What a remarkable outcome: the world's largest ever oil supply disruption failed to create a major energy crisis. The IEA said 2026 shock was worst than 1973, 1979 and 2022 together. And yet, the cost of oil, natural gas, electricity and coal never surpassed the previous peaks.

I think that's exactly the right question and of course the interesting thing is why. In my view, it - above all - validates the view that price elasticities are higher than many thought. It also underscores that the global oil supply chain is very robust and finds work-arounds.

A must read (or must listen): Europe2031.ai . A dystopian but unfortunately surprising convincing of what could happen if Europe does not catch up on AI. It moved my prior. (and it is, despite the gloomy conclusions) a fun read.

New: America can’t build the world’s AI infrastructure alone. We need the scale only our allies can provide, but they are currently missing out on the biggest industrial mobilization since World War II. @SamWinterLevy, @TawilTeddy, and I go deep into the economics of the AI infrastructure boom and propose a way forward for democracies to shape the trajectory of, and reap the benefits from, transformative AI.

I prefer to live in a world where Elno can become a trillionaire than a world where Thomas Piketty can make everyone poor. My enemy isn't the world's financial elite, it's the cultural elite.

Why isn't the market pursuing pro-worker AI? Co-director @DAcemogluMIT explains that the reasons are both economic and ideological.

2) "The report relies on an unrealistically pessimistic 4.5°C warming scenario." The report does not use the RCP8.5 scenario. The temperature projections in our “growth-focused macroeconomic scenarios” are based on our own modelling framework and are not supposed to be "business-as-usual" or "current policy" pathways. Rather, they are designed to illustrate the consequences of a future narrative that prioritizes rapid aggregate growth while failing to accelerate the energy transition or adopt other emissions-reducing policies. Specifically, these scenarios assume continued large-scale economic growth (economy size in 2100 is 8 times today's world economy), an unchanged global sectoral consumption, and energy developments broadly consistent with current-policy trajectories from the International Energy Agency (extended to 2100). This results in very large emission numbers and temperature rise projections. We don’t advocate for these scenarios but simply use them to decompose the emission reduction drivers: sufficiency (reduced labour hours, sectoral change, reforestation) is as important as the energy transition (end to fossil fuels, electrification, improvements in energy efficiency) to stay within 2 degrees.

I gave @AnthropicAI's new Fable 5 my hardest challenge: explain the Riemann Hypothesis — math's most famous unsolved problem — to anyone. Two prompts later: a full interactive site this video, scored with music composed from the zeta zeros themselves 🤯🎵 riemann.adilmoujahid.com

As someone who would like to have an informed and responsible opinion on climate change and its effects, I find this level of disagreement very disturbing. What the hell is going on?

New Anthropocene paper. Earth still operates in "Holocene logic", buffering heat imbalance. Anthropocene = Pressure. But, BAU, reaching 3°C in 2100 & we get "stuck" in a Hothouse trajectory for 1000 years. Anthropocene risks turning into a state. No Good. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.…

Okay, this was provocative and I want to clarify what I’m worried about. Electricity prices obviously matter. But 1) I don’t want us to make promises we can’t keep on timescales we are suggesting & 2. policy response being offered won’t fix that, and could make it worse

When Fable 5 is used for frontier LLM development, it does not notify the user and instead limits the model’s capabilities through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, and PEFT. Anthropic estimated that this would affect approximately 0.03% of traffic.