We’re working with an independent advisory group of mathematicians to help OpenAI responsibly share advances in AI and mathematics. The group will advise on how we assess and communicate new mathematical results, uphold academic and professional standards, and build tools that support mathematical research and learning. Through this work, we want mathematicians to be at the center of shaping how AI supports mathematical understanding and how its benefits reach the wider community. openai.com/index/advisory-gr…

A few (personal) thoughts on reading empirical AI papers on the economy. Economists have gotten used to reading papers with super clean identification, arguing about the validity of an instrument, making sure parallel trend assumptions are satisfied. This is what gets you into a top journal, and it is *very* important research (no question here). But it also takes years and sometimes decades to get these types of papers right---people often don't find a good instrument to answer a specific causal question decades after the natural experiment. We will eventually have this type of research for AI as well, and it is absolutely necessary. But right we also need signals *right now*, even if they are noisier than what we are used to. We need papers where we can trust that researchers did their best methodologically, while at the same time acknowledging that the space is moving way too fast to wait for perfect identification. This will allow us to accumulate enough signals, coming at the same question using different angles, for example, to say "yes, X is likely happening in the economy". The AI exposure and early career hiring papers are a good example of this. There is no silver bullet paper with super clean identification. But at this point we have several independent teams reaching the same general conclusion, enough where we can say "there seems to be a slow down in AI-exposed, early career hiring."

Last month I reported on Harvard's shuttered writing center. The official line was that the closing of the center was not about de-valuing writing. Now Harvard's dean—David Deming—is calling for "AI acceptance or even encouragement" in writing courses. 1/ thecrimson.com/article/2026/…

Here’s the relevant part of the Harvard dean’s email, in which he suggests (“modestly”) that professors teaching writing intensive courses should encourage AI use. And of course this gets dressed up in woke moralizing about policing students and damaging “trust.” End times stuff.

I will beat this drum until the skin falls off it. If you are a prof and you buy any of the schtick your admins are selling about how the "integration" of AI can co-exist with a traditional liberal arts education, you are being taken for ride. Well past time to face reality. 2/

BREAKING: On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court allows Trump's ballroom construction to continue. The majority found that the National Trust likely lacks standing to sue. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for himself and the Democratic appointees in dissent. More to come at Law Dork: lawdork.com/

Nithya Raman spoke with KTLA about the abandoned Studio City property and said her office contacted Mayor Bass’ office, but she did not speak with the mayor directly.

Mayor Bass, call your office! Nithya’s staff alerted your office and city departments about this nuisance property many times and you failed to act.

After a contentious debate that has claimed center stage in the organization's discourse, a cross-tendency group of DSA-LA leaders argues for endorsing Nithya Raman for mayor against liberal incumbent Karen Bass. The authors believe this decision will consolidate other chapter campaigns around the most high-profile race in the city, engage with the material realities of the working class, and move Los Angeles closer to DSA's ultimate political horizon. The endorsement vote begins today and runs until September 1st. If you are a member of DSA-LA, make your voice heard by casting your vote before the deadline. READ: geesemag.com/articles/to-win…

All social science Core classes at UChicago will transition to an “analog” approach for the upcoming academic year, restricting in-classroom technology use and banning AI-assisted writing and grading for students and professors. chicagomaroon.com/53262/news…

It’s moving, but where are the people? This project was supposed to open over three years ago and is almost $1 billion over budget. What went wrong? The project’s contractor, LINXS, has essentially been extorting the city for years. Now Mayor Bass’ Airport Commissioners are making YOU pay for it by tripling fees on Uber and Lyft rides.

New @DanaGoldstein article you should read: “Somewhere between two-thirds and 90 percent of high school and college students are already using A.I. for schoolwork … A growing number of educators are alarmed, and insist that students should write without A.I.”