Daniel Aronoff

The "fast food vs slow food" analogy is indeed quite good, and you can literally see it in Fig. 1 (attached) of causalai.net/r120.pdf, where potential outcomes sit downstream of an SCM. But I think this is a bit too simplistic, the relationship is more nuanced than that. It is not just that "one starts from a structural model and derives potential outcomes." The two operate at different levels of abstraction. PO is a compressed representation of the underlying causal model, and like any compression, it inevitably discards structure. That loss is exactly where the trouble begins. Statements like Yx _||_ X | Z look deceptively simple, but assessing them may implicitly require reasoning over a combinatorial number of causal configurations within Z. In practice, this is almost never done explicitly, which is why ignorability often becomes an article of faith rather than a testable judgment. So the issue is not that abstraction is bad; it is that the current abstraction hides the very structure needed to justify it. There is a beautiful possibility here to get the best of both worlds: retain the coarse, operational view that makes PO attractive to so many, while making just enough structure explicit so that assumptions like ignorability can actually be assessed (e.g., via CG(3)). Curious how @yudapearl , @VC31415, and @guido_imbens see this; this tension between abstraction and interpretability has been long-standing, and the paper offers a concrete way to reconcile the two by identifying the right level of structure.

Israel drew US into war, claims UN Sec Gen to @annemcelvoy

On Tuesday, I testified before the House Homeland Security Committee on China's strides in robotics and AI. I warned that we lost solar, batteries, and EVs -- now we're at risk of losing robotics and AI. If that happens, it would irreversibly change the balance of power. Five points: 1️⃣ China aims to win the next industrial revolution. PRC leaders believe history is shaped by industrial revolutions. The first, steam power, made Britain dominant. The second and third, electrification and mass manufacturing, made America dominant. China is determined to win the fourth. 2️⃣ In robotics, China is already winning. In 2024, China installed 300,000 new industrial robots. America installed 30,000. China now has over 2 million robots in its factories — five times more than the US. A decade ago, it imported 75% of its robots. Today it makes 60% domestically. This year alone, China may spend $400 billion on industrial policy. The entire US CHIPS Act provided $50 billion across multiple years. If we fall behind here, U.S. reindustrialization becomes farfetched. 3️⃣ In AI, we're ahead — but selling off the advantage. China has more energy, more talent, and makes the edge devices. But America still leads because of chips, according to China's own AI companies. US chips are 4-5x better than China's today. We are debating whether to surrender that edge. 4️⃣ We are inviting risks of cyberespionage and catastrophic cyberattacks. PRC law requires its companies to cooperate with intelligence services and never disclose it. Today's robots carry LiDAR, microphones, and cameras — they are mobile surveillance platforms. But the bigger risk is cyberattack. We know China has compromised our power, gas, water, telecommunications, and transportation infrastructure in preparation for cyberattack. We cannot deploy robots in sensitive facilities from the very country targeting those facilities. 5️⃣ Here's what we must do. Extend ICTS rules to cover Chinese robots. Direct CISA to audit where they're deployed in critical infrastructure. Ban federal procurement of Chinese robotics and AI. Strengthen semiconductor export controls. Stop treating American AI companies with more regulatory scrutiny than Chinese ones. And build allied scale in robotics—a trading bloc with preferential terms for the members that can rival China's scale in in the sector. Thanks to @HomelandDemsIt and @HomelandGOP for the hearing on this topic, and grateful to join @MRobbinsAUVSI and colleagues from Scale and Boston Dynamics for a great discussion.

Wow. Joe Kent just revealed the last thing Charlie Kirk said to him: “The last time I saw Charlie Kirk on this Earth was in June, in the West Wing.” “He looked me in the eye and he said … Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.” “One of President Trump’s closest advisors was vocally advocating for us to not go to war with Iran and for us to rethink, at least, our relationship with the Israelis.” “And then he’s suddenly publicly assassinated and we’re not allowed to ask any questions about that?” “The investigation that I was a part of [with] the National Counterterrorism Center, we were stopped from continuing to investigate.” “But there was still a lot for us to look into that I can’t really get into.” “There’s unanswered questions.” “We know, because of the text messages that have been made public, that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from a lot of pro-Israel donors.” @joekent16jan19 @TuckerCarlson

Building a coalition for military action takes time and effort. The US had military help from allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, help that grew over time. In earlier statements, European allies left the door open to military support in defense of Gulf countries. This angry @realDonaldTrump post doesn't help achieve it. 1/2