The Top 5: AI writing, population growth, zero-sum
Plus, catch up on Wear We Are
Welcome to your weekly edition of the Top 5 articles we’ve read this week. Each week, we read dozens of articles in the hope we find essays and reporting that speak to big ideas, trends, future looks, and incredible human stories. We hope you enjoy our list, and do always let us know if you have a suggestion or a recommendation!
Please also consider becoming a paid subscriber if this is one of those newsletters you open up all the time or look forward to each week. We couldn’t do this work without our paying subscribers and encourage you to make the switch from free to paid. We have a student/educator discount as well!
Also, if you haven’t already done so, please pre-order Michael’s book, “The Spirit of Our Politics: Spiritual Formation and the Renovation of Public Life.” Pre-orders are helpful to the author and publisher leading up to publication.
The Top 5 articles for your week
“Are we destined for a zero-sum future?” (Financial Times)
Because John Burn-Murdoch looks at the consequences of new data on zero-sum thinking: “If someone’s formative years were spent against a backdrop of abundance, growth and upward mobility, they tend to have a more positive-sum mindset, believing it is possible to grow the pie rather than just redistribute portions of it. People who grew up in tougher economic conditions tend to be more zero-sum and sceptical of the idea that hard work brings success. These attitudes are perfectly rational…There is a growing body of evidence that such a worldview is associated with demotivating beliefs —the sense that extra effort is not rewarded—and in turn with lower rates of innovation on the societal level.”
“The World’s Population May Peak in Your Lifetime. What Happens Next?” (NYT)
Because Dean Spears argues, “This isn’t a call to immediately remake our societies and economies in the service of birthrates. It’s a call to start conversations now, so that our response to low birthrates is a decision that is made with the best ideas from all of us. Kicking the can down the road will make choices more difficult for future generations. The economics and politics of a society in which the old outnumber the young will make it even harder to choose policies that support children.”
“How I updated my views on ranked choice voting” (Substack - Undercurrent Events)
Because Lee Drutman, once a prominent supporter of ranked choice voting, has now come to other conclusions. “I still think RCV makes sense in primary elections, because RCV can help with crowded fields (common in primaries) and RCV is better at finding a consensus winner when an electorate is not deeply divided between two opposing camps (rare in primaries of a single party, where disagreements are smaller). But my days of overpromising on RCV's transformative qualities are over. I see real limits. And I'm much more aware of its downsides, including voter confusion, which is a particular challenge for historically underrepresented communities. I’ve also been convinced by new analyses that demonstrate that when the electorate is divided, RCV will reflect that division. In a geographically polarized and deeply divided electorate, moderates are unlikely to win more than a few single-winner elections.”
“Streaming Has Reached Its Sad, Predictable Fate” (The Atlantic)
Because Charlie Warzel looks at our abundance of TV content: “We are living in a streaming paradox. As both an entertainment business model and a consumer experience, streaming has become a victim of its own success. It is a paradigm shift that is beloved for giving us more choices than ever before, while also making it harder than ever to actually enjoy that abundance.”
“Confessions of a Viral AI Writer” (Wired)
Because Vauhini Vara reflects on how AI could replace writers, but perhaps AI writing isn’t for writers, but for readers. “Big Tech has already transmuted some of the most ancient pillars of human relationships—friendship, community, influence—for its own profit. Now it’s coming after language itself. The fact that AI writing technologies seem more useful for people who buy books than for those who make them isn’t a coincidence: The investors behind these technologies are trying to recoup, and ideally redouble, their investment. Selling writing software to writers, in that context, makes about as much sense as selling cars to horses.”
ICYMI on Wear We Are
The Morning Five: September 21, 2023
The Morning Five: September 20, 2023