We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

An analysis idea for ChatGPT: policy ideas derived from Samizdata.net

Greg Eiden has an interesting idea we thought might be interesting/terrifying/amusing…

What might ChatGPT or other such tools derive from an analysis of the Samizdata blog post archives? To focus this on something timely: ask it to do the analysis and propose policy ideas for the new Trump Administration, ideas consistent with the perspectives and ideas of the Samizdatista community. Or at least the broad consensus of that community about liberty and limited, less regulatory government.

There are other ways this might be posed to an AI, e.g., “which proposed policies of the Trump administration are consistent with the broad governance perspectives at Samizdata.net and why? Which are not and why?” How would you set up such an analysis to have the model have the best chance at producing something useful?

I am not interested in an experiment that assesses if ChatGPT is a good model for this or a good model in general–I want a good analysis! If the product of such an inquiry was not compelling to enough samizdatistas, if it did not pass a laugh test, we stop there.

Maybe there is a better choice of large language model than ChatGPT; maybe ChatGPT is not optimized for this sort of analysis but other models are? If you have some knowledge here, please chime in!

We had to overturn our liberal democratic order in order to save it from being overturned

I did not see this coming: “South Korea’s president declares emergency martial law”, reports the BBC.

Yoon Suk Yeol, the South Korean president, is quoted as saying, “Our National Assembly has become a haven for criminals, a den of legislative dictatorship that seeks to paralyse the judicial and administrative systems and overturn our liberal democratic order.”

Sounds like projection to me.

Can anyone explain what is going on? Is there really any more of a threat from North Korea than there always is, or is it all to do with domestic politics?

Update: Lawmakers in South Korea vote to lift the martial law decree. The Guardian link says,

South Korea’s parliament, with 190 of its 300 members present, just passed a motion requiring the martial law declared by President Yoon Suk Yeol to be lifted.

All 190 lawmakers present voted to lift the measure, according to CNN.

Much depends on which 190 lawmakers were present. If the very fact that they were still in the parliament building after martial law was declared was because they they were from the opposition, President Yoon will dismiss it – although the 190 being an absolute majority of South Korea’s MPs does give their vote moral weight.

If it was a broad spread of MPs from several parties, this vote might mean the end of the coup. Either way, it is troubling to realise that a country that everyone thought was a stable democracy isn’t.

Did democracy stop being cool or something?

This resonated with me, in a slightly painful way

As a good libertarian, I feel I ought to like the emphasis that the Montessori method of education places on giving children maximum freedom. On the other hand, what I said on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 was – what is that word they used to use? – that’s it, right.

It’s been called discovery learning, experiential learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning and now (heaven help us) “constructivist instructional techniques”.

Whatever you call it, it gives worse results for most people most of the time than just telling them.

It would save you time to take my word for it, but, if you are so inclined, you can click on the link to my old blog to discover my reasons #1, #2, #3a, #3b and #0 for saying that teachers consistently overestimate the effectiveness of discovery learning. The individual links no longer work; you’ll have to scroll down. The process will be good for your soul.

So why am I sitting here wincing as I think about the Montessori method for the first time in decades?

Because of these three tweets that form part of a long thread by Samantha Joy, an advocate of the Montessori system. She writes,

How should we help young children develop positive social skills? The typical answer:

>put children in groups
>enforce norms like sharing
>encourage collaborative play

But this approach *backfires*… often tragically. Montessori saw this, and developed a new approach:

Most people think the focus for ages 0-6 should be socializing.

Learning can wait, they say.

This is the time to meet other children and do things together: play outside, pretend, build things.

There’s just one problem with this strategy …

young children, by and large, aren’t all that interested in one another.

They *prefer* to work and play alone.

True? Or just true for the sort of anti-social little freaks who were destined to still own the set of felt tip pens* they got at the age of ten half a century later?

*Most of which still write. That’s because I put the lids on properly.

Samizdata quote of the day – macroeconomic management doesn’t work

Macroeconomic management doesn’t work because the data available to do detailed macroeconomic management is shit. Therefore let’s not try doing detailed macroeconomic management. Get the basics right, the incentives, markets, then leave be.

Of course, this then leaves a paucity of jobs for economists but then as I’m not one of them why would I give that proverbial?

Tim Worstall