@korenmiklos@Econ_4_Everyone I'd rather get a bullet pointed list of sentence fragments that actually convey the referee's thoughts than full sentences/paragraphs that are a machine's attempts to reword those thoughts. If a gen AI can understand your bullets the author of the paper can as well, imo
@paulnovosad I'm not ideologically inclined to this, but a simple read of your evidence is that nobel-level talent is fairly common, but nobel-level cultivation is costly. If so, this might be an argument for elitism--some people need elite opportunities from an early age to do great work.
@paulnovosad Improving conditions "in the mines" up to, say, those at the 50th percentile would do very little to produce nobels, and equalizing life circumstances so everyone got what the 50th or even the 75th percentile got would reduce nobels considerably.
@omni_american@steveplotnicki There also tend to be "multiple equilibria" here, so whether we use a new communication tech depends on the usefulness of the tech but also on happenstance of who made crucial decisions when.
@omni_american@steveplotnicki E.g., email is more useful to me if you use it and vice versa. There's still an aggregation of individual choices, bc whether email becomes widely used depends on individual choices to use it or not. But those choices might not be efficient or optimal by any particular criteria.
Very pleased to see my work with Mary Lopez published today in the Journal of Economic Education, presenting a strategy to broaden discussion of discrimination in introductory economics:
https://t.co/7OsuIiQJq8
We really appreciate @Jess_Hoel for letting me test this material out on her students, and @SandyDarity, @TrevonDLogan and others for great feedback and support!
When we've tried this curriculum with our students, we've gotten some really good discussions. If any of you think you might want to try out these lectures, don't hesitate to reach out! we'd also love to feature examples on our website: https://t.co/W1rma7ilzT