7 ms·

This is an interview between one of the most important economists and most important computer scientists alive today. Even if you disagree with my assessment (

by drcode 8y ago

This is an interview between one of the most important economists and most important computer scientists alive today. Even if you disagree with my assessment (and I'm sure many on HN will be more than happy to do so) I think you will find at least some interesting tidbits in this podcast that will make it worth your time to listen.

justicezyx 8y ago
One of the most important computer scientist is a wrong statement. He is not a computer scientist. And he is different than one. He should be called crypyoecononomy architect. Computer scientist requires a lot of more work in research and development, and at the same time he has done a lot more work that is outside of the computer scientist scope.
- drcode 8y ago
  I don't really think there's an ideal term to describe his skill set, but I think it's reasonable to consider him a scientist that works with computers, in the broad sense. (and certainly he has a ton of traditional CS skills and has personally authored lots of software at this point, including the vyper programming language and pybitcointools)
- darawk 8y ago
  It seems to me that he's advancing the research frontier in an area of computer science. Whether or not he has a PhD seems pretty irrelevant to that.
- relyio 8y ago
  He is a Computer scientist by any reasonable metric.
davidw 8y ago
Is Tyler Cowen an important economist in terms of his work, or one who is important because he's visible and writes a lot? To be honest, while I think he's a very bright person, I have kind of tired of what feels to me like a contrarian "shtick". I kind of prefer his co-blogger Tabarrok's writings in that he's pretty much a straight up libertarian. Some things I disagree with, but it just seems a bit more direct.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  He can be very visible because the Mercatus center is funded the Koch empire which invests in a huge network of strongly right wing policy. IMHO following too far along the thinking of a lot of the Koch supported flavors of libertarian groups leaves society at large unable to respond to unbalanced, unchecked corporate power. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mercatus_Center https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mercatus_Center BTW due to recent relaxation of IRS disclosure requirements, we will be increasingly blind to this kind of funded sentiment generation from very moneyed interests.
  - davidw 8y ago
    If people want to write libertarian stuff, I can choose to read it, or not, or disagree with it - like Tabarrok. Cowen, OTOH, seems to relish the contrarianism a lot. For example, a hot issue right now is housing, and the deleterious effects of local government regulations (zoning) are something that many on both left and right agree on. But on more than one occasion, Cowen seems to take some other tack that maybe all that regulation is good, somehow. It's like he's just going against the grain in order to be seen as a 'thinker' or something. I can't quite put my finger on it. He's a bright guy, and I've bought and enjoyed some of his books, and I used to read the blog, but I've started skipping it lately.
    - dv_dt 8y ago
      You can consider his intellectual contributions as if it were an independent sample of ideas, but I think of Cowan, and the Mercatus center more like giant corporate PR centers. There is basically massive funding making the ideas of Koch seem reasonable and commonplace. This by both repetition from seeming independent sources as well as control of academic sources of information. There isn't nearly the kind of vast funding, and certainty not focused as the Koch funding is to generate ideas and support for more social constructs and support of ideas in the direction of maybe the market really shouldn't determine everything - or at least markets where there is massive asymmetry between participants.
      - 8y ago
root_axis 8y ago
Can you explain the facts that inform this opinion?
- drcode 8y ago
  Well, as a coder my assessment of Vitalik is based on personally studying his writings and designs, not on any external metrics (though having a 50 billion dollar platform developed based on his whitepaper is noteworthy on its own) For Tyler, he frequently ranks high on lists of influential economists among peers (see his wikipedia article) and I personally find his writing compelling, insofar as I can judge it as a non-economist.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > having a 50 billion dollar platform developed based on his whitepaper is noteworthy on its own Certainly noteworthy is an understatement, it is an epic accomplishment, however it doesn't really reflect on his importance as a computer scientist, especially if we consider prior art (i.e. bitcoin). I am struggling to think of a metric that would qualify Buterin as anywhere near one of the most important computer scientist alive today. When I think "most important computer scientists alive today" I think of people like (in no particular order): Brian Kernighan, Ken Thompson, Donald Knuth, Bjarne Stroustrup, Larry Wall, Tim Berners-Lee, James Gosling Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Bill Joy, Robe Pike Larry & Sergey, Gudio, Matz, and many many more. The pioneering work of these computer scientists has had ripple effects throughout the world of computing and the economy in general. Ethereum, on the other hand, while technically sophisticated, has had near zero impact outside of the very narrow blockchain niche. > For Tyler, he frequently ranks high on lists of influential economists among peers (see his wikipedia article) and I personally find his writing compelling, insofar as I can judge it as a non-economist. Tyler does seem to be a more important individual within his field, but I am not seeing any signs that would indicate he is among the most important economists.
    - drcode 8y ago
      I am certainly making an allowance for "future impact" in my assessment, which is certainly an exercise fraught with error, and one that involves subjectivity.

by drcode 8y ago

justicezyx 8y ago

One of the most important computer scientist is a wrong statement. He is not a computer scientist. And he is different than one. He should be called crypyoecononomy architect. Computer scientist requires a lot of more work in research and development, and at the same time he has done a lot more work that is outside of the computer scientist scope.

drcode 8y ago
I don't really think there's an ideal term to describe his skill set, but I think it's reasonable to consider him a scientist that works with computers, in the broad sense. (and certainly he has a ton of traditional CS skills and has personally authored lots of software at this point, including the vyper programming language and pybitcointools)
darawk 8y ago
It seems to me that he's advancing the research frontier in an area of computer science. Whether or not he has a PhD seems pretty irrelevant to that.
relyio 8y ago
He is a Computer scientist by any reasonable metric.

davidw 8y ago

Is Tyler Cowen an important economist in terms of his work, or one who is important because he's visible and writes a lot? To be honest, while I think he's a very bright person, I have kind of tired of what feels to me like a contrarian "shtick". I kind of prefer his co-blogger Tabarrok's writings in that he's pretty much a straight up libertarian. Some things I disagree with, but it just seems a bit more direct.

dv_dt 8y ago
He can be very visible because the Mercatus center is funded the Koch empire which invests in a huge network of strongly right wing policy. IMHO following too far along the thinking of a lot of the Koch supported flavors of libertarian groups leaves society at large unable to respond to unbalanced, unchecked corporate power. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mercatus_Center https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mercatus_Center BTW due to recent relaxation of IRS disclosure requirements, we will be increasingly blind to this kind of funded sentiment generation from very moneyed interests.
- davidw 8y ago
  If people want to write libertarian stuff, I can choose to read it, or not, or disagree with it - like Tabarrok. Cowen, OTOH, seems to relish the contrarianism a lot. For example, a hot issue right now is housing, and the deleterious effects of local government regulations (zoning) are something that many on both left and right agree on. But on more than one occasion, Cowen seems to take some other tack that maybe all that regulation is good, somehow. It's like he's just going against the grain in order to be seen as a 'thinker' or something. I can't quite put my finger on it. He's a bright guy, and I've bought and enjoyed some of his books, and I used to read the blog, but I've started skipping it lately.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    You can consider his intellectual contributions as if it were an independent sample of ideas, but I think of Cowan, and the Mercatus center more like giant corporate PR centers. There is basically massive funding making the ideas of Koch seem reasonable and commonplace. This by both repetition from seeming independent sources as well as control of academic sources of information. There isn't nearly the kind of vast funding, and certainty not focused as the Koch funding is to generate ideas and support for more social constructs and support of ideas in the direction of maybe the market really shouldn't determine everything - or at least markets where there is massive asymmetry between participants.
    - 8y ago

root_axis 8y ago

Can you explain the facts that inform this opinion?

drcode 8y ago
Well, as a coder my assessment of Vitalik is based on personally studying his writings and designs, not on any external metrics (though having a 50 billion dollar platform developed based on his whitepaper is noteworthy on its own) For Tyler, he frequently ranks high on lists of influential economists among peers (see his wikipedia article) and I personally find his writing compelling, insofar as I can judge it as a non-economist.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > having a 50 billion dollar platform developed based on his whitepaper is noteworthy on its own Certainly noteworthy is an understatement, it is an epic accomplishment, however it doesn't really reflect on his importance as a computer scientist, especially if we consider prior art (i.e. bitcoin). I am struggling to think of a metric that would qualify Buterin as anywhere near one of the most important computer scientist alive today. When I think "most important computer scientists alive today" I think of people like (in no particular order): Brian Kernighan, Ken Thompson, Donald Knuth, Bjarne Stroustrup, Larry Wall, Tim Berners-Lee, James Gosling Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Bill Joy, Robe Pike Larry & Sergey, Gudio, Matz, and many many more. The pioneering work of these computer scientists has had ripple effects throughout the world of computing and the economy in general. Ethereum, on the other hand, while technically sophisticated, has had near zero impact outside of the very narrow blockchain niche. > For Tyler, he frequently ranks high on lists of influential economists among peers (see his wikipedia article) and I personally find his writing compelling, insofar as I can judge it as a non-economist. Tyler does seem to be a more important individual within his field, but I am not seeing any signs that would indicate he is among the most important economists.
  - drcode 8y ago
    I am certainly making an allowance for "future impact" in my assessment, which is certainly an exercise fraught with error, and one that involves subjectivity.