The place I donate blood gives points that you can exchange for gas cards which means I actually know the current exchange rate of blood for oil. Blood is going for 20.618 times an equivalent amount of oil.

To me (someone w/ no dog in this fight) your reply shows you are not a good scholar: rather than publicly confronting the clear evidence of your misrepresenting your sources, you turn to (perhaps correct) personal criticism of Magness. This is the behavior of (bad) politician, not a scholar.

Unsurprisingly, it's mostly a shrug here except for a few people who pretend it is ok. I'll add another one in this genre that made my jaw drop.

New WP, just in time for #ASHEcon26! What started off as a project to learn LLM use for text analysis turned accidentally into a paper about stigma. [1/n]

💧New Paper Water Works: Causes and Consequences of Safe Drinking Water in America 📉US drinking water pollution fell by HALF in 2003-2019 💰Safe Drinking Water Act $ helped ❤️Investments reduce mortality, benefit/cost ratio >20 www.nber.org/papers/w35288 👇

Immigrants have founded or cofounded 59% (455 of 775) of America’s privately held startup companies valued at $1 billion or more, according to a new National Foundation for American Policy analysis nfap.com/research/new...

Some very interesting discussion, reposted from X, about standards of accuracy in some research areas -- those who follow/read Slobodian might be interested. My take is that the intellectual hygiene in some areas is terrible, and there is very limited interest in any self-correction.

It seems this news hasn't reached this platform yet, but Phil Magness has some striking notes on how @quinnslobodian.com quotes sources, which I'll simply reproduce here 1/

Huge thanks to refine.ink for alerting us to the mistake (and thanks to @bengolub.bsky.social and team for creating such a useful tool) Bottom line: refine.ink is great!

I posted a short note correcting a mistake in an approximation formula in a recent publication of mine Publication: academic.oup.com/qje/article/... Corrigendum: users.nber.org/~notom/resea...

I joined the #nokings protest in Chicago. With the war between the USA, Iran, and Israel and grave human rights violations by the regimes of all three, the good people of these countries must not allow the acts of their leaders to be normalized. March 28, 2026.

🧵A thread on "AI one-shot papers". This has not been a focus on Bluesky, but on Twitter/X and LinkedIn, there has been a large discussion of the ability to "one-shot" policy evaluation, which David Yanagizawa-Drott has been pursuing in an interesting way: ape.socialcatalystlab.org

Great piece by @soumayakeynes.ft.com on AI in economics in today’s FT (link at end) featuring Refine.ink. Indeed, Refine regularly catches issues that need correcting but are missed by even the most rigorous current review processes. a short 🧵 1/

SocialCal #socialcal will read your @bsky.app feed and turn event posts into an ICS calendar feed that you can install in your calendar app. See the documentation here: socialcal.org It is open source. Suggestions or improvements are welcome.

Everyone freezing on the East Coast or in the Midwest remember: Kyiv has the same weather, except that hundreds of thousands of people don't have electricity, heating or running water

Is this too spicy for BlueSky

Tried refine.ink by @bengolub.bsky.social to get feedback about a paper and it's quite remarkable. Worth giving it a try. And if you use this link — www.refine.ink?ref=cGVkcm9t... — we can both get a free review.

I have just used refine.ink by @bengolub.bsky.social to proof-check 3 papers, and it is amazing! It checks for internal consistency, checks proofs and finds typos that I would not have seen! Sign up using my link so we both can get extra reviews when: www.refine.ink?ref=YS5wZWlj...

This is a common question - Refine seems about equally useful for theory and empirical work. It thinks about, e.g., whether - the numbers in a paper make sense taken together - the econometric equations match up with the verbal claims - whether signs of effects make sense.

I just used refine.ink to proofread a paper that's nearly ready for circulation. It had 23 comments. The first caught us using "reduces" instead of "increases" when describing our main treatment effect in the abstract. I highly endorse this tool for preventing such embarassing errors!

If you sign up for Refine to proofread your papers, please use my referral link to create an account: www.refine.ink?ref=ay5ib2dh... That way we both can receive one free technical review!

A meme I created for a presentation I gave today Best wishes to @bengolub.bsky.social and all other Eigenvalue appreciators

🚨 We are hiring! ‼️‼️ tenured track assistant or associate prof in economics at university of Melbourne @unimelb.bsky.social welcome applications from all fields (but especially from econometrics) econjobmarket.org/positions?sh...

This seems very interesting. I would be keen to hear about experiences with Refine.

Check out refine.ink for AI technical referee reports on your papers if you haven't tried it yet DM me or reply if you want preview credits to see how it performs on papers of various kinds

#econtwitter #econsky: recently used Refine.ink#econtwitter#econsky:developed by @ben_golub) as a AI assessment tool for papers + it is amazing, so wanted to share some examples of what it can do if you are curious. (It's much, much better than other free tools I've used)

Added Finance job decomposition, and Federal Reserve Bank/Board jobs (zero so far this year...)

Posted a short blog post with updated data (and public repo with data) of current state of Econ job market: paulgp.com/2025/10/08/j...

presented without comment

I tried this on a manuscript—I’m impressed! It flagged: - A missing variable in a first-order condition - An outdated manual calc (“drop from X to Y is not Z%”) - Inconsistent notation - Miscellaneous typos (“and and”, “+ +”) - Missing subscripts - Several unclear passages

I have just used it for the first time and let me tell you, it is well worth the money. Highly recommended for a last check before submission. Great stuff 👏

This @beijingpalmer.bsky.social post reminded me I have been meaning to update @pewresearch.org's estimate of total newspaper newsroom jobs - which was 30,820 as of 2020 Using BLS OEWS data (w/ same methodology as Pew) the 2024 number is 29,260 - down another 5% www.pewresearch.org/chart/sotnm-...

Survivorship bias maybe. There were other chesses.

Peter Temin, economic historian at MIT, has passed away. He worked both on problems of understanding the past (e.g. "Did Monetary Forces Cause the Great Depression?") and how how the past shapes the present (e.g. "The Vanishing Middle Class.") Terrific scholar and mentor, generous critic.

I wrote about automation and the meaning of life, as a guest post on Scott Aaronson's Shtetl-Optimized. (1/5) scottaaronson.blog?p=9030

A 16 y o running a 1:42.27 800m is maybe the most impressive and amazing and shocking athletic feat I have ever seen. Hard to explain how truly extraordinary it is.

Reminds me of this paper aclanthology.org/2025.finding...

I wonder how LLM literature reviews will change "rich-get-richer" effects in academic citations.

Okay, now that I've used it for some work on forecasting, I have to say this is a fantastic tool! We will be changing some things in our paper as a result. Highly recommended!

Belatedly doing my best to amplify this. Refine works, and I can totally see it becoming part of my pre-submission routine.

Refine is at a completely different level from the other LLM-based review tools I have tried. It not only identified a large number of small errors in my paper, it also correctly identified what I think is the biggest conceptual weakness. Definitely worth trying.

fwiw I used refine & while it misread my paper & made mistakes in 2 places, they were pretty "good" mistakes & I'm going to change the text to be clearer because I think a human could make the same mistake. The other comments were also helpful. It's the best "LLM peer review" experience I've found.

Pretty impressive! It caught things that o3 and Gemini didn't. Wish I had had this before my submission...

👩‍🏫The war in Ukraine has devastated the education system, so the AI for Good Foundation and Econ4UA created education centers in four frontline cities. Located in air raid shelters with reliable Internet, they offer free classes and a safe space for children to learn. Support our centers:

I just tried out Refine on a paper of mine and found the comments very helpful.

Tried this out; generally very impressed with the quality of the feedback!

It did find something wrong in one of mine, that Ben fed it!

Neat AI product for improving technical writing. Tried it on a 50 page draft of a causal ML paper. Of its top 10 comments, 4 concerned minor technical issues I'd missed (notation error, misapplication of definition, etc.). In my experience, vanilla chatbots wouldn't have caught these.

I've been working on a new tool, Refine, to make scholars more productive. If you're interested in being among the very first to try the beta, please read on. Refine leverages the best current AI models to draw your attention to potential errors and clarity issues in research paper drafts. 1/

M. Gessen is a caricature (This is about Mamdani being accused of antisemitism)