bots might someday have only a small role in systems with common sense and humanlike abilities, built using an array of other techniques and algorithms.

Today’s models are really just predicting the next word in a text, he says. But they’re so good at this that they fool us. And because of their enormous memory capacity, they can seem to be reasoning, when in fact they’re merely regurgitating information they’ve already been trained on.

“We are used to the idea that people or entities that can express themselves, or manipulate language, are smart—but that’s not true,” says LeCun. “You can manipulate language and not be smart, and that’s basically what LLMs are demonstrating.”

For the full commentary see:

Christopher Mims. “Keywords: This AI Pioneer Thinks AI Is Dumber Than a Pet Cat.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Oct. 12, 2024): B5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated Oct. 11, 2024, and has the title “Keywords: This AI Pioneer Thinks AI Is Dumber Than a Cat.” The sentence starting with “Léon Bottou” appears in the online, but not the print, version. Where there are small differences between the versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

Trust Ventures Engages in “Trench Warfare” Against Regulations Binding the Firms It Finances

(p. A15) Another “Ghostbusters” movie is in theaters, but what we need are regulation busters. I spoke with Salen Churi and Brooke Fallon from Trust Ventures, a $500 million Texas-based venture-capital firm. It’s almost as if they are wearing plasma proton packs.

. . .

Trust Ventures came together, Mr. Churi said, because no one thinks “ ‘I hate innovation,’ except perhaps for incumbents. We have crises in the most human of industries—energy, healthcare, housing. Everyone thought I was nuts. They’re like, ‘Why would you invest in companies with regulatory problems?’ ” Good question.

Most venture capitalists invest and help startups with new strategies and hiring a team. Mr. Churi describes what he does as “trench warfare,” fighting with regulators and incumbents deal by deal.

. . .

Mr. Churi explains that “when you get a great new technology that’s fundamentally different, regulators just want to shove you in the old box, right? Our challenge is to say, ‘Well, actually, this needs a new box.’ Otherwise, it’s going to sit on the shelf.”

Eye exams are a great example of an old box. The American Optometric Association is powerful, and many states banned online vision tests. “Regulators don’t care about all those single mothers who have to pay three times as much or that people in Central Illinois have to drive three hours,” Mr. Churi says.

The pandemic loosened telehealth rules, providing an opening to test your eyes with your own smartphone. As lockdowns ended, Trust Ventures worked with the startup Visibly in several states to legalize online eye exams permanently. They got help from their investors network—some of their limited partners “are great American families,” Mr. Churi says. Visibly’s Food and Drug Administration-approved online eye tests, now in 36 states, cost as little as $35 instead of three times as much at LensCrafters or box-store-located optometrists.

For the full commentary see:

Andy Kessler. “Inside View; America’s New Regulation Busters.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, April 15, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 14, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

Policy Reform, Such as Smaller Research Teams, Needed for Faster Big Breakthroughs

(p. D3) Miracle vaccines. Videophones in our pockets. Reusable rockets. Our technological bounty and its related blur of scientific progress seem undeniable and unsurpassed. Yet analysts now report that the overall pace of real breakthroughs has fallen dramatically over the past almost three-quarters of a century.

This month in the journal Nature, the report’s researchers told how their study of millions of scientific papers and patents shows that investigators and inventors have made relatively few breakthroughs and innovations compared with the world’s growing mountain of science and technology research. The three analysts found a steady drop from 1945 through 2010 in disruptive finds as a share of the booming venture, suggesting that scientists today are more likely to push ahead incrementally than to make intellectual leaps.

“We should be in a golden age of new discoveries and innovations,” said Michael Park, an author of the paper and a doctoral candidate in entrepreneurship and strategic management at the University of Minnesota.

. . .

The new method looks at citations more deeply to separate everyday work from true breakthroughs more effectively. It tallies citations not only to the analyzed piece of research but to the previous studies it cites. It turns out that the previous work is cited far more often if the finding is routine rather than groundbreaking. The analytic method turns that difference into a new lens on the scientific enterprise.

The measure is called the CD index after its scale, which goes from consolidating to disrupting the body of existing knowledge.

Dr. Funk, who helped to devise the CD index, said the new study was so computationally intense that the team at times used supercomputers to crunch the millions of data sets. “It took a month or so,” he said. “This kind of thing wasn’t possible a decade ago. It’s just now coming within reach.”

The novel technique has aided other investigators, such as Dr. Wang. In 2019, he and his colleagues reported that small teams are more innovative than large ones. The finding was timely because science teams over the decades have shifted in makeup to ever-larger groups of collaborators.

In an interview, James A. Evans, a University of Chicago sociologist who was a co-author of that paper with Dr. Wang, called the new method elegant. “It came up with something important,” he said. Its application to science as a whole, he added, suggests not only a drop in the return on investment but a growing need for policy reform.

“We have extremely ordered science,” Dr. Evans said. “We bet with confidence on where we invest our money. But we’re not betting on fundamentally new things that have the potential to be disruptive. This paper suggests we need a little less order and a bit more chaos.”

For the full story see:

William J. Broad. “What Happened to All of Science’s Big Breakthroughs?” The New York Times (Tuesday, January 24, 2023 [sic]): D3.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 17, 2023 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

For Nature paper mostly discussed in the passages quoted above is:

Park, Michael, Erin Leahey, and Russell J. Funk. “Papers and Patents Are Becoming Less Disruptive over Time.” Nature 613, no. 7942 (Jan. 2023): 138-44.

The paper on team size, and co-authored by Wang, is:

Wu, Lingfei, Dashun Wang, and James A. Evans. “Large Teams Develop and Small Teams Disrupt Science and Technology.” Nature 566, no. 7744 (Feb. 2019): 378-82.

Regulations Slow the Creation and Adoption of Healthcare Breakthroughs

CPR is “cardiopulmonary resuscitation.” ECPR is “extracorporeal CPR.” The ATTEST randomized double-blind clinical trial (RCT) provided dramatic evidence of the efficacy of ECPR. But the INCEPTION RCT seemed to provide equally strong evidence of a lack of efficacy. The key difference is the high level of experience and dedication of those implementing the ATTEST RCT, and the lack of experience, and likely lower dedication of those in the INCEPTION RCT. Dr. Demetris Yannopoulos has improved his techniques through trial and error, probably in some ways that he can articulate and in other ways that are harder to articulate. Gary Klein with his naturalistic decision-making research, writes that experience gives emergency workers a quick “recognition” of what needs to be done in different situations.

At what point in the development of a therapy do you perform the canonical RCT? In the case of Emil Freireich’s four drug chemo-cocktail for curing childhood leukemia, he continually improved the ingredients and doses of the cocktail. If an RCT had been performed too early in that process, the result would have been a lack of efficacy, and a therapy would have been abandoned that had the potential to be developed into a useful efficacious therapy. Ditto for Vince DeVita’s development of his chemo-cocktail for curing Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Ditto also for the development of the drug that eventually proved efficacious in the For Blood and Money book, where Stanford cancer doctor and Pharmacyclics co-founder acquired and developed cancer therapy Imbruvica, but abandoned it after an RCT of it failed. But Miller was ousted by major Pharmacyclics stock-holder, and entrepreneurial non-scientist, Bob Duggan, who did not want to give up on Imbruvica. Duggan persevered, overseeing its further development, until a later RCT was performed that proved efficacy.

In an earlier entry, I documented a much simpler and cheaper CPR innovation that also promises to improve heart failure therapy, called “neuroprotective CPR” (NCPR). Which one, if either, of ECPR or NCPR should we endorse? Ideally, in a fully function medical marketplace, we could comfortably say: “let the market decide.” Entrepreneurial scientists and physicians could develop the therapies and see how many willing patients would be willing to pay for each. Maybe the more expensive ECPR therapy would initially only be bought by the better-off. But as Yannopoulos improves it, as he is already working to do, making it simpler and cheaper, it would eventually be appealing to a broader customers. In Openness, I claim that this is the common path of a great many breakthrough innovations in areas outside of medicine.

Notice that the ECPR was heavily funded by the Helmsley Trust, a private foundation. This is consistent with my claim that medical innovation benefits from a diversity of funding sources, especially of private funding sources that are more likely to fund a diversity of methods and to take chances with heterodox ideas, partly motivated by private funders’ greater mission-orientation due to having more ‘skin-in-the-game.’

Notice also that Yannopoulos’s implementation of ECPR was constrained by a scarcity of trained personnel. Yannopoulos could not act as a nimble entrepreneur because massive regulations limit nimble entrepreneurship in healthcare. This is especially try on labor market issues where massive labor market regulations pile on top of massive healthcare regulations. Breakthrough innovations are usually implemented by small nimble start-ups. To create Disneyland, Walt Disney created WED Enterprises, instead of try to created it with the large incumbent The Walt Disney Company. Jonathan Bush tried nimble labor market innovation in healthcare, but was stymied by regulations. So in the ECPR case, Yannopoulos had the beds to care for more cardiac arrest patients, but could not fill those rooms because of a lack of trained healthcare workers. He could not simply offer higher pay. He was part of a larger organization where he had limited decision-rights that reduced his nimble control. (On the importance of decision-rights, see Koch 2007.)

(p. 27) In reality, by the time a patient without a pulse arrives in the E.R., we know what the outcome is going to be. We continue CPR and shock the patient if we can. We insert a breathing tube and connect it to a ventilator. We inject medications: adrenaline, heart-rhythm drugs. But these treatments almost always fail.

. . .

Demetris Yannopoulos, an interventional cardiologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School who created its Center for Resuscitation Medicine, refused to accept that this was the best doctors could do. In 2014, he began performing ECPR, a treatment that was starting to catch on in a few places, mostly in Asia and Europe. To his surprise, patients he didn’t expect to survive ended up doing well.  . . .

When a patient in cardiac arrest is placed on an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine, as Sauer was, the treatment is called ECPR. The type of ECMO intervention used in ECPR provides full life support, which means it does the work of both lungs and heart. (Another type of ECMO, used on Covid-19 patients, helps just with breathing.) ECMO evolved from the heart-lung machines that started being used during heart surgery in the 1950s.

. . .

ECPR by itself doesn’t actually cure anything. But by providing fresh blood flow to the brain and other organs, it lets the body rest and gives doctors time to fix the underlying problem, if it’s fixable.  . . .  After patients are hooked up to ECMO, angiograms of their hearts are typically performed to determine whether they have clogged arteries — as about 85 percent do. In Sauer’s case, Yannopoulos found a blockage in his largest heart vessel, the left anterior descending artery, also known as “the widow maker.” He inserted a stent to open it back up.

. . .

(p. 28) Several years after the program started, Yannopoulos, Bartos and their team conducted the first randomized, controlled trial of ECPR. The results were published in The Lancet in 2020 as the ARREST trial.  . . .

After enrolling just 30 patients, the ARREST trial was stopped early by an N.I.H. board because the patients who got ECPR did so much better than the control-group subjects who received standard resuscitation, and it would have been unethical to continue the study. After six months, 43 percent of the 14 patients who got ECPR were alive with good brain function, compared with zero in the control group.

. . .

The Helmsley Trust gave Yannopoulos grants totaling $19.4 million, which enabled him to add this “hub and spoke” mobile component to his program: The university hospital would be the hub, and a truck and some local hospitals would be the spokes. “It was a real big bet,” Panzirer told me.

To reach patients in areas that were more suburban and rural, Yannopoulos first had to team up with surrounding health systems. Competition is more often the norm among health systems, rather than collaboration, but he persuaded his chief executive, James Hereford, to gather his counterparts from other institutions. Eventually, they were willing to work together. But they had to sort out a lot more than simply agreeing to collaborate. How would insurers pay for what they were doing? Would the initial hospital get the money, or would the university hospital? Would malpractice coverage protect doctors outside their own institutions? What about transport?

Every question could be turned into a reason for hospital administrators and lawyers to say no.

. . .

(p. 29) The economics of ECPR are in line with those of other established lifesaving interventions, like dialysis and heart transplants. And if patients don’t survive, ECPR may perfuse their bodies with enough oxygen to keep their organs eligible for donation. The program in Minnesota costs about $3.2 million a year to operate, which is covered by its revenue. This doesn’t include the start-up funding from the Helmsley Trust, however, or the significant groundwork Yannopoulos laid before that — or his personal sacrifices. “When I started, I had hair and my beard was black,” says Yannopoulos, who is mostly bald and gray. For seven years, he was not paid for his ECPR work; some years, he was on call every day. Today, he still spends about 6,500 hours on call annually. “It’s the force of his will more than anything,” Hereford says when explaining why the program has succeeded.

. . .

Yannopoulos has invited physicians from all over to visit his program; afterward, he often hears from them that replicating his work at their home institutions — getting health and E.M.S. systems to collaborate, finding institutional support and start-up funding, coordinating 24/7 staffing — seems too daunting. For these reasons, Yannopoulos regards his ECPR program as “an administrative and political achievement, rather than a scientific or technological one.”

. . .

(p. 30) The trial, called INCEPTION, compared ECPR with standard care across 10 medical centers in the Netherlands. It was the first randomized, controlled trial to look at ECPR across multiple facilities, and unlike the ARREST trial, it found that ECPR resulted in similar survival as standard treatments.  . . .

Yet there are reasons to interpret the study as saying more about the real-world challenges of developing and implementing ECPR programs than it does about the treatment itself. In the INCEPTION trial, it took roughly a half-hour longer for patients to get on an ECMO machine once they arrived at the hospital than it did in the ARREST study. Of the patients who got ECPR, 12 percent were not successfully connected to the machines, compared with zero in ARREST. Several Dutch hospitals handled only a couple of ECPR cases a year, which means they hadn’t yet acquired the right skills. “I think they were destined for failure because of that rollout, with no experience up front,” Bartos says.

Experience matters profoundly: According to a 2022 paper based on data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, an international nonprofit that Robert Bartlett founded, patients treated at centers that perform fewer than 10 ECPR procedures yearly have 64 percent lower odds of survival; for every 10-case increase, the odds go up 11 percent. (The Minnesota program treats about 150 every year.)

Not only does the procedure itself require mastery, but so, too, does the care in the I.C.U. afterward — an ineffable art as much as a precise science.

. . .

(p. 45) . . . it’s not much of a surprise to hear Yannopoulos ask, “What does INCEPTION have to do with what we’re doing?” His program was carefully developed, with deep expertise, over years, to achieve the best outcomes; INCEPTION studied what would happen if a lot of hospitals started doing ECPR tomorrow.

Engineering the ideal ECPR program can feel like a maddening calculus involving experience, availability and distance — all to beat time. To treat patients faster, maybe doctors should go directly to the scene. For more than a decade, doctors in France have been doing just that, performing ECPR on the streets of Paris, in Métro stations, even on the oak parquet floors of the Louvre. Early on, Lionel Lamhaut, the head of Paris’s ECMO team, was told that he was “a cowboy to try to do something outside the hospital.” But as he and his colleagues persisted, they “started a new way of thinking.”

. . .

. . . as much money as the Helmsley Trust has given, it is not enough to overcome some of the structural limitations in the American health care system. The organization funded a multimillion-dollar expansion of the cardiovascular I.C.U. at Yannopoulos’s hospital to add 12 more spacious rooms specifically designed to accommodate patients on ECMO. But on a weekend in January when I visited, the I.C.U. was closed to new ECPR patients: Not enough nurses were available to work, so four beds in the unit were kept empty.

Even as Yannopoulos and his team hit administrative roadblocks like these, they are still trying to redefine what is medically possible. Recently, a 74-year-old man collapsed on the streets of St. Paul and went into cardiac arrest. Forty-two minutes after the first 911 call, the man was already on ECMO and had regained his pulse. Yannopoulos was optimistic about the case, given how quickly ECMO was started, even though the patient had not been shocked with a defibrillator — which meant he technically fell outside the protocol and should not have received ECPR at all. (After a week in the I.C.U., the man died when his family decided to stop all treatment.)

The man’s heart was almost certainly in pulseless electrical activity (P.E.A.), which many experts think should not be treated with ECPR. Of the three published ECPR randomized, controlled trials, only one did not limit the intervention to people with shockable rhythms. That ambitious trial, in Prague, included patients whose hearts were in the same P.E.A. pattern as the St. Paul man’s. The study was stopped early when it appeared that ECPR wasn’t saving significantly more people than standard care was. These enigmatic cases that lack shockable rhythms are vexing: When the Prague data was reanalyzed without these patients, the findings were favorable for ECPR.

Yannopoulos is undeterred by the Prague results. “You have to decide what’s more important: your survival rate” — what is often used in studies and by institutions to justify support for a program — “or the number of patients you actually save.” Because its program is now well established, Yannopoulos’s team is starting to treat patients with less promising rhythms, even though that may drive down its overall survival rate.  . . .

Yannopoulos wonders if, in a decade or perhaps less, ECPR science will still require the same specially trained teams using the same high-tech equipment — at least before patients get to the hospital. Instead, he imagines small cannulas that will be easy to place in the patient’s neck and attached to compact, simple machines that provide some blood flow to the brain. In his vision, which he is currently working to realize, medics could be trained to start people on this, and then doctors could transition them to regular ECMO once they reach the hospital. If the brain is protected, the rest of the body can eventually recover.

. . .

“There is this idea that people in cardiac arrest, you cannot harm them,” Yannopoulos says. For some doctors, that means cycling relentlessly through chest compressions and medications, so they feel as if they did everything they could. For others, it means briefly going through the motions, so they feel as if they did something. And for still others, it has always seemed kindest to do nothing at all, to let their patients die peacefully. Because almost none of them lived — no matter what the doctors did. “But now we know what is possible,” Yannopoulos says. “So if you’re not achieving that, then you are harming them in a way, right?”

For the full story see:

Helen Ouyang. “Reinventing CPR.” The New York Times Magazine (Sunday, March 31, 2024): 22-31 & 45.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated June [sic] 19, 2024, and has the title “The Race to Reinvent CPR.”)

Some references relevant to my discussion at the start of this entry are:

Bush, Jonathan, and Stephen Baker. Where Does It Hurt?: An Entrepreneur’s Guide to Fixing Health Care. New York: Portfolio, 2014.

DeVita, Vincent T., and Elizabeth DeVita-Raeburn. The Death of Cancer: After Fifty Years on the Front Lines of Medicine, a Pioneering Oncologist Reveals Why the War on Cancer Is Winnable–and How We Can Get There. New York: Sarah Crichton Books, 2015.

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Klein, Gary A. Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights. Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2013.

Klein, Gary A. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. 20th Anniversary ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017.

Klein, Gary A. Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2009.

Koch, Charles G. The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.

Silberner, Joanne. “How a Plunger Improved CPR.” The New York Times (Tues., June 27, 2023): D5.

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life. New York: Random House, 2018.

Vardi, Nathan. For Blood and Money: Billionaires, Biotech, and the Quest for a Blockbuster Drug. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2023.

Before Co-founding “Colossal” Private For-Profit Firm, George Church “Was Planning on Slogging Along at a Slow Pace” in Academia

Harvard Professor George Church chooses to pursue his bold dream of bringing wooly mammoths back to life through a private firm rather than through a nonprofit organization or an educational institution. Is that because nimble innovation is less constrained in a private for-profit firm?

(p. D3) A team of scientists and entrepreneurs announced on Monday that they have started a new company to genetically resurrect the woolly mammoth.

The company, named Colossal, aims to place thousands of these magnificent beasts back on the Siberian tundra, thousands of years after they went extinct.

“This is a major milestone for us,” said George Church, a biologist at Harvard Medical School, who for eight years has been leading a small team of moonlighting researchers developing the tools for reviving mammoths. “It’s going to make all the difference in the world.”

. . .

The idea behind Colossal first emerged into public view in 2013, when Dr. Church sketched it out in a talk at the National Geographic Society.

. . .

Russian ecologists have imported bison and other living species to a preserve in Siberia they’ve dubbed Pleistocene Park, in the hopes of turning the tundra back to grassland. Dr. Church argued that resurrected woolly mammoths would be able to do this more efficiently. The restored grassland would keep the soil from melting and eroding, he argued, and might even lock away heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Dr. Church’s proposal attracted a lot of attention from the press but little funding beyond $100,000 from PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel.

. . .

“Frankly, I was planning on slogging along at a slow pace,” Dr. Church said. But in 2019, he was contacted by Ben Lamm, the founder of the Texas-based artificial intelligence company Hypergiant, who was intrigued by press reports of the de-extinction idea.

Mr. Lamm visited Dr. Church’s lab, and the two hit it off. “After about a day of being in the lab and spending a lot of time with George, we were pretty passionate on pursuing this,” Mr. Lamm said.

Mr. Lamm began setting up Colossal to support Dr. Church’s work, all the way from tinkering with DNA to eventually placing “a functional mammoth,” as Dr. Hysolli calls it, in the wild.

The company’s initial funding comes from investors ranging from Climate Capital Collective, an investment group that backs efforts to lower carbon emissions, to the Winklevoss twins, known for their battles over Facebook and investments in Bitcoin.

. . .

Heather Browning, a philosopher at the London School of Economics, said that whatever benefits mammoths might have to the tundra will need to be weighed against the possible suffering that they might experience in being brought into existence by scientists.

“You don’t have a mother for a species that — if they are anything like elephants — has extraordinarily strong mother-infant bonds that last for a very long time,” she said. “Once there is a little mammoth or two on the ground, who is making sure that they’re being looked after?”

And Colossal’s investors may have questions of their own: How will these mammoths make any money? Mr. Lamm predicted that the company would be able to spin off new forms of genetic engineering and reproductive technology.

“We are hopeful and confident that there will be technologies that come out of it that we can build individual business units out of,” Mr. Lamm said.

For the full story see:

Carl Zimmer. “MATTER; A Company Aims to Restock the Woolly Mammoth.” The New York Times (Tuesday, September 14, 2021 [sic]): D3.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Sept. 30 [sic], 2021 [sic], and has the title “MATTER; A New Company With a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth.”)

Successes of Thiel’s Entrepreneurial Anti-College Fellowships Undermine Veneration of Higher Ed

Gary Becker won the Nobel Prize in part for his work as a founder of the study of the economics of human capital. One common finding of the field is that investment in higher education has a high rate of return. So Becker was puzzled when his own grandson pondered skipping college in order to directly become a technology entrepreneur.

I speculate that information technology will make it increasingly easy for autodidacts to learn on their own what they need to know, whenever they need to know it. I further speculate that formal education, especially formal higher education, will wither into irrelevance, just as the Post Office has withered in the face of email and Amazon.

(p. B4) Peter Thiel is trying harder than ever to get young people to skip college.

Since 2010, Thiel, an early Facebook investor and a founder of PayPal Holdings, has offered to pay students $100,000 to drop out of school to start companies or nonprofits.

. . .

Some big successes include Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, the blockchain network; Laura Deming, a key figure in venture investing in aging and longevity; Austin Russell, who runs self-driving technologies company Luminar Technologies; and Paul Gu, co-founder of consumer lending company Upstart.

When he began his fellowship, Thiel, a vocal libertarian who was an active supporter of Donald Trump in 2016, was disenchanted with leading colleges and convinced they weren’t best suited for many young people.

His aim, at least in part, was to undermine the popular view that college was necessary for all students, and that top universities should be accorded prestige and veneration.

Since then, public opinion has shifted toward his perspective. More Americans are rethinking the value of a college education. At the same time, America’s elite universities have come under fire for their handling of a surge in antisemitism and for maintaining what critics call a double standard regarding free speech.

For the full story see:

Gregory Zuckerman. “Thiel’s Offer to Skip College Draws Many.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Feb. 26, 2024): B4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date February 24, 2024, and has the title “Peter Thiel’s $100,000 Offer to Skip College Is More Popular Than Ever.”)

Becker is best known for:

Becker, Gary S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis; with Special Reference to Education. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

Start-Ups Succeed When They Give Up Work-Life Balance in Order to “Work Like Hell”

(p. B4) Eric Schmidt, ex-CEO and executive chairman at Google, walked back remarks in which he said his former company was losing the artificial intelligence race because of its remote-work policies.

. . .

“Google decided that work-life balance and going home early and working from home was more important than winning,” Schmidt said at Stanford. “The reason startups work is because the people work like hell.”

For the full story see:

Joseph De Avila. “Ex-CEO Criticizes Google, Retracts It.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024): B4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Aug. 14, 2024, and has the title “Eric Schmidt Walks Back Claim Google Is Behind on AI Because of Remote Work.”)

Healthcare Competition Sometimes Reduces Prices

Numerous complex government healthcare regulations differentially increase the costs of small healthcare firms and independent healthcare practitioners that cannot afford to hire the specialized experts to understand and navigate the regulations. As a result the small firms and independent practitioners often give up and merge with larger organizations, thereby reducing competition. Also, in many locations, governments give incumbent hospitals veto power over the start-up of new hospitals, thereby also reducing competition.

(p. A3) Prices for surgery, intensive care and emergency-room visits rise after hospital mergers. The increases come out of your pay.

Hospitals have struck deals in recent years to form local and regional health systems that use their reach to bargain for higher prices from insurers. Employers have often passed the higher rates onto employees.

Such price increases added an average of $204 million to national health spending in the year after mergers of nearby hospitals, according to a study published Wednesday [April 24, 2024] by American Economic Review: Insights.

Workers cover much of the bill, said Zack Cooper, an associate professor of economics at Yale University who helped conduct the study. Employers cut into wages and trim jobs to offset rising insurance premiums, he said. “The harm from these mergers really falls squarely on Main Street,” Cooper said.

For the full story see:

Melanie Evans. “Hospital Prices Rise After Mergers, and Patients Bear Brunt.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, April 25, 2024): A3.

(Note: bracketed date added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated April 24, 2024, and has the title “The True Cost of Megamergers in Healthcare: Higher Prices.” The online version says that the title of the print version was “Hospital-Care Prices Rise After Mergers.” But my national edition of the print version had the title “Hospital Prices Rise After Mergers, and Patients Bear Brunt.”)

The forthcoming article co-authored by Cooper, and mentioned above, is:

Brot-Goldberg, Zarek, Zack Cooper, Stuart Craig, and Lev Klarnet. “Is There Too Little Antitrust Enforcement in the U.S. Hospital Sector?” American Economic Review: Insights (forthcoming).

Cloud Brightening Could Counter Global Warming

If the costs of global warming become large enough, we can brighten clouds to reverse global warming.

(p. A1) A little before 9 a.m. on Tuesday [April 2, 2024], an engineer named Matthew Gallelli crouched on the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier in San Francisco Bay, pulled on a pair of ear protectors, and flipped a switch.

A few seconds later, a device resembling a snow maker began to rumble, then produced a great and deafening hiss. A fine mist of tiny aerosol particles shot from its mouth, traveling hundreds of feet through the air.

It was the first outdoor test in the United States of technology designed to brighten clouds and bounce some of the sun’s rays back into space, a way of temporarily cooling a planet that is now dangerously overheating. The scientists wanted to see whether the machine that took years to create could consistently spray the right size salt aerosols through the open air, outside of a lab.

If it works, the next stage would be to aim at the heavens and try to change the composition of clouds above the Earth’s oceans.

. . .

(p. A14) Brightening clouds is one of several ideas to push solar energy back into space — sometimes called solar radiation modification, solar geoengineering, or climate intervention. Compared with other options, such as injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, marine cloud brightening would be localized and use relatively benign sea salt aerosols as opposed to other chemicals.

. . .

“I hope, and I think all my colleagues hope, that we never use these things, that we never have to,” said Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington and the manager of its marine cloud brightening program.

. . .

But it’s vital to find out whether and how such technologies could work, Dr. Doherty said, in case society needs them. And no one can say when the world might reach that point.

In 1990, a British physicist named John Latham published a letter in the journal Nature, under the heading “Control of Global Warming?,” in which he introduced the idea that injecting tiny particles into clouds could offset rising temperatures.

Dr. Latham later attributed his idea to a hike with his son in Wales, where they paused to look at clouds over the Irish Sea.

“He asked why clouds were shiny at the top but dark at the bottom,” Dr. Latham told the BBC in 2007. “I explained how they were mirrors for incoming sunlight.”

Dr. Latham had a proposal that may have seemed bizarre: create a fleet of 1,000 unmanned, sail-powered vessels to traverse the world’s oceans and continuously spray tiny droplets of seawater into the air to deflect solar heat away from Earth.

The idea is built on a scientific concept (p. A15) called the Twomey effect: Large numbers of small droplets reflect more sunlight than small numbers of large droplets. Injecting vast quantities of minuscule aerosols, in turn forming many small droplets, could change the composition of clouds.

“If we can increase the reflectivity by about 3 percent, the cooling will balance the global warming caused by increased C02 in the atmosphere,” Dr. Latham, who died in 2021, told the BBC. “Our scheme offers the possibility that we could buy time.”

A version of marine cloud brightening already happens every day, according to Dr. Doherty.

As ships travel the seas, particles from their exhaust can brighten clouds, creating “ship tracks,” behind them. In fact, until recently, the cloud brightening associated with ship tracks offset about 5 percent of climate warming from greenhouse gases, Dr. Doherty said.

Ironically, as better technology and environmental regulations have reduced the pollution emitted by ships, that inadvertent cloud brightening is fading, as well as the cooling that goes along with it.

A deliberate program of marine cloud brightening could be done with sea salts, rather than pollution, Dr. Doherty said.

For the full story see:

Christopher Flavelle. “Salting the Clouds to Cool an Overheating Earth.” The New York Times (Thursday, April 4, 2024): A1 & A14-A15.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date April 2, 2024, and has the title “Warming Is Getting Worse. So They Just Tested a Way to Deflect the Sun.”)

The article by the physicist John Latham, published in the one of the top two journals in science, and mentioned above, is:

Latham, John. “Control of Global Warming?” Nature 347, no. 6291 (Sept. 27, 1990): 339-40.

The New York Times Is Open to the Possibility and Desirability of Geoengineering

In the past, The New York Times either ignored, or was dismissive of, geoengineering to reverse or mitigate the alleged future effects of global warming. A few months ago, I was pleasantly surprised to see the paper publish a page one article, quoted below, that was open to the policy of geoengineering. This is progress because the left’s standard response to the alleged effects of global warming is to advocate reduced economic growth. Geoengineering would allow economic growth, and the human flourishing it allows, to continue, even if global warming becomes as severe as the pessimists fear.

(p. 1) On a windswept Icelandic plateau, an international team of engineers and executives is powering up an innovative machine designed to alter the very composition of Earth’s atmosphere.

If all goes as planned, the enormous vacuum will soon be sucking up vast quantities of air, stripping out carbon dioxide and then locking away those greenhouse gases deep underground in ancient stone — greenhouse gases that would otherwise continue heating up the globe.

Just a few years ago, technologies like these, that attempt to re-engineer the natural environment, were on the scientific fringe. They were too expensive, too impractical, too sci-fi. But with the dangers from climate change worsening, and the world failing to meet its goals of slashing greenhouse gas emissions, they are quickly moving to the mainstream among both scientists and investors, despite questions about their effectiveness and safety.

. . . Once science fiction, today these ideas are becoming reality.

Researchers are studying ways to block some of the sun’s radiation. They are testing whether adding iron to the ocean could carry carbon dioxide to the sea floor. They are hatching plans to build giant parasols in space. And with massive facilities like the one in Iceland, they are seeking to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air.

. . .

(p. 12) A plant similar to the one in Iceland, but far larger, is being built in Texas by Occidental Petroleum, the giant oil company.

. . .

The Occidental plant, being built near Odessa, Texas, and known as Stratos, will be more than 10 times more powerful than Mammoth, powered by solar energy, and have the potential to capture and sequester 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.

It uses a different process to extract carbon dioxide from the air, though the goal is the same: Most of it will be locked away deep underground. But at least some of the carbon dioxide, Occidental says, will also be used to extract more oil.

In that process, carbon dioxide is pumped into the ground to force out oil that might otherwise be too difficult to reach. Techniques like this have made Occidental a company worth more than $50 billion and helped send American crude production to a new high in recent years.

Of course, it is the world’s reliance on the burning of oil and other fossil fuels that has so dangerously sent carbon dioxide levels soaring. In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide acts as a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat and warming the world.

Today, Occidental says it is trying to become a “carbon management” company as well as an oil producer. Last year, it paid $1.1 billion for a start-up called Carbon Engineering that had developed a way to soak up carbon dioxide from the air, and began building the Stratos project. Today, what was a barren plot of dirt less than 12 months ago is a bustling construction site.

“It’s like the Apollo missions at NASA,” said Richard Jackson, who oversees carbon management and domestic oil operations at Occidental. “We’re trying to move as quickly as we can.”

For the full story see:

David Gelles. “Can We Engineer Our Way Out of a Climate Crisis?” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, March 31, 2024): 1 & 12-13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated April 4, 2024, and has the title “Can We Engineer Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis?” The sentence above that starts “Once science fiction” appeared in the print, but not the online, version.)

The Absence of a Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial Is Used as an Excuse to Ignore an Emergency Procedure That Saves Lives

In an urgent emergency the son and wife of a man with a stopped heart, improvised the use of a toilet plunger to get his heart to start pumping again. In his wonderful account of the sources of insight, Gary Klein told a different example of urgent emergency improvisation: “Wag” Dodge saved himself from a massive wildfire racing toward him by lighting a match to the grass at his feet to pre-burn a patch he could lie down in. When the wildfire reached him, it passed on both sides, avoiding the patch that now had no fuel. Neither the son-and-mother, nor Wag Dodge, got their insight from collaboration or a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

(p. D5) In 1988, a 65-year-old man’s heart stopped at home. His wife and son didn’t know CPR, so in desperation they grabbed a toilet plunger to get his heart going until an ambulance showed up.

Later, after the man recovered at San Francisco General Hospital, his son gave the doctors there some advice: Put toilet plungers next to all of the beds in the coronary unit.

The hospital didn’t do that, but the idea got the doctors thinking about better ways to do CPR, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the conventional method for chest compressions after cardiac arrest. More than three decades later, at a meeting of emergency medical services directors this week in Hollywood, Fla., researchers presented data showing that using a plunger-like setup leads to remarkably better outcomes for reviving patients.

. . .

The new procedure, known as neuroprotective CPR, has three components. First, a silicone plunger forces the chest up and down, not only pushing blood out to the body, but drawing it back in to refill the heart. A plastic valve fits over a face mask or breathing tube to control pressure in the lungs.

The third piece is a body-positioning device sold by AdvancedCPR Solutions, a firm in Edina, Minn., that was founded by Dr. Lurie. A hinged support slowly elevates a supine patient into a partial sitting position. This allows oxygen-starved blood in the brain to drain more effectively and to be replenished more quickly with oxygenated blood.

. . .

. . ., a study carried out in four states found . . . [p]atients who received neuroprotective CPR within 11 minutes of a 911 call were about three times as likely to survive with good brain function as those who received conventional CPR.

. . .

Dr. Karen Hirsch, a neurologist at Stanford University and a member of the CPR standards committee for the American Heart Association, said that the new approach was interesting and made physiological sense, but that the committee needed to see more research on patients before it could formally recommend it as a treatment option.

“We’re limited to the available data,” she said, adding that the committee would like to see a clinical trial in which people undergoing cardiac arrests are randomly assigned to conventional CPR or neuroprotective CPR. No such trials are happening in the United States.

Dr. Joe Holley, the medical director for the emergency medical service that serves Memphis and several surrounding communities, isn’t waiting for a larger trial. Two of his teams, he said, were getting neurologically intact survival rates of about 7 percent with conventional CPR. With neuroprotective CPR, the rates rose to around 23 percent.

His crews are coming back from emergency calls much happier these days, too, and patients are even showing up at fire stations to thank them for their help.

“That was a rare occurrence,” Dr. Holley said. “Now it’s almost a regular thing.”