Politics

On May 16, news sources reported that Republicans planned to eliminate subsidies for nuclear power, leading a number of pundits to complain that Republicans were destroying nuclear power in the US (e.g. this otherwise good Noahpinion post).

The stock market told a very different story. I will illustrate with the stock prices of the two companies that seem most focused on building new nuclear power plants.

NuScale (NYSE:SMR) was up more than 52% between April 30 and May 22.

It was up a further 19.6% on May 23 in reaction to an executive order that is aimed at speeding up approvals of nuclear plants.

Oklo (NYSE:OKLO) was up more than 67% between April 30 and May 22. It was up a further 23% on May 23.

Both stocks were up slightly on May 16 and the subsequent trading day, indicating little interest in the news about subsidies.

The market seems to be pretty clear: the benefit of reducing regulations is so much larger than the benefit from subsidies that the subsidies are hard to distinguish from a rounding error.

It’s also fairly likely that some of the market rise up through May 22 was influenced by the executive order that was published on May 23. In other words, it seems pretty likely that somebody profited from advance knowledge of the executive order. I’m pretty sure that’s covered by the SEC’s rules as illegal insider trading.

I can’t prove insider trading here. It’s possible that there was public information that contributed to the pre May 23 rise. The NYT reported relevant rumors on May 9, but both that article and the stock market reaction to it suggest that the administration didn’t decide until sometime later on what kind of executive order to make.

I don’t care enough about insider trading to be too outraged about this particular example of likely corruption. But I’m a bit sad that the most corrupt administration in US history manages to look better than its critics on nuclear issues.

Note: I own stock in NuScale, and some uranium processing companies.

Trump has become seriously overconfident. Republicans in Congress now face a dilemma similar to what Democrats faced last summer when it became apparent how senile Biden was.

The senate vote against Canadian tariffs is just the beginning of congressional resistance.

Voters in swing states a month or two from now will put more pressure on Republican politicians to change course. As with Biden, leaders will be slow to speak out against Trump until after most of them have privately decided on some sort of break with him.

It seems very likely that there will be some sort of dramatic confrontation between Trump and Congress and/or the courts. The outcome may be quite messy, but I don’t see how Trump can avoid being widely recognized as a pathetic loser. If the Republican party doesn’t distance itself enough from Trump soon, it will become a minority party for quite some time.

I doubt that a recession could be avoided merely by Trump conceding to reduce tariffs. The uncertainty that he creates is roughly half the problem. Economic recovery depends on a clear signal that the US is a safe place for business, such as Trump leaving office or being restrained by another branch of government.

What does this mean for the stock market?

The historical analogies that I can find aren’t very close, but weak analogies are better than nothing.

My main analogy is the Carter Administration’s credit controls (March 1980), which caused a short recession. The market dropped 7% in two weeks after they were announced. It took nearly 2.5 years for a sustained recovery to begin. But the harm from the credit controls, which were clearly intended as a temporary measure, probably ended within a couple of months.

My second analogy is 9/11. The market dropped nearly 12% in 10 days, then recovered enough that the decline in 2002 was likely unrelated. If the US unites against tariffs as clearly as it united against Al Qaeda, then I’d be buying now. But Trump would likely need to make another mistake to produce that much unity.

Tariffs are likely doing somewhat more harm than those two events, but it’s fairly plausible that the markets have mostly reflected the effects.

AI stocks look cheap. I expect to buy more sometime over the next few months. But the uncertainties will likely delay the next bull market long enough that it’s wise to wait for more news before buying.

Here are some scattered comments about the 2024 elections.

I was glad to have Manifold Markets and Election Betting Odds to watch the results. I want numbers, not encumbered by the storytellers and emotions of the news media. I also watched the odds that Nate Silver tried to update, but that was a total flop.

Peak Polarization

I see many weak hints that the polarization of the US has subsided compared to 2020.

Continue Reading

I’ve seen plenty of people recently ranting about how presidential candidate X is obviously terrible because of their position on Y. It’s often the case that if I were voting solely on Y, I’d agree that candidate X is terrible.

I see patterns suggesting that those people tend to choose X first, and then choose one or more Y’s that fit an opponent of X.

I want to push back on these patterns, and explain why I expect to be confused as to how scared I should be by the upcoming election results, by focusing on issues based on how important I’d think they were if I didn’t know who would be running.

The most important issues are at least an order of magnitude more important than typical issues, so I ought to base my vote on the most important issues if at all possible.

Continue Reading

Nearly a book review: Situational Awareness, by Leopold Aschenbrenner.

“Situational Awareness” offers an insightful analysis of our proximity to a critical threshold in AI capabilities. His background in machine learning and economics lends credibility to his predictions.

The paper left me with a rather different set of confusions than I started with.

Rapid Progress

His extrapolation of recent trends culminates in the onset of an intelligence explosion:

Continue Reading

I have canceled my OpenAI subscription in protest over OpenAI’s lack of ethics.

In particular, I object to:

  • threats to confiscate departing employees’ equity unless those employees signed a life-long non-disparagement contract
  • Sam Altman’s pattern of lying about important topics

I’m trying to hold AI companies to higher standards than I use for typical companies, due to the risk that AI companies will exert unusual power.

A boycott of OpenAI subscriptions seems unlikely to gain enough attention to meaningfully influence OpenAI. Where I hope to make a difference is by discouraging competent researchers from joining OpenAI unless they clearly reform (e.g. by firing Altman). A few good researchers choosing not to work at OpenAI could make the difference between OpenAI being the leader in AI 5 years from now versus being, say, a distant 3rd place.

A year ago, I thought that OpenAI equity would be a great investment, but that I had no hope of buying any. But the value of equity is heavily dependent on trust that a company will treat equity holders fairly. The legal system helps somewhat with that, but it can be expensive to rely on the legal system. OpenAI’s equity is nonstandard in ways that should create some unusual uncertainty. Potential employees ought to question whether there’s much connection between OpenAI’s future profits and what equity holders will get.

How does OpenAI’s behavior compare to other leading AI companies?

I’m unsure whether Elon Musk’s xAI deserves a boycott, partly because I’m unsure whether it’s a serious company. Musk has a history of breaking contracts that bears some similarity to OpenAI’s attitude. Musk also bears some responsibility for SpaceX requiring non-disparagement agreements.

Google has shown some signs of being evil. As far as I can tell, DeepMind has been relatively ethical. I’ve heard clear praise of Demis Hassabis’s character from Aubrey de Grey, who knew Hassabis back in the 1990s. Probably parts of Google ought to be boycotted, but I encourage good researchers to work at DeepMind.

Anthropic seems to be a good deal more ethical than OpenAI. I feel comfortable paying them for a subscription to Claude Opus. My evidence concerning their ethics is too weak to say more than that.

P.S. Some of the better sources to start with for evidence against Sam Altman / OpenAI:

But if you’re thinking of working at OpenAI, please look at more than just those sources.

Book review: A Theory of Everyone – The New Science of Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going Energy, culture and a better future for everyone, by Michael Muthukrishna.

I found this book disappointing. An important part of that is because Muthukrishna set my expectations too high.

I had previously blogged about a paper that he co-authored with Henrich on cultural influences on IQ. If those ideas were new in the book, I’d be eagerly writing about them. But I’ve already written enough about those ideas in that blog post.

Another source of disappointment was that the book’s title is misleading. To the limited extent that the book focuses on a theory, it’s the theory that’s more clearly described in Henrich’s The Secret of our Success. A Theory of Everyone feels more like a collection of blog posts than like a well-organized book.

Continue Reading

Book review: Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the Ends of Humanity, by Daniel Deudney.

Dark Skies is an unusually good and bad book.

Good in the sense that 95% of the book consists of uncontroversial, scholarly, mundane claims that accurately describe the views that Deudney is attacking. These parts of the book are careful to distinguish between value differences and claims about objective facts.

Bad in the senses that the good parts make the occasional unfair insult more gratuitous, and that Deudney provides little support for his predictions that his policies will produce better results than those of his adversaries. I count myself as one of his adversaries.

Dark Skies is an opposite of Where Is My Flying Car? in both style and substance.

Continue Reading

Book review: The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder, by Peter Zeihan.

Are you looking for an entertaining set of geopolitical forecasts that will nudge you out of the frameworks of mainstream pundits? This might be just the right book for you.

Zeihan often sounds more like a real estate salesman than a scholar: The US has more miles of internal waterways than the rest of the world combined! US mountain ranges have passes that are easy enough to use that the mountains barely impede traffic. Transportation options like that guarantee sufficient political unity!

Continue Reading