New version of our paper on echo chambers is posted, and it has a couple new results. The first is about inequality of beliefs (1/n) arxiv.org/abs/2010.01249

To be fair, one reason for the disconnect in appreciation for LLMs is that coding has always been unreasonably pedantic in a way that is probably hard to appreciate until you've wrestled with it

PLEASE RT :) Submit to the annual Network Science and Economics Conference, the largest US event for network theory and empirical research in and adjacent to economics Deadline Jan 30 (soon!) Conference Apr 11-13 at Stanford

Some real interesting papers in this session “Neurofinance, Cognition” today, pushing on the idea that seeming departures from rational behavior wrt risk are actually just evidence of cognitive constraints, like limits on memory or attention

One week left to submit your research on AI/ML use in banking and finance to the OCC’s symposium next June! Submit here by Dec. 15: www.occ.gov/news-issuanc... #econsky

These examples of when AI screws up easy questions because of their similarity to well known trick questions reminds me of the classic test-taking technique: they’d never ask this question if the answer were A instead of B

Always relieving to learn a behavioral anomaly was just two cognitive constraints in a trench coat all along

Echo chambers trade usefulness for credibility. It’s reasonable to place more trust in those who agree with you, but they don’t let you know when you’re wrong.

Referee reports on papers are famously negative, but one I’m looking at now includes the phrase “In the future (if any)…” which surely deserves some kind of prize for pessimism

Tiny bit of practical math: if you have more than one type of wine glass you want to store in a line, it saves space to alternate

I liked reading the recent pieces on free will (apparently still a debate!), but they seem to imply that free will is necessary to make choices, or respond to incentives. www.nybooks.com/articles/202...