a-posteriori
Joined 7 years ago
Joined 7 years ago
Are they "installing a Global Positioning (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicles movement"? No.
IMO, it's clear there is massive demand for any research that shows large positive or negative impacts of AI on the economy. The recent WSJ article about Aiden Toner-Rodgers is another great example of demand for AI impact outstripping the supply of AI impact. Obviously this thread's example is just shoddy research vs. the outright data fraud of Toner-Rodgers, but it's hard to not see the pattern.
I hope that MIT and other research institutions can figure this out...
Anything coming from Ayush and Ramesh should be highly scrutinized. Ramesh should stick to studying Camera Culture in the Media Lab.
I will believe a study from MIT when it comes out of CSAIL.
There's a reason it has a catchy headline, there's a reason you needed to fill in an email form to get access to the study, and there's a reason why the 2nd author has an agentic AI startup.
I thought it was a low quality article with no data or in detail methods. MIT needs to do better. This is the second article of this type in the last few months that caught headlines.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
There are few markets which have supported 3-5% brokerage fees (even i-banking is <100bps at scale now) so I'm curious where the fees will settle.
Ironically, Calpers' excuse for their poor returns is that the "top tier" VCs (such as Sequoia) now exclude them due to their public reporting requirements, and therefore they are forced to deploy to tier 2 managers.
> Calpers' venture returns have been historically lackluster. From 2000 to 2020, its venture performance was a dismal 0.49%, compared to 11.59% in buyouts. Calpers declined to comment.
https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/calpers-venture-asset-cl...
How LPs didn't take a step back and ask, "does this strategy work?". I don't know.