Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author
AI Summary. The U.S. college wage premium fell from 0.626 to 0.575 between 2022 and 2026, the first sustained decline in relative demand for college labor in four decades. AI exposure in white-collar occupations accounts for ~28% of this drop, as moving from zero to full occupational AI exposure reduced wages by 0.086.
José Azar, Mireia Gine and Javier Sanz-Espín Social Science Research NetworkCore argument: The U.S. college wage premium fell from 0.626 in 2022 to 0.575 in 2026—the first sustained negative relative demand growth for college labor in four decades, per Current Population Survey data.
After expanding for four decades, the U.S. college wage premium [dropped] sharply from 0.626 in 2022 to 0.575 in 2026. Current Population Survey data through 2026 implies an unprecedented drop in relative demand for college labor—the first sustained negative relative demand growth. Post-2022 wage growth slowed disproportionately in high-exposure occupations, which employ a disproportionate share of college graduates. By 2026, going from zero occupational AI exposure to full exposure had a negative effect on wages of−0.086. Combined with the college–non-college exposure gap, this mechanism accounts for roughly 28% of the total drop in the college wage premium from 2022 to 2026. While non-causal, these patterns indicate that task displacement in AI-exposed white-collar occupations plays a quantitatively meaningful role in the recent compression of the aggregate skill premium.AI Summary. AI capability growth follows a linear trend with no statistically significant acceleration; apparent re-acceleration results from cherry-picking frontier observations, selecting a breakpoint, ignoring variance collapse, and fitting separate trend lines on either side.
Paul Kedrosky Applied ComplexityCore argument: Epoch’s Capabilities Index shows no statistically significant AI performance acceleration when controlling for developer and model family, with a breakpoint test returning p = 0.615 and a slope-change confidence interval of -8.4 to +23.4 pts per year.
Using all Epoch’s Capabilities Index observations, and controlling for developer and model family, there is no statistically significant breakpoint. A piecewise model—which splits the series into intervals and applies a sub-function to each segment—does not improve on a purely linear trend: p = 0.615, The estimated change in slope has a confidence interval of -8.4 to +23.4 points per year. In short, the maths shows there is no model acceleration, contrary to claims, and as expected. The result comes from selecting frontier observations only, choosing a breakpoint, ignoring variance collapse, and fitting separate lines on either side.AI Summary. AI token prices have fallen over 90% while total spending has roughly doubled, expanding the market overall. However, a 46% gap between AI investment and actual sales — wider than the 32% divergence seen during the 2001 telecom collapse — raises the risk that current infrastructure spending is outpacing real
Jan-Patrick Barnert and Michael Msika BloombergCore argument: Token prices collapsed 90% since 2023 while total spending doubled, driving market expansion despite index softening.
A softer index doesn’t mean AI is getting cheaper. The gauge blends prices and usage, meaning a dip can imply very different scenarios: either list prices are falling, or demand is shifting toward cheaper models. It could also point to a genuine softening in what buyers are prepared to shoulder. Each of these possibilities carries different implications. Let’s start with a benign read: While token prices have collapsed more than 90% since 2023, total spend has roughly doubled since last year. Cheaper tokens have expanded the market. This means that an index pause is simply digestion, while demand is real and capex is money well spent. The bull case for Nvidia rests here. Now for the interpretation that’s keeping people up at night: Bears warn that sustained weakness in the index could end the trade that saw nearly the entire AI cohort rally hard this cycle. It’s token spending that justifies the next capex order, and the bill is already looking stretched. Allianz Research said there’s nearly a 46% growth gap between AI investment and sales. That’s worse than the 32% divergence measured during the 2001 telecom bust.AI Summary. AI tools are lowering barriers to business formation, driving a structural rise in solo-operator startups that could accelerate small business growth across the broader economy.
Ernie Tedeschi, Marisa Rama and Chris Cruickshank Stripe EconomicsAI Summary. Small AI models are closing the gap with large ones, achieving the same reasoning benchmarks with 142x fewer parameters than required two years ago. This makes on-device AI viable without data centers, compressing the economic case for cloud-based, per-query AI services.
Paul Kedrosky Applied ComplexityCore argument: Inference migration from data centers to devices results in a fundamentally different supply chain, threatening capex-heavy frontier model providers lacking.
A quiet story in AI isn't that large models keep getting better, it's that small ones are catching up quickly. In 2022, reaching 60% on MMLU, a test of academic reasoning, required a 540-billion-parameter model. By 2024, a 3.8-billion-parameter model hit the same threshold — a 142-fold parameter reduction in two years. The direction is clear, and the implications are wide-ranging. Edge compute becomes real. Models that fit on a phone or a sensor don't need a data center. Inference shifts from hyperscaler to device, which is a different supply chain and a different competitive moat than anyone has built for. The data center API business model has a half-life. If a fine-tuned 7B model running locally can handle 80% of enterprise use cases, the case for paying per-token to a cloud provider shrinks fast. The most exposed providers are those whose moats are model quality rather than distribution, i.e., the capex-heavy frontier models. Compute becomes less scarce.AI Summary. European economic decline relative to the US is a measurement illusion: when output is compared using current purchasing power rather than fixed prices, the euro area has held its own or gained ground, indicating European economies apply technology effectively even if they do not lead in creating it.
Paul Krugman Paul Krugman Wonks OutCore argument: If we do this using constant prices — the World Bank uses 2021 prices — we get the line in.
Let’s start by looking at GDP per capita in Europe (actually the euro area) as a percentage of GDP per capita in the US. If we do this using constant prices — the World Bank uses 2021 prices — we get the line in Chart 1 labeled “2021 prices.” This line shows Europe falling behind over the past 25 years. If, however, we simply use prices in each given year, we get the line labeled “PPP,” which shows Europe gaining on the US. We get a similar picture if we look at GDP per worker-hour, where the black line is calculated using 2021 prices and the blue line is calculated using PPP. IT progress is passed on to all consumers via lower prices. The big benefits of IT come from applying it, rather than creating it. And as I’ve tried to show, the data show Europe holding its own in the relative value of the goods it produces, indicating that European economies are doing fine when it comes to applying technological advances. What should worry Europe, instead, are the geopolitical implications of US/Chinese leadership in advanced technology. The risk of being cut off from strategically important technologies, once minimal, is now very real. And that risk, rather than misleading numbers about trends in real GDP per worker hour, is what should concern European policymakers.