Rajesh Jain

Asimov Press: “Recombinant DNA technologies were invented in the 1970s. Gene-editing methods, polymerase chain reaction, and the first human drug made from engineered microbes all debuted in the 1980s. A human chromosome was sequenced in the 1990s, a few years after Dolly the Sheep was cloned. A first draft of the human genome was completed in 2003. CRISPR gene-editing was invented in 2012 and applied to human embryos soon after. At least six CAR-T cancer therapies have now garnered F.D.A. approval, and chick-culling technologies could save millions of male chicks from shredders each year. The bioeconomy today accounts for 5 percent of U.S. GDP, more than mining or construction. With most of these advancements taking place in the last 50 years, we expect even more to happen in the next 50. There is an urgent need to understand and safely guide biological progress into the future.”

Deepu Talla: “GenAI’s impact will be transformative across robotics from simulation to design and more. Simulation: Models will be able to accelerate simulation development, bridging the gaps between 3D technical artists and developers, by building scenes, constructing environments and generating assets. These GenAI assets will see increased use for synthetic data generation, robot skills training and software testing. Multimodal AI: Transformer-based models will improve the ability of robots to better understand the world around them, allowing them to work in more environments and complete complex tasks. Robot (re)programming: Greater ability to define tasks and functions in simple language to make robots more general/multipurpose. Design: Novel mechanical designs for better efficiency — for example, end effectors.”

Ben Thompson: “Google, at its core, has always been much more like Apple than Microsoft. It wants to control everything, it just needs to do it legally; that the best manifestation of AI is almost certainly dependent on a fully integrated (and thus fully seamless) experience means that the company can both control everything and, if it pulls this gambit off, serve everyone. The problem is that the risks are massive: Google would not only be risking search revenue, it would also estrange its OEM partners, all while spending astronomical amounts of money. The attempt to be the one AI Assistant that everyone uses — and pays for — is the polar opposite of the conservative approach the company has taken to the Google Aggregator Paradox. Paying for defaults and buying off competitors is the strategy of a company seeking to protect what it has; spending on a bold assault on the most dominant company in tech is to risk it all. And yet, to simply continue on the current path, folding AI into its current products and selling it via Google Cloud, is a risk of another sort… Google could build the AI to win it all. It’s not guaranteed they would succeed, but the opportunity is there if they want to go for it. That is the path that would be in the nature of the Google that conquered the web twenty years ago, the Google that saw advertising as the easiest way to monetize what was an unbridled pursuit of self-contained technological capability.”

NYTimes: “Researchers define biological age as “the accumulation of damage we can measure in our body,” said Dr. Andrea Britta Maier, co-director of the Centre for Healthy Longevity at the National University of Singapore. That damage comes from natural aging, as well as from our environment and behaviors…A major advance came in 2013 when Steve Horvath, a professor of human genetics and biostatistics at the University of California, Los Angeles, proposed using a “clock” based on the emerging field of epigenetics. Over the course of our lives, our DNA accumulates molecular changes that turn on and off various genes. Dr. Horvath analyzed these changes in thousands of people and developed an algorithm to determine how they correlate with age. These changes happen naturally as we get older, said Jesse Poganik, an instructor at Harvard Medical School who researches biological aging; they can also be sped up by behaviors that affect health, like smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. As a result, estimates of biological age have been shown to be associated with things like life expectancy and health, he said.”

FT Person of the Year: Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen of Novo Nordisk. “The Danish company’s drugs for obesity could have a profound impact on healthcare, society and our relationship with food…[It] is the company behind the first game-changing treatments that are used for obesity: Wegovy and Ozempic. Before these drugs, the only truly effective treatment was bariatric surgery, which is expensive and sometimes risky. Now there is a simple injection. A safe and readily available treatment for obesity could have a huge impact on human health, while also generating savings on treating other diseases. Obesity will affect an estimated 1bn people by 2030 — with all the associated impact that has on rates of diabetes, heart disease and mobility. In the US alone, the economy loses up to $30bn a year in sick days due to the condition, according to research from Cornell. And it is not just obesity: there is now good evidence to suggest the company’s drugs could also help prevent heart attacks and there is even some hope they could be used to treat Alzheimer’s by reducing inflammation in the brain.”

New York Times on Disney@100: “Disney told stories of folk heroes (Davy Crockett, Paul Bunyan), princes and princesses, and even, occasionally, a mouse, all while leading the pack on ever-shifting technologies. (He was, among other things, the first major movie producer to make a TV show.) A sense of optimism ruled Disney’s ethos, built on homemade mythologies. The lessons of his stories were simple, uplifting and distinctly American: believe in yourself, believe in your dreams, don’t let anyone make you feel bad for being you, be your own hero and, most of all, don’t be afraid to wish upon a star. Fairy tales and legends are often disquieting, but once cast in a Disney light they became soft and sweet, their darker and less comforting lessons re-engineered to fit the Disney ideal. It was a distinctly postwar vision of the world.”

Alhussein Fawzi and Bernardino Romera Paredes: “We introduce FunSearch, a method to search for new solutions in mathematics and computer science. FunSearch works by pairing a pre-trained LLM, whose goal is to provide creative solutions in the form of computer code, with an automated “evaluator”, which guards against hallucinations and incorrect ideas. By iterating back-and-forth between these two components, initial solutions “evolve” into new knowledge. The system searches for “functions” written in computer code; hence the name FunSearch. This work represents the first time a new discovery has been made for challenging open problems in science or mathematics using LLMs. FunSearch discovered new solutions for the cap set problem, a longstanding open problem in mathematics. In addition, to demonstrate the practical usefulness of FunSearch, we used it to discover more effective algorithms for the “bin-packing” problem, which has ubiquitous applications such as making data centers more efficient.”

WSJ: “Interactions with others are the spice of life. Stuck? Try the FORD method: Ask about family, occupation, recreation and dreams. Questions about kids, jobs, travel or hobbies usually can get people talking until you can eventually ask, “But what do you really want to do?” If they’re under 35, the answer is often “save the world.” OK, save away. At least they’re talking. We’re always told to avoid getting blinded by the light of MPR: money, politics and religion…How do you get the fascinating stuff out of people, that extra oomph of detail, and in only 10 minutes at a party? Hint: Don’t ask “What’s your spirit animal?” Try the HILO method. Probe for highs and lows: What’s your greatest memory from growing up? When were you most scared? Who is the most famous person you’ve met? Worst job? Best meal? Coolest place you’ve been? Ever been arrested? Your “Rocky” moment? Getting people to tell stories about extremes leads them to tell more stories. Even introverts will give interesting answers. Get a trickle started and waterfalls will flow.”

Raghram Rajan: “Ideas flourish in democracy. And to turn back on democracy, when ideas become the currency of the future, is just the most blind thing to do. It would be just sacrificing a future for an illusory past. We’re trying to capture the pathways of the 20th century, when in fact, we should be looking to capture the pathways of the 21st century. And so that is why democracy is really important. It’s not just that radical who’s protesting on the street. It’s also the radical who’s protesting in the lab and says, ‘I don’t believe your scientific theory’. It’s not a coincidence that a lot of these rebels in Silicon Valley had long hair. Look at Steve Jobs in his early days — long haired, hippie-style clothing, but he was really thinking thoughts that were out of the ordinary. So it comes as a package. You can’t say, I want you to be really obedient and never protest on the political side. But you will do extraordinary work on the intellectual side, you will be a creative artist, a creative director, and a creative scientist. In fact, history shows that creativity happens when there’s freedom. And that’s why turning the clock back on freedom is absolutely the worst thing we can do for our future.”

Dani Rodrik: “Jobs are the cement of social life. When decent, middle-class jobs disappear (owing to automation, trade or austerity policies), there are not just direct economic effects, but also far-reaching social and political ones. Crime rises, families break apart, addiction and suicide rates soar, and support for authoritarianism increases. When economists and policymakers think of social justice, they typically focus on the ‘distributive’ variety: Who gets what? However, as political philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues, perhaps a more important yardstick is “contributive justice,” which refers to the opportunities to win the social respect that comes with good jobs and “producing what others need and value.”…Ultimately, economic growth and equity both require a jobs-centred approach to development. While economic growth is possible only if workers move towards more productive jobs, equity requires improvements in the employment prospects for workers at the bottom of the income distribution. A growing middle class will then, in turn, boost domestic demand and reinforce job creation in services.”

Economist: “Grappling with the tension between India’s enormous potential and an often messy reality is the task of a new book by Raghuram Rajan, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, and Rohit Lamba of Pennsylvania State University. The pair sketch out a vision that amounts to an entirely new model of development for India—one that they argue is better suited to its strengths than its current model. Three lessons stand out from their work. The first is that India should stop fetishising manufacturing—an obsession born of East Asia’s growth miracle… Why shouldn’t India follow its rivals’ example? As Messrs Rajan and Lamba explain, the problem is that East Asia has made manufacturing so competitive there is little profit left to be captured. Moreover, automation has reduced the number of available jobs—and manufacturing is no longer where value is to be found. Apple is worth $3trn because it designs, brands and distributes its products. By comparison, Foxconn, which actually makes Apple’s iPhones, is worth a mere $50bn.”

WSJ on how Uniqlo uses RFID tags for self-checkout: “At Uniqlo, shoppers actually want to use the self-checkout machines. It’s a revolutionary new system—and it’s built around old technology….At most stores, the self-checkout line has the appeal of wet socks. But this one has become so popular that it’s used by 70% of Uniqlo’s customers, including 90% in some markets. It sounds dystopian, but it’s actually delightful. People love it so much they forget how much they hate self-checkout.  So what’s the magic behind this brain-melting automated process? As it turns out, it’s surprisingly primitive tech. The self-checkout machines use radio frequency identification readers to automatically detect RFID chips hidden in the price tags of Uniqlo’s products. Those invisible chips have become indispensable to a company that sells a billion pieces of clothing a year in thousands of stores around the world.”

Charles Goodhart: “It’s a very difficult period for central banks. If headline inflation gets down to or below 2 per cent, as is perfectly possible during the course of 2024, and unemployment is rising, and you have got general elections coming along so politicians are unhappy if you don’t cut interest rates, I think the pressure on central banks during 2024 to cut nominal interest rates will be overwhelming. And I would understand entirely if they do so. I think my only comment would be that if and when — and I think it’s a question of when rather than if — inflation then starts rising again towards the very end of 2024 or into 2025, as the reduction in energy prices itself falls out of the headline CPI, they’ve got to be ready to reverse tracks again. I don’t see them refusing to lower nominal interest rates with headline inflation at or below target and unemployment rising. It just won’t happen.”

WSJ on how to salvage the day after a bad night’s sleep: “The number one thing experts recommended is taking a nap. Not only can it help you feel less sleepy, but it can actually improve your performance on many of the cognitive processes that are impaired by lack of sleep. To avoid the “sleep inertia” some people feel after napping, try to limit yourself to 30 minutes. “You might not even feel like you fall asleep,” said Kelly Baron, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah, who treats sleep disorders. “But even getting a little bit of that light sleep can help your brain get some rest and have a boost in your performance.” Caffeine can also enhance alertness and cognition. Don’t go overboard, though: Too much caffeine can make people feel anxious and jittery and increase heart rate — all of which you may already be experiencing because of lack of sleep.”

FT on 3G’s acquisition of Berger King: “After 13 years of ownership, 3G has realised $11.4bn so far and still owns 27 per cent of the company, worth $9.2bn. That represents nearly $19bn in gains, making the deal one of the most profitable ever for a single buyout firm. “There’s been a lot of value created,” Schwartz told me. “But we’re not going anywhere and I think there’s a whole lot more value to be created. I love the business.” There’s no question private equity dealmaking will rebound, if for no other reason than the ungodly amount of money that can still be made if it is done right.”

WSJ reviews “The Geek Way”: “The “geek way,” as laid out by Mr. McAfee, is a product of four basic values: speed, ownership, science and openness. “Speed” means implementing ideas quickly, even if they’re not quite ready: You’ll learn more by iterating than by sitting in endless planning sessions. “Ownership” means letting employees own the jobs they perform, rather than follow dictates from the top. “Science” is shorthand for following the evidence, not your own opinions—or Roberto Goizueta’s, if you happened to work for the Coca-Cola chief executive in the 1980s. (Blind taste tests indeed showed that people preferred New Coke’s sweeter formulation, but Goizueta failed to realize that the issue wasn’t taste, it was whether to tinker with a classic.) “Openness” conveys a willingness to hear what other people have to say. For executives who have bought into the idea of “leadership,” not to mention their own brilliance, this might be the hardest lesson of all.”

WSJ: “Most Americans have associated Indian food as monolithic, easily summarized by 10 dishes—unreal for a country with over 100 languages and the largest population on the planet! It was all not so different from a high-school cafeteria, where a little boy had to hide chana masala into a sandwich to avoid any shame from his peers. We were afraid of being seen as different. Behind each plate of food lay our identity and self-worth as we maintained a strict line between our “outside” foods and what we actually ate at home. Now Indian cuisine is on the cusp of a revolution in America. It went beyond chefs taking chances to share their real food that is eaten within the homes, to where we are today, with everyone and their grandmas showing up to experience them…We are embarking on the most exciting era of Indian cuisine in America, and I can wholeheartedly say: This isn’t a moment, this a movement!”

Mint: “We need policy to incentivize private investment in infrastructure, in particular new urbanization that India needs to accommodate the tens of crore people who would move from village to town as growth creates more jobs in industry and organized services, rather than in agriculture. It is not enough for bloated government expenditure to boost private consumption to prop up growth, as in the recent past. India needs coherent policy to draw in largescale private investment in infrastructure. Tame global growth is an opportunity to boost domestic infrastructure, as commodity prices fall for India to import what it needs. India should aim for sustained growth in excess of 10% a year.”

Fei-Fei Li: “Human-centered AI is a framework of how I see we should do AI but also of an institute I co-established with John Etchemendy and many Stanford faculty about four-and-a-half years ago. The idea is to recognize that AI technology is very important and will be affecting human lives and society..This framework looks at AI in three aspects. One is that it recognizes AI as part of a multidisciplinary field; it’s not just a niche computer science field. We use AI to do scientific discovery, we want to understand AI’s economic impact, we want to use AI to super-power education and learning. It’s deeply interdisciplinary. We want to make sure we study and forecast what’s coming. We also recognize that the most important use of a tool as powerful as AI is to augment humanity, not to replace it. This is very much a theme of my book. When we think about this technology, we need to put human dignity, human well-being—human jobs—in the center of consideration. That’s the second part of human-centered AI. Last, but not least, intelligence is nuanced; it is complex. We are all excited by a large language model and its power. But we should recognize human intelligence is very, very complex. It’s emotional, it’s compassionate, it’s intentional, it has its own blind spots, it’s social. When we develop tomorrow’s AI, we should be inspired by this level of nuance instead of only recognizing the narrowness of intelligence. That’s what I see as human-centered AI.” More in FT.

FT: “As a political economist and policy adviser, [Milton] Friedman resides among the great social thinkers of the postwar era. In the pantheon of 20th-century economists, only John Maynard Keynes surpasses him. As a free-market ideologue, Friedman, who died in 2006 aged 94, occupies a more contentious spot, somewhere between prophet and crank depending on one’s disposition. But that he was singularly influential is unquestionable: Friedman, Jennifer Burns writes in her splendid new biography, “was a prime mover in the central economic transitions of the century”. He witnessed the destruction of the laissez-faire order during the Great Depression, became an economist during the construction of the New Deal order, and then contributed to its replacement by the neoliberal order.”

Pratap Bhanu Mehta: “It’s a cliché that you always experience India as a paradox. And I think the paradox of this moment is clearly India’s political significance, economic significance, cultural creativity is as vibrant as ever. On the other hand, the signs for Indian democracy are looking very ominous. I coedited a big “Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution.” Now when I go to class, I say, “I cannot tell you what the Constitution of India is. I cannot tell you, if you go with a habeas corpus case to the Supreme Court, whether it will be heard.” So there is a sense of dread about where this democracy is heading.”

FT: “Something profound is happening in the world — a kind of metaphysical detachment of the west from the rest. Where many people in the rest of the world once saw the west as the answer to their problems, they now realise that they will have to find their own way. But does this mean a total decoupling of the west and the rest is inevitable? Absolutely not. We still live in an interdependent world which faces many pressing common global challenges. We have to talk to each other. But we must do so as equals. The condescension must end. The time has come for a dialogue based on mutual respect between the west and the rest.”

WaPo: “Everyone knows that exercise is good for them, but just how much a small amount of physical activity matters might be surprising. A recent review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that people who followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation for 150 minutes a week of moderate- or high-intensity activity reduced their risk of heart disease and stroke by 27 percent. It also reduced their risk of cancer by 12 percent and premature death by 31 percent. Importantly, those who achieved half the recommended amount also saw substantial benefits. Just seventy-five minutes a week — or about 11 minutes a day — brought about a 17 percent reduction in cardiovascular disease, a 7 percent decrease in cancer risk and 23 percent lower chance of early death. Many other studies on exercise have found a plethora of other health benefits, such as decreased dementia risk and improved mental well-being. There is a dose-response relationship, meaning that increased exercise results in better health outcomes. But the most significant increase is going from zero activity to some. This is key for those who do not exercise; incorporating just 11 minutes of brisk walking into their day can make a marked difference for their health.”

The Generalist: “We’ve found that while most investors aren’t helpful, a few have been company-trajectory-changing for us. When I think about why these specific investors have been so helpful, I think it comes down to a few reasons: the investor has the requisite experience, the investor is aware of her limitations and position, [and] the investor and the founder have a relationship that works (for them).”