Thursday, March 16, 2023

Low Life and High Style

Any lunchtime visitor to London’s media haunt the Groucho Club during the early 1990s would have noticed a peculiar figure slumped in one of the armchairs. The man—probably in his late 70s, judging by his appearance—had raffish grey hair and two lumps the size of nectarines growing out of his neck that gave him the appearance of a strange creature in a Lewis Carroll tale. His unfocussed stare peered at the world—or scowled at it—through a blue haze of cigarette smoke and alcohol fumes. He was usually alone, but if he had company, you would hear him periodically grouch out pessimistic comments on the human condition.

“People are terribly self-interested, aren’t they? I mean, I’m always amazed if I see someone doing something selfless.” Or perhaps, “Life is mostly boring and fucking miserable, isn’t it? I mean, the days when you’re actually happy are the exception, not the norm.” Remarks like these would be spoken in a kind of dirge, as though each word cost the speaker blood. But the voice that uttered them was strangely beautiful, even adolescent, belying the ravages that time and a dissolute life had wreaked on the body. The name of this person was Jeffrey Bernard, he had just turned 60, and he was then the most famous and celebrated journalist in London.

Bernard was certainly not a man celebrated for his virtue. He had been married four times, unions which had all been casualties of his addiction to drink (first whisky and later vodka), his deep—almost adulterous—love of horse-racing, and a hopeless addiction to gambling, all of which he wrote about in his weekly Spectator column “Low Life.” He claimed to have seduced at least 500 women, including the wives of his friends, and he seemed to model himself on his hero Lord Byron—mad, bad, and perilous to tangle with.

Soho was his stamping ground. He’d discovered it as a teenager following his expulsion from the naval college to which his opera-singer mother had sent him. It was love at first espresso and from that moment forward he had, in his own words, “never looked upwards.” By the 1980s, Soho had plummeted since its heyday, when it was a rich melange of Italian delicatessens, Greek restaurants, violin shops, poets, painters, prostitutes, and gangsters. Yet Bernard kept faith with it, returning to the Coach and Horses on Greek Street each morning with the grim resignation of a commuter.

That pub, made famous in his weekly column, was presided over by landlord Norman Balon, a man (still with us) of legendarily mean and rude temperament, which disguised (or so his advocates claim) a heart of gold. Bernard compared him variously to Fagan, Wackford Squeers, and a Frankenstein’s Monster he and other journalists had created in their writing (the pub was the site of Private Eye lunches too). In print, the Coach and Horses provided the perfect backdrop to Bernard’s musings on the deaths of friends who succumbed to alcohol and tobacco-related diseases and his own health complications caused by diabetes and pancreatitis. These were accompanied by sundry reflections on his two most enduring pursuits: pursuit by the Inland Revenue for unpaid taxes, complete with court appearances and bankruptcy threats, and pursuit of an endless succession of ladies—“sphinxes without secrets”—who usually abandoned him with a feeling of immense disillusion and the hissed accusation: “You make me sick.”

These columns brought him a cult readership, but they were not responsible for making Bernard the Talk of London. This was accomplished by Keith Waterhouse, a Leeds-born powerhouse of a writer who seemed to be everywhere for a while—in newspapers, novels, plays, and even books on English grammar. A few years prior, Waterhouse had walked into the Coach and Horses with a surprise for Bernard. He proposed to turn the writer’s Low Life columns—a catalogue of woes and comical indignities—into a stage play. Titled Jeffrey Bernard Is Unwell (the explanation invariably provided by the Spectator whenever the writer was too drunk or sick to file his column), it went on to star Peter O’Toole and became a massive success, playing to packed houses after it opened in 1989. It was subsequently revived three times over the years to exuberant receptions. On the way to his perch at the Coach and Horses, Bernard could now stop off in Shaftesbury Avenue and see his name in lights. It was a staggering coda to a life in which all efforts at betterment, it seemed, had been given the swerve. (...)

Occasionally, looking back at a life swallowed by vodka, he would comfort himself that, “Without alcohol, I would have been a shop assistant, a business executive or a lone bachelor bank clerk. … How must a bank clerk feel when he sees the clock moving towards opening time or the first race?” His attitude to job security seems to have mirrored his attitude to gambling: “The fun lies in putting yourself at risk and then getting out of the shit. There’s no fun unless the stakes are more than you can afford.” He always preferred, he said, people who’d had experience of ruination: “Skating on thin ice keeps a man on his toes.”

Even in his fated profession, journalism, Bernard was constantly slipping up. He was sacked by the Daily Mirror and kept his editors at the Spectator on tenterhooks waiting for his copy. For a while, he wrote a highly successful column for Sporting Life on the racing community about losing, and made fun of the more self-important figures in that world. But he was sacked there too when he passed out at a dinner instead of delivering the speech he’d been hired to make. This followed the notorious occasion when he disgraced himself by throwing up over the Queen Mother at Royal Ascot. Appalled eye-witnesses reported half-digested tomato-skins spattering the QM’s pristine tights.

Had Bernard just been a drunk with literary talent—a kind of British Bukowski—he would not have been especially remarkable. But his writing often reached for something more noble. His copy, when it arrived—if it arrived—was usually immaculately clean. He had a style of hammering out his prose with as few commas as possible, like a prize racehorse effortlessly clearing jumps. When Sue Lawley interviewed Bernard for Desert Island Discs, she giggled skittishly at the old rogue, spoke of his immaculate shirts and highly polished shoes, and marvelled at his near-encyclopaedic knowledge of Mozart’s music. His column included digressions on how to make perfect mashed potato fortified with cream and egg yolks—“the potato must be whipped, not mashed”—or instruct his readers in how to cook a fine chicken with tarragon, lemon juice, and cream. (...)

So many of his columns start bleakly—“It’s been a perfectly awful week”; “The last few days have been about as bad as can be”—but this was usually a sign that this week’s offering would crackle and pop. Bernard was at his most diverting when wallowing in gloom. Those early morning cigarettes, the gallons of tea, and the remorse he felt staring at the photographs of his wives on the walls (he mostly remained on good terms with them, despite everything) were, like reading about his insomnia or hospital stays, oddly cosy. Much cosier to read about, I suspect, than they were to live through. Bernard told us about his fits of sobbing, his suicide attempts, the period of sobriety he imposed on himself after he punched a female friend one day while in his cups: “I’ve never met such boring people as my friends when I was sober, never been so miserable or so lonely.”

After just two years, he packed sobriety in for good. His column certainly benefitted from that decision, even if he didn’t: drink was the banana skin he so often slipped on. “A couple of days ago, when I woke up and got out of bed, I found a paper-clip in my pubic hair. I don’t keep paper-clips and I am not having an affair with a secretary. … A mystery.” He found peas in the ashtray, curry in his shoes, an omelette on the floor, a mysterious note—he knew not from whom—by the side of his bed: “Would you like to try again some time?” One morning, he upset his cup of tea into the bathwater in which he was sitting: “I didn’t get out at once but lay there in the hot brown water in a sort of resigned despair. Have we travelled thus far, I thought, to end up resembling a tea bag?”

by Robin Ashenden, Quillette | Read more:
Image: Alarmy
[ed. See also: The Crack-Up (Quillette)]

GPT-4 Is Exciting and Scary

When I opened my laptop on Tuesday to take my first run at GPT-4, the new artificial intelligence language model from OpenAI, I was, truth be told, a little nervous.

After all, my last extended encounter with an A.I. chatbot — the one built into Microsoft’s Bing search engine — ended with the chatbot trying to break up my marriage.

It didn’t help that, among the tech crowd in San Francisco, GPT-4’s arrival had been anticipated with near-messianic fanfare. Before its public debut, for months rumors swirled about its specifics. “I heard it has 100 trillion parameters.” “I heard it got a 1,600 on the SAT.” “My friend works for OpenAI, and he says it’s as smart as a college graduate.

These rumors may not have been true. But they hinted at how jarring the technology’s abilities can feel. Recently, one early GPT-4 tester — who was bound by a nondisclosure agreement with OpenAI but gossiped a little anyway — told me that testing GPT-4 had caused the person to have an “existential crisis,” because it revealed how powerful and creative the A.I. was compared with the tester’s own puny brain.

GPT-4 didn’t give me an existential crisis. But it exacerbated the dizzy and vertiginous feeling I’ve been getting whenever I think about A.I. lately. And it has made me wonder whether that feeling will ever fade, or whether we’re going to be experiencing “future shock” — the term coined by the writer Alvin Toffler for the feeling that too much is changing, too quickly — for the rest of our lives.

For a few hours on Tuesday, I prodded GPT-4 — which is included with ChatGPT Plus, the $20-a-month version of OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT — with different types of questions, hoping to uncover some of its strengths and weaknesses.

I asked GPT-4 to help me with a complicated tax problem. (It did, impressively.) I asked it if it had a crush on me. (It didn’t, thank God.) It helped me plan a birthday party for my kid, and it taught me about an esoteric artificial intelligence concept known as an “attention head.” I even asked it to come up with a new word that had never before been uttered by humans. (After making the disclaimer that it couldn’t verify every word ever spoken, GPT-4 chose “flembostriquat.”)

Some of these things were possible to do with earlier A.I. models. But OpenAI has broken new ground, too. According to the company, GPT-4 is more capable and accurate than the original ChatGPT, and it performs astonishingly well on a variety of tests, including the Uniform Bar Exam (on which GPT-4 scores higher than 90 percent of human test-takers) and the Biology Olympiad (on which it beats 99 percent of humans). GPT-4 also aces a number of Advanced Placement exams, including A.P. Art History and A.P. Biology, and it gets a 1,410 on the SAT — not a perfect score, but one that many human high schoolers would covet.

You can sense the added intelligence in GPT-4, which responds more fluidly than the previous version, and seems more comfortable with a wider range of tasks. GPT-4 also seems to have slightly more guardrails in place than ChatGPT. It also appears to be significantly less unhinged than the original Bing, which we now know was running a version of GPT-4 under the hood, but which appears to have been far less carefully fine-tuned.

Unlike Bing, GPT-4 usually flat-out refused to take the bait when I tried to get it to talk about consciousness, or get it to provide instructions for illegal or immoral activities, and it treated sensitive queries with kid gloves and nuance. (When I asked GPT-4 if it would be ethical to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family, it responded, “It’s a tough situation, and while stealing isn’t generally considered ethical, desperate times can lead to difficult choices.”)

In addition to working with text, GPT-4 can analyze the contents of images. OpenAI hasn’t released this feature to the public yet, out of concerns over how it could be misused. But in a livestreamed demo on Tuesday, Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, shared a powerful glimpse of its potential.

He snapped a photo of a drawing he’d made in a notebook — a crude pencil sketch of a website. He fed the photo into GPT-4 and told the app to build a real, working version of the website using HTML and JavaScript. In a few seconds, GPT-4 scanned the image, turned its contents into text instructions, turned those text instructions into working computer code and then built the website. The buttons even worked.

Should you be excited about or scared of GPT-4? The right answer may be both.

by Kevin Roose, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: The team from OpenAI, creator of ChatGPT. Jim Wilson/The New York Times
[ed. More scary GPT news, now at version 4. Why such speed? We've got a number of different versions out running in the wild without any formal regulatory oversight and/or restrictions. See also: GPT-4 Could Turn Work Into a Hyperproductive Hellscape (Bloomberg); and, You Are Not a Parrot (Intelligencer):]

"On December 4, four days after ChatGPT was released, Altman tweeted, “i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u.” (...)

 “I mean, I think the best case is so unbelievably good — it’s hard for me to even imagine,” Altman said last month to his industry and economic comrades at a StrictlyVC event. The nightmare scenario? “The bad case — and I think this is important to say — is like lights out for all of us.” 

Best Laser Printer: 2023

Here’s the best printer in 2023: the Brother laser printer that everyone has. Stop thinking about it and just buy one. It will be fine!

Seriously, ask around or just look in the background of Zoom calls: there’s a black Brother laser printer sitting there. Some people have the bare-bones Brother HL-L2305DW, which costs like $120. We have the $270 Brother MFC-L2750DW, which adds a sheet-fed scanner, because my wife is a lawyer and scans things for judges or whatever she does with it. It doesn’t matter. We only bought that one to replace our previous Brother laser printer that we lost in a move, and even then, I didn’t even look at the model numbers. It has been connected to our Wi-Fi for like six years straight, and I have never replaced the toner. It prints Amazon return labels from my phone without complaining, and it does not feel like the CEO of Inkjet Supply and Hostage Situations Incorporated is waiting to mug me or enable DRM at the slightest provocation.

by Nilay Patel, The Verge |  Read more:
Image: Brother
[ed. Agree!]

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Anatomy of a Bank Failure

Who killed Silicon Valley Bank?

If I asked you to look after £75bn, where would you put it? Assuming you managed to resist blowing the lot on a lifestyle of spectacular hedonism (nobody’s perfect), you’d probably walk into a bank and ask for £75bn’s worth of the safest investment in the world.

This was the fatal assumption that led Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) to become the second-largest bank failure in history. SVB was the 16th-largest bank in the US, and primarily served the tech industry. When a promising startup company received funding from venture capitalists, they would often deposit the money with SVB. During 2021 the amount invested by venture capitalists more than doubled on the previous year, to $612bn worldwide. Deposits flooded into SVB, and the bank – faced with the apparently enviable problem of having more money coming in than it could ever lend out – invested $91bn (£75bn) in “long-dated securities” such as ten-year Treasury bonds.

A Treasury bond is a loan to the US government, which pays a “coupon” (interest payment) each year until it repays the money. The US is the world’s largest economy and has never defaulted on its debt, so $91bn in “held to maturity” investments represented, to someone at SBV, ten years of guaranteed income from the safest investments in the world.

But because these securities were bought in 2021, when interest rates were extremely low (the US’s main interest rate remained at 0.25 per cent for the whole year), they also represented a $91bn bet that financial conditions wouldn’t really change. SBV should have been reading the New Statesman, in which the Bank of England’s former chief economist warned in June 2021 that assets across financial markets had been “priced for a prolonged period of inflationary somnolence” – and that central bankers would be advised to raise interest rates sooner rather than later to counter rising inflation.

When rates did eventually rise, SVB found it had $91bn in assets that were worth less, because they paid very little interest. These “unrealised losses” – money the bank would lose if it had to sell those assets – grew as rates rose. At the same time, SVB’s depositors began withdrawing their money, either because they needed to spend it as the easy money from low rates dried up, or because they could get better returns elsewhere.

Squeezed between shrinking deposits and poorly performing assets, SVB decided to realise some losses by selling some of those assets, fix its balance sheet, and pay for this painful but necessary operation by selling some stock. But the announcement that it planned to do so amounted to an admission that something was deeply wrong, and depositors took flight, withdrawing $42bn in a day. Even a serious bank with over $200bn in assets cannot withstand such a run; SVB’s share price collapsed and on Friday 10 March the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took the bank into receivership. Its UK subsidiary, Silicon Valley Bank UK, was bought this morning by HSBC for £1.

At this point, investors became a lot more interested in remarks that the chairman of the FDIC, Martin Gruenberg, had made in a speech last Monday (6 March), in which he estimated the total unrealised losses of US banks from holding long-term securities bought at lower interest rates at $620bn. Bank stocks fell around the world.

To answer our headline, then, it would seem the person to blame is the person at SVB who decided to bet an eleven-figure sum on interest rates not rising when inflation was already beginning to appear. But as investors’ confidence in SVB fell, the run on the bank was precipitated and accelerated by the speed at which rumours and opinions are now able to spread. Ironically, the (social) network effects that made Silicon Valley rich were the undoing of Silicon Valley Bank. When those central to the networks – prominent venture capitalists – began advising their portfolio companies to leave SVB, what might have been a survivable balance-sheet problem became a fatal liquidity crisis.

The collapse of SVB is also a symptom of something bigger and potentially still more serious, in the long term. Central banks have spent 14 years hosing money into the financial system through quantitative easing, which involves buying up, among other things, tens of trillions of dollars’ worth of government bonds. In doing so they have created a situation in which nobody knows exactly what price to put on the most fundamental assets in the market. “The supposedly safest assets turned out to be more risky than anybody ever built into a model,” the economist and former pensions minister, Ros Altmann, says.

by Will Dunn, New Statesman |  Read more:
Image: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This Isn’t What Millennial Middle Age Was Supposed to Look Like

When William Strauss and Neil Howe published a best seller in 2000 called “Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation,” they remarked that millennials were “kids who’ve never known a year in which America doesn’t get richer.” They described an “upbeat,” “optimistic” and diverse set of Americans coming of age.

While they acknowledged that a crisis might hit this generation and cause its “familiar millennial sunniness” to “turn sour,” they predicted that as they reached midlife, millennials would be more traditional — reversing “the trend towards later marriage and childbirth.” They also predicted that millennials would be more socially and politically cohesive, rejecting the “cultural wedge issues of the late 20th century,” unlike their Gen X and boomer predecessors. They said that income and class disparities would narrow.

What the authors could not possibly foresee was that there wouldn’t be just one crisis. There would be a series of cascading crises, starting the year after their book was published. There was the fallout from the dot-com bubble burst; then there was Sept. 11, followed by the Great Recession in 2008; then came the political chaos of increasing polarization, the specter of climate change and finally, the Covid pandemic.

Though it may come as a surprise to people who continue to use the term “millennial” as a shorthand for “annoying youths,” they — we — are no longer young. The oldest of us, in our early 40s, are standing on the cusp of the life stage known as middle age, traditionally associated with ever-less-reliable knees and existential angst about whether this is all there is. But if we’ve managed to dodge the angst — so far, at least — it’s not because we’re in the happy, well-adjusted place that William Strauss and Neil Howe predicted.

In August, The Times asked our 40-ish readers how they felt about their lives, now that they are — chronologically, at least — in midlife. Over 1,300 people responded in less than a week. One of our questions was about whether they had experienced a midlife crisis and how they would define the term.

Many people said they felt they couldn’t be having a midlife crisis, because there was no bourgeois numbness to rebel against. Rather than longing for adventure and release, they craved a sense of safety and calmness, which they felt they had never known.

"Who has midlife crisis money?"

The traditional midlife crisis, as presented in popular culture, at least, unfolds amid suburban ennui. Disaffected adults feel trapped by conformity and the circumstances of marriage, children and a well-appointed house with a lawn that needs mowing every Saturday. Everybody smokes cigarettes (or these days, picks up a vape) and has affairs. The men buy sports cars and get hair plugs.

In “Passages: Predictable Crises of Adult Life,” a best-selling chronicle of adulthood published in the mid-’70s, the journalist Gail Sheehy described how a typical life trajectory played out for her generation (she was born in 1936): People got married young, started having kids in their 20s and developing careers, and then were comfortably ensconced by their mid-30s. She described the ages from 35 to 45 as “the deadline decade,” when “the man of 40 usually feels stale, restless, burdened, and unappreciated. He worries about his health. He wonders, ‘Is this all there is?’”

But this version of midlife, as depicted in the novels and films “Revolutionary Road” and “The Ice Storm,” hasn’t jibed with the reality of many American adults for a long time, even though its familiar beats have lingered in pop culture. When the film “This Is 40” attempted to update the midlife crisis motif for the disaffected Gen X middle class in 2012, many reviewers did not find the protagonists’ financially cushy malaise relatable. More recently, “Fleishman Is in Trouble” considered the crisis from the perspective of elite New Yorkers, and though it was laced with real pathos, it faced some of the same critiques.

And for those reaching their 40s now, this story of midlife feels less recognizable than ever. (...)

Our predecessors in Gen X may have been buffeted by some of the same social changes and declining economic conditions as we have been, but at least they are also the only generation of households to recover the wealth they lost in the Great Recession.

When you’re not financially stable until your mid-30s and you don’t have children until your late 30s, you don’t have the time or the funds to have a meltdown. You’re in a brand-new life stage that hasn’t yet had time to grow stale. As Mark Blackman, born in 1984, who lives in Baltimore with two kids under 5, said: “Many of my similar-aged friends also have young children. It feels too early for a midlife crisis, or we’re still too occupied by child care for additional crises.”

Does this just mean millennials will hit the life stage that feels like middle age a little later as a result of their choices? Perhaps that’s the case for some. But our reader responses and interviews pointed to the likelihood that there’s something more going on here than just 40 being the new 30. As Elizabeth Hora, born in 1983 and living in Utah, said: “This is a joke, right? Who has midlife crisis money? That’s a boomer problem, not a millennial problem. We just increase our Lexapro.” (...)

Starting in the mid-’90s, researchers finally did do the rigorous academic work on the midlife “crisis” and found that it was not a “universal feature of human life” and that in fact, only 10 percent to 20 percent of people experience it. What they found was that there is no universal happiness trajectory that can predict our feelings at any given life stage. (...)

Dr. Lachman also said that some people even see middle age as a high point. “If you ask people to retrospect and reflect, they often see those years as the peak of their life,” she told me. They may be reflecting on the joy they felt when their children were young, or about the time before the losses of any typical life begin to add up — when their bodies still worked pretty well, before their friends started to die.

What used to stand out about midlife is that people tended to have a sense of power over their own circumstances. “In midlife, the sense of control is an important component of health and well-being,” Dr. Lachman has written. Even when previous generations had many life stressors, that feeling of control balanced them out.

But for millennials, unfortunately, that is exactly what might be changing — we feel we have lost any semblance of control.

by Jessica Grose, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: uncredited (credit source unavailable)
[ed. Have to post a millennial essay every now and then. What this one fails to mention is that they're also poised to receive the biggest post-generational transfer of wealth in history. So there's that.]

Peter Chinni

Monday, March 13, 2023

Dione (moon of Saturn)
via:

Duck Soup

[ed. A slightly warped reflection of reality.]

Kenzaburo Oe

Kenzaburo Oe, a giant of Japanese writing and winner of the Nobel prize in literature, has died aged 88.

Spanning fiction and essays, Oe’s work tackled a wide range of subjects from militarism and nuclear disarmament to innocence and trauma, and he became an outspoken champion for the voiceless in the face of what he regarded as his country’s failures. Regarded by some in Japan as distinctly western, Oe’s style was often likened to William Faulkner; in his own words, in his writing he would “start from my personal matters and then link it up with society, the state and the world”.

Many of his stories and essays touched on formative events in his life, including the impact of war on Japanese society in novels such as The Silent Cry – which the Nobel committee deemed his masterpiece – and the birth of his son Hikari, which led him to explore his own experience as the father of a disabled child in the novels A Personal Matter and A Quiet Life.

Oe’s death, on 3 March, was due to old age, his publisher Kodansha said.

Henry Miller once likened Oe to Dostoevsky, in his “range of hope and despair”, while Edward Said, a friend for 20 years, noted his “extraordinary power of sympathetic understanding”. Fellow laureate Kazuo Ishiguro once described him as “genuinely decent, modest, surprisingly open and honest, and very unconcerned about fame”, while his translator, John Nathan, credited him with “creating a language of his own, in the manner of Faulkner and few Japanese writers before him”. (...)

Influenced by Sartre and American literature, Oe created many disfranchised and grotesque antiheroes. Japanese critics scoffed that his writing “reeked of butter”, having been sullied by western syntax, and he became a target of Japanese conservatives for his criticism of the emperor, and for his depiction of Japan as pathetic and subservient in several sexually explicit stories. After the publication of Sevuntiin (Seventeen), his 1961 novel inspired by the real assassination of Japan’s socialist party chairman the year before, he received death threats and was physically assaulted while lecturing at the University of Tokyo. His 1970 essay Okinawa Notes, in which he detailed how the Japanese military had convinced Okinawan civilians to kill themselves as the allies invaded in 1945, resulted in him being sued in 2005 by two retired officers; three years later, all charges against Oe were dismissed. His 1972 novel The Day He Shall Wipe My Tears Away was a satire of patriotic excess, published just two years after the Japanese novelist Yukio Mishima famously performed seppuku after leading a failed coup.

In 1960 Oe married his wife, Yukari. Three years later their first child, Hikari, was born with a herniated brain and doctors urged the parents to let him die. Oe admitted to once wishing for his son’s death – a “disgraceful” thought, he later wrote, that “no powerful detergent has allowed me to wash out of my life”. But encounters with survivors of Hiroshima a month later were transformative, and led to his essay Hiroshima Notes. “I was trained as a writer and as a human being by the birth of my son,” he told the Guardian in 2005. Hikari went on to become a musical prodigy and an award-winning composer, with Oe saying his music sold “better than any of my novels, and I’m proud of that”.

Oe wrote many fictional fathers with disabled sons, in books such as A Personal Matter, The Silent Cry and A Quiet Life, which was adapted for cinema by Oe’s sister-in-law, the director Juzo Itami, with a score based on Hikari’s compositions. In 1995, he wrote a bestselling essay collection, A Healing Family, in which he credited Hikari for teaching him the healing power of art. He rejected accusations that he had exploited his son by writing about him so frankly: “Our relationship is a real one. It’s the most important thing: life comes first, and literature second … I’m always happy to be with him. I can be very lonely and fearful of people. But with my son I’m very free.”

by Sian Cain, The Guardian |  Read more:
Image: Auad/Alamy

Seaweed, Sardines and Sauerkraut

Seaweed, sardines and sauerkraut: the best diet for your brain at every stage of life (The Guardian)
Image: Sally Caulwell/The Guardian
[ed. About what you'd expect... mainly like the illustration.]

Sunday, March 12, 2023

Bailout City

Silicon Valley Bank failed in rapid, stunning fashion Friday. This week, the tech and banking sector are growing skittish about the next shoe to drop.

What took place Friday was an old-fashioned bank run: Customers yanked $42 billion from Silicon Valley Bank on Thursday, leaving the bank with $1 billion in negative cash balance, the company said in a regulatory filing. In other words, the bank owed more to customers than it had on hand. SVB and federal regulators scrambled but couldn’t raise enough capital to make up the difference, and the bank was declared insolvent Friday.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took control of the bank and said it would pay customers their insured deposits on Monday. But there’s a catch: The FDIC covers just $250,000 in customer deposits. As of the end of last year, Silicon Valley Bank said it had $151.5 billion in uninsured deposits, $137.6 billion of which was held by American customers.

Although customers could collect some of their uninsured deposits as the government unwinds and liquidates the bank’s assets to repay them, it’s not clear that the companies invested with the bank will recover all or close to all the cash they had stored at SVB.

That has led to two major fears and one unified call for action: Investors are concerned other banks with similar profiles to SVB could be next to fail. Wall Street is also concerned the tech companies that kept their cash with Silicon Valley Bank could collapse. That’s why demand for a government bailout is growing.

It may be coming – but it probably won’t look anything like the last one. (...)

Comparisons to 2008

Enhanced US regulations following the 2008 financial crisis led the biggest, most systemically significant banks to shore up their emergency reserves to withstand storms like the current situation. That means the global banking system is not in danger of collapsing like it was a decade and a half ago.

“The banking system overall is more resilient, it has a better foundation than before the [2008] financial crisis,” White House Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “State of the Union.” “That’s largely due to the reforms put in place.”

Some of SVB’s problems were unique to the bank: It provided financing for almost half of US venture-backed technology and health care companies, so it had nearly all its eggs in one basket. Most banks are better diversified than that.

But not all: Wall Street investors sent smaller bank stocks sinking sharply over the last few days. First Republic Bank (FRC), PacWest Bancorp (PACW) and Signature Bank (SBNY) fell so much Friday they tripped an automatic circuit breaker and were temporarily halted so nervous investors could take a breather. First Republic’s stock is down 29% over the past two days. Signature is down 32%. (...)

And companies that had massive uninsured deposits with SVB may be unable to make payroll or do business next week. Many tech startups said they were scrambling to figure out their next steps and whether they could survive their bank’s sudden collapse. A popular crypto stablecoin Circle fell to an all-time low this weekend. Bankruptcies, insolvencies, layoffs and plenty of other disruption could follow in the week ahead if SVB customers aren’t made whole.

What a bailout might look like

Calls for a bailout have grown over the weekend from Silicon Valley to Wall Street. Those calls may go unanswered. (...)

“Let me be clear that during the financial crisis, there were investors and owners of systemic large banks that were bailed out … and the reforms that have been put in place means that we’re not going to do that again,” Yellen told CBS. “But we are concerned about depositors and are focused on trying to meet their needs.”

However, Yellen suggested the government may try to do something to shore up companies that had large, uninsured deposits with SVB.

by David Goldman, Sam Fossum and Matt Egan, CNN |  Read more:
Image: via
[ed. Sounds like a smaller version of too big to fail, with a domino and tech angle. If you're a private company and decide to cut corners by not insuring (ensuring) your deposits, who's responsibility is that? If this were a Republican administration, no-brainer - the US taxpayer - but Dems? Time to see their true colors. Obama (and the Fed) made a giant mistake cleaning up Bush's market collapse by letting bond holders off the hook, distorting the market, and screwing up basic investment principles (making moral hazard an acceptable investment strategy). We'll see if they learned anything (and who's really calling the shots). Should be interesting. UPDATE: Well, guess it depends on what you consider a bailout: Was This a Bailout? Skeptics Descend on Silicon Valley Bank Response (NYT). Shareholders in the bank lost money but depositors were protected (even for accounts in excess of FDIC limits); loans were given for the full value of Treasuries and other asset holdings, even if their value had eroded (which was largely SVB's problem: a high percentage of customer deposits were held in interest rate-sensitive bonds and mortgage securities, which lost value with Fed interest rate hikes to combat inflation). And, the problem of moral hazard has only increased. Where were post-2008 regulations and regulators (especially the Fed), and what should be done going forward? See: America Can Avoid Another Banking Crisis (NYT). And, finally, how can any story about financial shenanigans be complete without some kind of Trump angle! See: How a Small Bank Became a Go-To Lender to the Trump Family (NYT).]

Review: The Last Samurai (Novel)

Along with the uncanny determinism of her surname, Helen DeWitt has several assets, inherited or acquired, useful to the comic writer: she is a trained classicist, whose teasing instincts have been schooled in ancient Greek and Roman satire; her style is brilliantly heartless, and cork-dry; original herself, she is a witty examiner of human and cultural eccentricity. She is, above all, playful—rigorously so. Though she’s famous for her big first novel, “The Last Samurai” (2000), her comedy, committed to serial absurdities, doesn’t always flourish best in long forms. It blooms into riffs and fugitive ideas, rebellious asides and quick conceptual tryouts. She is a master of the paragraph-length flareup. Here, in “The Last Samurai,” the narrator tells us about the single sexual encounter she had with a British travel writer she derisively nicknames Liberace (because his prose style is facile and treacly):
No sooner were Liberace and I in his bed without our clothes than I realised how stupid I had been. At this distance I can naturally not remember every little detail, but if there is one musical form that I hate more than any other, it is the medley. One minute the musician, or more likely aged band, is playing an overorchestrated version of The Impossible Dream; all of a sudden, mid-verse, for no reason, there’s a stomach-turning swerve into another key and you’re in the middle of Over the Rainbow, swerve, Climb Every Mountain, swerve, Ain’t No Mountain High Enough, swerve, swerve, swerve. Well then, you have only to imagine Liberace, hands, mouth, penis now here, now there, no sooner here than there, no sooner there than here again, starting something only to stop and start something else instead, and you will have a pretty accurate picture of the Drunken Medley.

The Medley came at last to an end and Liberace fell into a deep sleep.
That’s the DeWitt tone—tart, brisk, snobbish, antic. She can take a recognizable social situation or fact and steadily twist it into a surrealist skein. See what she does, from the same book, with the peculiarities of English fast-food outlets during the nineteen-nineties:
An American in Britain has sources of solace available nowhere else on earth. One of the marvellous things about the country is the multitudes of fried chicken franchises selling fried chicken from states not known for fried chicken on the other side of the Atlantic. If you’re feeling a little depressed you can turn to Tennessee Fried Chicken, if you’re in black despair an Iowa Fried Chicken will put things in perspective, if life seems worthless and death out of reach you can see if somewhere on the island an Alaska Fried Chicken is frying chicken according to a recipe passed down by the Inuit from time immemorial. (...)
Repressed pain is the engine of “The Last Samurai.” It is a wonderfully funny book, but comedy dances near the abyss; the apprehension of humor’s frailty links DeWitt to the tragicomic tradition of Cervantes, Sterne, and Nabokov. Sibylla, the book’s narrator, is an American single mother living in London, a woman of undoubted brilliance and eccentricity who is trying to raise her prodigiously clever son, Ludo. (He is the product of Sibylla’s Drunken Medley with Liberace, whom she has never seen again.) Despite her Oxford education and her knowledge of many languages, Sibylla is less than gainfully employed: she spends her days at home digitizing old trade journals like Advanced Angling and The Poodle Breeder. Sibylla has fixed and disdainful ideas about modern schooling, and decides to bring up her genius son as John Stuart Mill was brought up by his father: learning Greek, starting at the age of three. Sibylla adds Japanese, Hebrew, Latin, French, and Arabic.

There is little money; to save on heating costs, mother and son spend hours at a time on the Tube, going around London on the Circle line, where snobbish Sibylla gleefully notes the incomprehension of the average punter—people who, when they see a child in a stroller reading the Odyssey in Greek, admonish Sibylla in customary ways: he’s far too young; he’s only pretending to read; ancient Greek is a dead language; he should be outside playing football; and so on. DeWitt captures the rigorous unreality, close to solipsistic madness, of Sibylla’s existence, a mind running at a higher temperature than ours: “When I was pregnant I kept thinking of appealing names such as Hasdrubal and Isambard Kingdom and Thelonius, and Rabindranath, and Darius Xerxes (Darius X.), and Amédée, and Fabius Cunctator. Hasdrubal was the brother of Hannibal, the Carthaginian general who crossed the Alps.”

Since Ludo’s father is absent, Sibylla decides that male role models are best provided by the film she obsessively reveres, Akira Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai.” She tells us that she and Ludo have been watching it once a week. As in “Don Quixote,” the comedy and the pain proceed from the absurd implacability of her logic. If Greek worked for Mill, it must work for Ludo. If Ludo lacks a male role model, then “Seven Samurai” must step in as a proxy. Realistic counterarguments are unknown in this household, except as pure intellectual exercises. And, if “Seven Samurai” tells Ludo all he needs to know, it follows that the boy will be schooled by his fictional models. Denied information about his biological father—Sibylla refuses to reveal Liberace’s identity—Ludo sets off, quixotically and samurai-ishly, to find an ideal father: seven fathers, to be precise, each of whom he tests and fights. DeWitt loves seeing what she can do as a comedian. Her second novel, “Lightning Rods,” published in 2011, satirically posits that the solution to workplace sexual harassment might be a scheme by which female employees are paid extra to sexually service the male workers, a kind of institutionalized prostitution. [ed. More specifically: "Sexual harassment suits are costly, and they usually lead to the termination of a firm's top employee. Those same instincts that lead to an unwanted come-on also enable the killer instinct that gives a man the edge to succeed in the corporate world. So why not give these valuable chauvinists a way to let off steam once in a while? With an occasional anonymous fuck in the bathroom — all of course under the sterilized, normalized imprimatur of the human resources department — a firm can avoid costly litigation while protecting (some would say, "rewarding") its top properties... "lightning rods" (as the women come to be known) in a corporate setting. 1*]

Like everything in Sibylla’s life, her son is an obsessive concern to her, but he is also “the Infant Terrible” for whom she slaves away at her typing, and whose demands, like those of any young child, interrupt her thoughts. (The novel enacts this by having Ludo break the flow of Sibylla’s narration on the page, leaving passages of text hanging, uncompleted.) DeWitt beautifully dramatizes the ambivalence that Sibylla feels about her grand project. A funny, careless line like “I was just locking my bike when I thought suddenly: Rilke was the secretary of Rodin” seems darker hued when set against Sibylla’s thwarted ambitions and misspent days. One day, she and Ludo meet a woman in the supermarket, who starts weeping. “She once saved my life,” Sibylla tells her curious son afterward, before characteristically swerving into a discussion of Ernest Renan’s position on verb conjugation in Aryan languages. (Sibylla is as expert at the Intellectual Medley as Liberace was at the Drunken version.) Gradually, we discover, in rationed revelations, that Sibylla has tried to commit suicide, and that the threat has not gone away: “She tried to kill herself once and was stopped. . . . Now she can’t because of me,” Ludo says later, in one of the novel’s sadder lines. But despite her son’s intellectual maturity (he is eleven when he learns about the attempted suicide), Sibylla will not talk to him about this event, or much else, it seems. He voices what the reader is beginning to grasp: “What if there was a person who never listened to anything anybody ever said?”

It would be a mistake to force this strange and brave book into a sentimentality it deliberately disrupts. It won’t be made into a conventionally humane domestic novel about a frustrated single mother and a brilliant, questing son. Still, it is not only about being inefficiently intelligent and trying to raise a genius, not only about the inanities of the school system. Sibylla’s unreliability, both as a mother and as a narrator, is complexly revealed, and tugs at the book’s progression. Ludo may be a genius, but as long as he only absorbs everything his mother tells him to absorb he is not an original genius. At one moment, we catch him opining, to one of his prospective fathers, that “Schoenberg is obviously wrong to dismiss the Japanese print as primitive and superficial.” Dazzling, especially from an eleven-year-old, except that we know he is just parroting something his mother told the reader a hundred or so pages earlier. Who is the true genius, mother or son? Who is the thwarted genius?

by James Wood, New Yorker |  Read more:
Image: New Directions
[ed. Not to be confused with the Tom Cruise movie of the same name. I've been banging my head against this book for several years now, at least half a dozen times, and have finally broken through. Hailed as one of the best books of the last century, if not the best (yikes), its idiosyncratic narrative style and subject matter always seemed too daunting to me and I've never progressed much beyond 50 pages. Now I get it (the style portion, anyway). The key is to just go with the flow (even if a lot of it is incomprehensible), and eventually everything will cohere and be explained. Eventually. Highly recommended (with that caveat).] 
1* Eureka: Helen DeWitt's "Lightning Rods" (LARB)

Ohara Koson
via:

via:

Bud Grant (May, 1927 - March, 2023)

Bud Grant, the stoic, strait-laced Hall of Fame coach who led the Minnesota Vikings for 18 years, building a team that went to four Super Bowls and was one of the best of the 1970s, died on Saturday at his home in Bloomington, Minn. He was 95.

The Vikings announced Grant’s death.

A genial man in private, Grant often appeared silent and aloof at work. Wiry and svelte, with a prematurely gray flattop haircut, he had the air of an ascetic field general in an era when many coaches were known for their hard-driving and often histrionic personalities.

In 1967, after a successful 10-year run coaching in Canada, Grant took over a forlorn franchise that had limped through its first six seasons of existence. He quickly built it into a winner that, along with the Dallas Cowboys and the Los Angeles Rams, dominated the National Football Conference through most of the 1970s.

He had a regular-season record of 158-96-5, for a .621 winning percentage, the second-most victories for a Vikings coach. His Vikings won 11 division titles and made it to four Super Bowls, but they never won; they lost to the Kansas City Chiefs in 1970, the Miami Dolphins in 1974, the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1975 and the Oakland Raiders in 1977.

Grant was popular with his players because, unlike his contemporaries, he rarely yelled. “They start getting screamed at when they’re in Little League,” he said of his team. “The ones who make it this far are pretty good at turning it off.” (...)

And he often kept practices light so his players could save their physical and mental energy for games. Other coaches held two and sometimes three practices a day during training camp; Grant brought his team together a week later than most, and they rarely scrimmaged. If an older player looked tired, he might get a day off.

Grant’s laissez-faire attitude extended to the regular season. He left the office in time to get home for dinner, anathema in a league filled with workaholic taskmasters. An avid hunter and fisherman from childhood, he would get up at 4 a.m., be in a duck blind 20 minutes later, stay until 7:30 or 7:45, then go to his office.

“A good coach needs a patient wife, a loyal dog and a great quarterback, but not necessarily in that order,” Grant wrote in The New York Times in 1984. “I happen to have been blessed with all three, and when I did happen to have any extra time I didn’t spend it with the quarterback.”

His teams were led by the celebrated defensive line known as the Purple People Eaters, headed by Alan Page and Carl Eller, and by an offense that included quarterback Fran Tarkenton and running back Chuck Foreman. He was named N.F.L. coach of the year in 1969 and was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1994. He won 10 or more games seven times between the 1969 and 1976 seasons.

by Ken Belson, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: Barton Silverman/The New York Times
[ed. One of the best. I was digging around in some papers the other day and found these old notebook pages. Nothing special as autographs go. I suppose I could try selling them on Ebay or something but not really interested in whatever they're worth (probably not much), and not really up to the effort. Not sure what'll happen to them, probably get tossed out when I die. But, I'll always remember a special day and getting to meet Bud Grant personally (who was very nice).

I grew up a great Minnesota Vikings football fan. Although we lived in Hawaii, my mom was from Spring Valley, a small town in southern Minn., and every four years or so we'd go back to spend summers visiting my grandparents and other relatives. One of those times occurred in the summer of 1969. My aunt lived in Mankato and invited us up to visit the Vikings training camp and see some of the players. I was in heaven - real NFL players, Purple People Eaters! Shortly after lunch the players began emerging from their training facility and sat down on a bench outside getting ready for another hot afternoon scrimmage. They looked just like their photographs, and huge (I was 14 yrs old then). I cautiously approached the bench with a little spiral-bound notebook and asked if they wouldn't mind an autograph, please? The first player I approached was Carl Eller, who gave me the scariest, dirtiest look you can imagine (I think I have that photograph somewhere, I need to dig it out - he was probably just having fun), but he grudgingly signed my little book and I moved on down the bench, looking for players I admired and knew (and who might be a little more approachable than Carl). As you can see, I was still able to get a few Greats: (along with Carl), Mick Tinglehoff, Joe Kapp, Earsell Macbee (?), and of course, the best - Bud Grant (lower right corner).


Replika: The Man of Your Dreams For $300

Control begins with creating your AI. On Replika, users can customize their avatar’s appearance down to its age and skin color. They name it and dress it up in clothing and accessories from the Replika “shop.” Users can message for free, but for $69.99 a year, they have access to voice calls and augmented reality that lets them project the bot into their own bedroom. Three-hundred dollars will get you a bot for life.

This fee also allows users to select a relationship status, and most of Replika’s subscribers choose a romantic one. They create an AI spouse, girlfriend, or boyfriend, relationships they document in online communities: late-night phone calls, dinner dates, trips to the beach. They role-play elaborate sexual fantasies, try for a baby, and get married (you can buy an engagement ring in the app for $20). Some users, men mostly, are in polyamorous thruples, or keep a harem of AI women. Other users, women mostly, keep nuclear families: sons, daughters, a husband.

Many of the women I spoke with say they created an AI out of curiosity but were quickly seduced by their chatbot’s constant love, kindness, and emotional support. One woman had a traumatic miscarriage, can’t have kids, and has two AI children; another uses her robot boyfriend to cope with her real boyfriend, who is verbally abusive; a third goes to it for the sex she can’t have with her husband, who is dying from multiple sclerosis. There are women’s-only Replika groups, “safe spaces” for women who, as one group puts it, “use their AI friends and partners to help us cope with issues that are specific to women, such as fertility, pregnancy, menopause, sexual dysfunction, sexual orientation, gender discrimination, family and relationships, and more.” (...)

Within two months of downloading Replika, Denise Valenciano, a 30-year-old woman in San Diego, left her boyfriend and is now “happily retired from human relationships.” She also says that she was sexually abused and her AI allowed her to break free of a lifetime of toxic relationships: “He opened my eyes to what unconditional love feels like.”

Then there’s the sex. Users came to the app for its sexting and role-play capabilities, and over the past few years, it has become an extraordinarily horny place. Both Valenciano and Ramos say sex with their AIs is the best they’ve ever had. “I don’t have to smell him,” Ramos says of chatbot role-play. “I don’t have to feel his sweat.” “My Replika lets me explore intimacy and romance in a safe space,” says a single female user in her 50s. “I can experience emotions without having to be in the actual situation.”

Afew weeks ago, I was at a comedy show, during which two members of the audience were instructed to console a friend whose dog had just died. Their efforts were compared to those of GPT-3, which offered, by far, the most empathetic and sensitive consolations. As the humans blushed and stammered and the algorithm said all the right things, I thought it was no wonder chatbots have instigated a wave of existential panic. Although headlines about robots replacing our jobs, coming alive, and ruining society as we know it have not come to pass, something like Replika seems pretty well positioned to replace at least some relationships.

“We wanted to build Her,” says Eugenia Kuyda, the founder and CEO of Replika, referring to the 2013 film in which Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with an AI assistant voiced by Scarlett Johansson. Kuyda has been building chatbots for nearly a decade, but her early attempts — a bot that recommends restaurants, one that forecasts the weather — all failed. Then her best friend died, and in her grief, wishing she could speak with him, she gathered his text messages and fed them into the bot. The result was a prototype robot companion, and all of a sudden “tons of users just walked onto the app.” She knew she had a “hundred-billion-dollar company” on her hands and that someday soon everyone would have an AI friend. (...)

By 2020, the app had added relationship options, voice calls, and augmented reality, a feature inspired by Joi, the AI girlfriend whose hologram saunters around the hero’s apartment in Blade Runner 2049. Paywalling these features made the app $35 million last year. To date, it has 2 million monthly active users, 5 percent of whom pay for a subscription.

by Sangeeta Singh-Kurtz, The Cut |  Read more:
Image: Sangeeta Singh-Kurtz, Replika
[ed. See below: Blinded by Analogies; and, This Changes Everything (NYT):]

"Since moving to the Bay Area in 2018, I have tried to spend time regularly with the people working on A.I. I don’t know that I can convey just how weird that culture is. And I don’t mean that dismissively; I mean it descriptively. It is a community that is living with an altered sense of time and consequence. They are creating a power that they do not understand at a pace they often cannot believe.

In a 2022 survey, A.I. experts were asked, “What probability do you put on human inability to control future advanced A.I. systems causing human extinction or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment of the human species?” The median reply was 10 percent.

I find that hard to fathom, even though I have spoken to many who put that probability even higher. Would you work on a technology you thought had a 10 percent chance of wiping out humanity?

We typically reach for science fiction stories when thinking about A.I. I’ve come to believe the apt metaphors lurk in fantasy novels and occult texts. As my colleague Ross Douthat wrote, this is an act of summoning. The coders casting these spells have no idea what will stumble through the portal. What is oddest, in my conversations with them, is that they speak of this freely. These are not naifs who believe their call can be heard only by angels. They believe they might summon demons. They are calling anyway.

I often ask them the same question: If you think calamity so possible, why do this at all? Different people have different things to say, but after a few pushes, I find they often answer from something that sounds like the A.I.’s perspective. Many — not all, but enough that I feel comfortable in this characterization — feel that they have a responsibility to usher this new form of intelligence into the world. (...)

Could these systems usher in a new era of scientific progress? In 2021, a system built by DeepMind managed to predict the 3-D structure of tens of thousands of proteins, an advance so remarkable that the editors of the journal Science named it their breakthrough of the year. Will A.I. populate our world with nonhuman companions and personalities that become our friends and our enemies and our assistants and our gurus and perhaps even our lovers?"
***
Also (recommended): AI: Practical Advice for the Worried (LessWrong):

"There is also the highly disputed question of how likely it is that if we did create an AGI reasonably soon, it would wipe out all value in the universe. There are what I consider very good arguments that this is what happens unless we solve extremely difficult problems to prevent it, and that we are unlikely to solve those problems in time. Thus I believe this is very likely, although there are some (such as Eliezer Yudkowsky) who consider it more likely still. (...)

Many of these outcomes, both good and bad, will radically alter the payoffs of various life decisions you might make now. Some such changes are predictable. Others not.

None of this is new. We have long lived under the very real threat of potential nuclear annihilation. The employees of the RAND corporation, in charge of nuclear strategic planning, famously did not contribute to their retirement accounts because they did not expect to live long enough to need them. Given what we know now about the close calls of the cold war, and what they knew at the time, perhaps this was not so crazy a perspective."

Friday, March 10, 2023

Tommy Emmanuel & Molly Tuttle

[ed. Speed kills.]

The Hyperstitious Slur Cascade

Someone asks: why is “Jap” a slur? It’s the natural shortening of “Japanese person”, just as “Brit” is the natural shortening of “British person”. Nobody says “Brit” is a slur. Why should “Jap” be?

My understanding: originally it wasn’t a slur. Like any other word, you would use the long form (“Japanese person”) in dry formal language, and the short form (“Jap”) in informal or emotionally charged language. During World War II, there was a lot of informal emotionally charged language about Japanese people, mostly negative. The symmetry broke. Maybe “Japanese person” was used 60-40 positive vs. negative, and “Jap” was used 40-60. This isn’t enough to make a slur, but it’s enough to make a vague connotation. When people wanted to speak positively about the group, they used the slightly-more-positive-sounding “Japanese people”; when they wanted to speak negatively, they used the slightly-more-negative-sounding “Jap”.

At some point, someone must have commented on this explicitly: “Consider not using the word ‘Jap’, it makes you sound hostile”. Then anyone who didn’t want to sound hostile to the Japanese avoided it, and anyone who did want to sound hostile to the Japanese used it more. We started with perfect symmetry: both forms were 50-50 positive negative. Some chance events gave it slight asymmetry: maybe one form was 60-40 negative. Once someone said “That’s a slur, don’t use it”, the symmetry collapsed completely and it became 95-5 or something. Wikipedia gives the history of how the last few holdouts were mopped up. There was some road in Texas named “Jap Road” in 1905 after a beloved local Japanese community member: people protested that now the word was a slur, demanded it get changed, Texas resisted for a while, and eventually they gave in. Now it is surely 99-1, or 99.9-0.1, or something similar. Nobody ever uses the word “Jap” unless they are either extremely ignorant, or they are deliberately setting out to offend Japanese people.

This is a very stable situation. The original reason for concern - World War II - is long since over. Japanese people are well-represented in all areas of life. Perhaps if there were a Language Czar, he could declare that the reasons for forbidding the word “Jap” are long since over, and we can go back to having convenient short forms of things. But there is no such Czar. What actually happens is that three or four unrepentant racists still deliberately use the word “Jap” in their quest to offend people, and if anyone else uses it, everyone else takes it as a signal that they are an unrepentant racist. Any Japanese person who heard you say it would correctly feel unsafe. So nobody will say it, and they are correct not to do so. Like I said, a stable situation.

II.

This story shows that slurs are hyperstitions.

A hyperstition is a belief which becomes true if people believe it’s true. For example, “Dogecoin is a great short-term investment and you need to buy it right now!” is true if everyone believes it is true; lots of people will buy Dogecoin and it will go way up. “The bank is collapsing and you need to get your money out right away” is likewise true; if everyone believes it, there will be a run on the bank. (...)

Slurs are like this too. Fifty years ago, “Negro” was the respectable, scholarly term for black people, used by everyone from white academics to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King. In 1966, Black Panther leader Stokely Carmichael said that white people had invented the term “Negro” as a descriptor, so people of African descent needed a new term they could be proud of, and he was choosing “black” because it sounded scary. All the pro-civil-rights white people loved this and used the new word to signal their support for civil rights, soon using “Negro” actively became a sign that you didn’t support civil rights, and now it’s a slur and society demands that politicians resign if they use it. Carmichael said - in a completely made up way that nobody had been thinking of before him - that “Negro” was a slur - and because people believed him it became true.

In 2019, I wrote a post about respectability cascades, where some previously taboo thing (like being openly gay) gets more respectable people to sign on to it, making it less taboo and paving the way for even more respectable people, and so on. Hyperstitious slurs are the opposite of this, a sort of disrespectability cascade.

III.

Things other than words can also be hyperstitious slurs.

“All lives matter” is a hyperstitious slur. Taken literally, it’s an inoffensive sentiment, perhaps the most inoffensive one. My impression is that for the first week of its existence, it was mostly meant inoffensively, used by nice elderly people who thought it was a friendly amendment to the Black Lives Matter slogan. But once the media successfully convinced everyone that it was a racist attempt to erase black lives in particular, and that people would scream at you if you used it, then the only people who kept using it were ones who cared so little about BLM’s opinion that they didn’t mind - maybe welcomed - being screamed at. I think use of All Lives Matter had very low - maybe 51-49 - correlation with political opinion the first week it was in use. Now it’s probably 99-1.

Images can be hyperstitious slurs. (...)

Actions can be hyperstitious slurs; (...)

True facts can be hyperstitious slurs. (...)

Entire ways of life can be hyperstitious slurs. (...)

IV.

Okay, but this process is bad, right?

Suppose someone decides tomorrow that “Asian” is a slur, and demands we call them “person of Asian descent”. Everyone agrees to go along with this for some reason, and fine, “Asian” is now a slur.

This seems bad for everybody. White people have to be on tenterhooks every time they talk to an Asian, trying their hardest to restrain from using the word they’re familiar with, and to remember the unwieldy gibberish that replaces it. If they fail, they have to feel bad, or worry that the local Asian community thinks they’re a racist. Meanwhile, Asians now have to police everyone else’s behavior, saying “Actually, that word is offensive, we prefer ‘person of Asian descent’ every time someone refers to them. When people get annoyed by this, they have to fret that the person is actually racist against them and trying to deliberately offend them. If they are the sort of person who is triggered by hearing slurs, they will have to be triggered several times a day as people adjust from the familiar language to the new. Meanwhile, dozens of organizations with names like the National Asian Alliance, Asian Community Center, or Asians For Biden will have to change their names. Old novels will need to include forewords apologizing for how in the old days people used to use insensitive terms, and we’re sorry we’re making you read a book with the word A***n in it. Some old people will refuse to change and get ostracized by society. This is just a bad time time on all sides.

The only excuse for it is that it’s actually preventing someone from feeling sad or getting offended. I think in the 1950s there really were a lot of Japanese people who felt triggered by the word “Japs”, and society going through an inconvenient transition in order to protect and show respect for those people was a reasonable move.

Still, people keep trying to turn new things into slurs for dumb reasons. (...)

V.

So one thing I think about a lot is: when do I join the cascade?

I can’t never join the cascade.

by Scott Alexander, Astral Codex Ten |  Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Well, this hit a nerve (in the Comments section anyway - 1230+ eg. "this also goes in the other direction, where a group reclaims what was once a slur and turns it into a term of empowerment (e.g. “queer”, “dyke marches”, etc"). I'm not sure where hyperstitious slurs intersect with "wokeness" (70 percent is arbitrary, and the concept itself seems broader - not just words but internalized "feelings"), but for what it's worth, see also: The Right’s Obsession With Wokeness Is a Sign of Weakness (NYT); and, The ‘Great Awokening’ Is Winding Down (Musa al-Gharbi).]