Joe Biden took a massive fall at the Air Force graduation ceremony.

The post BREAKING: Joe Biden Takes MASSIVE Fall at Air Force Graduation Ceremony (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

In this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop take a revisionist Rothbardian lens to American history. Was the American revolution a good thing? Was Andrew Jackson better than Thomas Jefferson? Does a historical narrative really matter? Tune in for this and more!

New Radio Rothbard mugs are now available at the Mises Store. Get yours at Mises.org/RothMug 

PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off

In this episode of Good Money, Tho Bishop is joined by Dr. Jonathan Newman to discuss the real costs of government spending. The end of the debt ceiling battle has resulted in the predictable outcome of normalizing the fiscal insanity of covid-era spending. Tho and Jonathan discuss how this was predictable to those familiar with the work of Dr. Robert Higgs, how mainstream GDP measures miss the true costs of government, and alternative approaches Austrian economists use to provide a clearer understanding of what is really going on in the economy. 

Good Money listeners can order a special $5 book bundle that includes How To Think About the Economy and What Has Government Done to Our Money? with free shipping using promo code “GoodMoney” at Mises.org/Good

Receive a free subscription to The Austrian magazine at Mises.org/Magazine

Like snobby teenagers claim of themselves, many say that “nobody understands artificial intelligence (AI).” For example, in a recent interview between Jordan Peterson and Brian Roemmele about ChatGPT, Jordan Peterson claimed that “The system is too complex to model” and each AI system is not only incomprehensible but unique. He further claims that “some of these AI systems, they’ve [AI experts] managed to reduce what they do learn to something approximating an algorithm. . . . [but] Generally the system can’t be and isn’t simplified.”

Brian Roemmele concurred: “nobody really understands precisely what it’s doing and what is called the hidden layer. It is so many interconnections of neurons that it essentially is a black box. . . .”

The criticism isn’t confined to these two. The “interpretability problem” is an ongoing topic of research within computer science. However, on closer examination, this criticism of deep learning models is not well-founded, is ill-defined, and leads to more confusion than enlightenment. We know very well the inner workings of machine learning models, better than any other system of similar complexity, and they are not a black box.

(For the sake of this argument, I will not be addressing the fact that OpenAI has ironically not published their parameters. In that sense and in that sense alone, ChatGPT is a black box.)

It seems odd to claim that we don’t or can’t “understand” a thing we made. Surely, we can open up a model and look at the flow of information. It is very precisely defined exactly which numbers are multiplied and added to what and pushed through which nonlinearities. There isn’t a single step in the entire process that is “unpredictable” or “undefined” at the outset. Even to the extent that some models “randomly” draw from a distribution, this is both predetermined (as all computers are only pseudorandom) and understandable (which is why we can describe it as “drawing from a distribution”).

So, what do people mean when they say deep learning “can’t be understood”? It seems the term “interpretability” itself isn’t well-defined. Nobody has been able to give a rigorous definition.

Pseudoscientists like Roemmele prey on people’s misunderstanding of technical language to further their false claims. For example, he claims “nobody really understands precisely what it’s doing and what is called the hidden layer.”

But the reality is that the hidden layers are no different from any other layer. This is a technical term that means any layer that is not an input or an output layer. It has nothing to do, as Roemmele has implied, with a particular mysteriousness about it. It is no more and no less “understandable” than the input or output layers. It is “hidden” only in the sense that the end user doesn’t interact with it. However, Roemmele’s audience doesn’t understand this sleight of hand. (I doubt Roemmele himself understands this as he is not a data scientist.)

Jordan Peterson must be given more leeway, as he doesn’t claim to have knowledge on AI himself—like Roemmele has—but cites his brother-in-law, Jim Keller, as his source of information. It is impossible to know exactly what Peterson’s brother-in-law might have meant, but as filtered through Peterson, the statements on AI are false.

For example, it is nonsensical to claim “the system is too complex to model” when “the system” is the model. One might claim that atoms are too complex to understand. However, would it make any sense to claim that the Bohr model of the atom is too complex to understand? The data is the thing we don’t understand, and a model is a thing we use to understand it. The more accurate the model, the better we understand the underlying phenomena. Deep learning models are the most accurate models and so are the most understandable.

It is also nonsensical to claim that “Generally the system can’t be and isn’t simplified [to something approximating an algorithm].” Algorithms have strict definitions, and all AI falls into that category. If it can be described as a Turing machine, it is an algorithm, and that includes all AI. In fact, the vast majority of AI don’t even reach the standard of Turing completeness (the most complex a computer can theoretically be) and can be described entirely as pushdown automata (a strict subset of Turing machines).

Why might people want to claim deep learning models can’t be understood? For some statisticians, I think it is their last grip on relevance as deep neural networks slowly drive older statistical models to obsolescence. For others, the “unknowability” of it all is scary and a welcome invitation for more government intervention. We shouldn’t let AI have the same fate as nuclear power—needlessly maligned over little to no threat at all. Let’s enjoy the fruits of our labor, and that includes the massive cost reduction from using a very human-comprehensible AI.

Calls for black consumers to “Buy Black” can be interpreted as socially divisive, but they are also a way to encourage black entrepreneurs in a free market.

Original Article: “The “Buy Black” Movement: Divisive or a Boon to Black Entrepreneurs?”

After countless predictions of economic armaggeddon and panicky entreaties to raise the debt ceiling with no strings attached, the Biden White House and Congressional Republicans agreed on a new budget deal this week that does virtually nothing at all to change the status quo. The deal in no way returns federal spending to pre-covid levels. At best, the deal does “limit” spending by placing tentative caps on spending which—assuming they are not abandoned in the face of some new economic or geopolitical “emergency”—allow for a one-percent increase in spending each year over the next two years. At the same time, however, the deal abolishes the debt ceiling altogether until 2025. As summarized by the Associated Press: 

The agreement would keep nondefense spending roughly flat in the 2024 fiscal year and increase it by 1% the following year, as well as suspend the debt limit until January 2025 — past the next presidential election.

And, according to NBC news:

The agreement includes spending caps for the next two years to set up the appropriations process. In fiscal year 2024, it would limit military spending to $886 billion and nonmilitary discretionary spending to $704 billion. In fiscal year 2025, those numbers would rise to about $895 billion and $711 billion. 

What all this really means is that discretionary spending (which is generally around $2 trillion in miscellaneous and military spending) will continue upward without even a meaningful pause. Meanwhile, mandatory spending—such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is in no danger of actually going down. At a minimum we can expect annual increases of $60 billion or more each year in the near future. That’s the most “thrifty” scenario. After all, it’s only a matter of time until there’s a recession and thus a need for “stimulus” and bailouts. Or, Washington may decide the US needs another full-blown war. At that point, all bets are off when it comes to spending. 

This miniscule “cut” in spending is more or less what we here at mises.org predicted would happen. There was never any doubt that the debt ceiling would be raised yet again, and of course, there would be no real cuts to overall federal spending. This is what has happened. Moreover, total spending remains more than a trillion dollars above where it was in 2019, even after the Trump administration was racking up near-trillion-dollar deficits. 

Unfortunately, some rather naïve observers thought the Republican negotiators would somehow manage to force big concessions in federal spending or regulation. That didn’t happen, and no one who has been paying attention to the GOP since the days of Calvin Coolidge would expect otherwise. 

Contrary to the still-enduring myth about Republican budget cutting, there is no correlation whatsoever between Republican control of DC and the trajectory of federal spending. If we look at Republican control of the White House, for example, we see that federal spending often accelerates during the tenures of GOP presidents, especially George W. Bush and Donald Trump. (Red years are GOP, and blue years are Democrat presidents):

Keep in mind also, that these are inflation-adjusted numbers, so nominal increases were all larger. Some might protest that the GOP deserves no blame here because these presidents—despite holding the veto pen—are somehow forced into signing off on runaway spending. 

Well, if we look at periods when the GOP had total control of the White House and the Congress, we still find zero evidence of a reluctance to spend big taxpayer bucks on the part of the GOP. (Gray years are divided government): 

This graph even understates Republican spending in some cases. In the case of 2009, for example, it must be remembered that lame-duck George W. Bush was enthusiastically in favor of the huge bailouts and federal stimulus programs that launched 2009’s federal spending well above the established trend. That was hardly Obama’s idea. Nor is that a surprise since in multiple years of total GOP control under Bush, Republicans expanded spending with new Medicare programs, “no child left behind,” and a cascade of federal dollars spent on the Pentagon and “homeland security.” Moreover, the GOP offered essentially zero resistance to Trump’s $2-trillion-dollar spending spree in reaction to the covid panic of 2020. Those who did oppose endless spending were loudly attacked by Trump. 

Now, in spite of this deal, and the covid “emergency” being officially over, total spending remains well over a trillion dollars above the already bloated 2019 total. 

Moreover, if we compare federal spending in the last year of each presidential term, compared with the outgoing budget of the preceding presidential term, we find that the biggest big spender was Donald Trump, followed by Carter, Reagan (first term), and Ford. Again, there’s no reason here to place any hope in the GOP when it comes to fighting against growing spending. 

Unfortunately, given the state of the American public, we should not expect anything else. 

Even if GOP members of Congress genuinely wanted to cut spending, they would only be punished by the voters for doing so. 71 percent of conservatives polled say they want the government to spend more money on the military. This on a military that is three times more expensive than the next most expensive military (China), and which now is well on its way to receiving more than a trillion dollars per year.

Only small minorities within the public actually want the federal government to spend less on programs ranging from education to Social Security to poverty relief.  Yes, a recent poll suggest that “Six in 10 U.S. adults say the government spends too much money.” But when respondents are asked to get more specific, it turns out they actually want more spending. It’s just they want more spending on things they like, and less spending on things they don’t like. 

This is why members of Congress rarely get voted out of office for spending “too much” federal money. Rather, they are more likely to be punished for spending federal money on the wrong things. Consequently, there is no rush in Washington to cut the total amount of federal spending. What really matters is funneling money to each elected officials’ favored interest groups, whether they be pensioners, weapons contractors, or some of the 42 million Americans on food stamps.  Whether Republican or Democrat, there simply isn’t much to be gained from going to wall to cut spending. Certainly, a handful of members of Congress with atypical constituents can do this. The average voter, however, is quite happy to see more government spending, so long as it’s on the “right” programs. 

Those of us who prefer a smaller government might like to think that a sizable portion of the electorate agrees with us, and wants to see big cuts across the board. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the current reality, and until we see a significant change in ideology among voters, there’s no reason to expect a different outcome. Of course, things would be even worse if it weren’t for those who have done the hard work of holding the line on defunding the leviathan state. Imagine a world, for example, in which there was no Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises to explain the true damage done by government spending and deficits and the malinvestment caused by the government dole. Without even this intellectual backstop, Washington wouldn’t even feel the need to make a show of reining in spending. It would just be endless money printing Weimar-style, and virtually 100 percent of the population would applaud. 

  On Thursday, JP Morgan downgraded their outlook for Target as the retailer continues to suffer through its longest losing streak in 23 years.

The post JP Morgan Downgrades Target as Retailer Suffers Longest Losing Streak in 23 Years After Trans-Satanist Children’s Clothing Line Fails to Impress appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Senate on Thursday voted to overturn Joe Biden’s debt forgiveness program 52-46.

The post BREAKING: Senate Votes to Overturn Biden’s Debt Forgiveness Program – Here Are the Democrats Who Voted with Republicans appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre cried out “Jesus!” when National Security Council spokesman John Kirby was asked at a Wednesday press briefing about a majority of Americans believing Joe Biden is corrupt.

The post Revealed: Karine Jean-Pierre Cried Out “Jesus!” When Reporter Asked John Kirby About Joe Biden’s Corruption Allegations, But White House Transcript Censored “Jesus!” Remark appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.