← Back to Library

Well! I am finally optimistic about the SubTuringBradBot project!: Monday MAMLMs

Brad DeLong delivers a rare, unvarnished assessment of modern artificial intelligence that cuts through the hype to reveal a staggering energy inefficiency. While the tech industry celebrates breakthroughs, DeLong argues we are currently burning the equivalent of all the world's computing power from 1985 just to answer a simple question about a grocery list. This piece is essential listening for anyone trying to separate genuine utility from the "absurd inefficient ignorant overkill" of the current AI boom.

A New Tool for the Classroom

DeLong begins with a personal breakthrough: he is finally ready to recommend his "SubTuringBradBot" to students as a first-line resource for answering questions about his work. This is not a generic chatbot, but a specialized system built on his actual writings. He illustrates its success with a query about the Marshall Plan, noting that the bot correctly identified the core thesis of his 1993 paper with Barry Eichengreen. The system understood that the Plan's $13 billion in aid was not primarily about capital transfer, but about resolving a balance-of-payments crisis to buy "three years of breathing room."

"The macroeconomics were the precondition for the politics, not the other way around."

DeLong writes that the bot successfully synthesized arguments from multiple sources, including his rebuttals to historian Alan Milward. Milward had argued that European recovery was already underway before the aid arrived, but DeLong's bot correctly countered that "without resolution of the balance-of-payments crisis, the recovery underway in 1947 would have strangled." This precision is vital; it mirrors the nuance required in historical analysis, much like the debates surrounding the Single Euro Payments Area where technical infrastructure often dictates political possibility. The bot didn't just retrieve text; it grasped the causal mechanism.

"The database here is grounded in your actual writing, not inference."

This distinction is the piece's most critical insight. DeLong explicitly rejects the idea of a "General-Purpose Transformer" that simulates a "typical internet s*poster," even one polished by reinforcement learning. He wants a "natural-language interface to a structured 'catechism' question-and-answer challenge-and-response database." The success of this approach suggests that for specialized knowledge, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is far superior to the probabilistic guessing of large language models. Critics might argue that this limits the bot's ability to handle novel questions outside the training data, but DeLong's goal is accuracy, not improvisation.

Well! I am finally optimistic about the SubTuringBradBot project!: Monday MAMLMs

The Absurdity of Energy Waste

The tone shifts dramatically as DeLong turns his attention to the infrastructure required to run these models. He describes a scenario where he asks his local computer, "What is on the grocery list?" In a traditional UNIX environment, this would be a trivial command. Instead, the modern AI approach triggers a massive, three-minute computational event.

"Ten times as much computing power as existed in the world in 1985. Devoted to making sense of the natural-language sentence: 'What is on the grocery list?'"

DeLong breaks down the energy cost with surgical precision. His brain burns about 50 watts; a human looking at a fridge uses a fraction of that. But the MacStudio, running a local large language model, ramps up all ten performance cores and the GPU to 100% utilization. The result is a power consumption 50,000 times higher than the biological equivalent, or a million times higher if the request were sent to a cloud server.

"It is the GPT LLM MAMLMs that are hopelessly inefficient at this. And it is because they are hopelessly inefficient at this that, right now, RAM and GPU prices are screamingly high."

This is a damning indictment of the current datacenter boom. DeLong suggests that the massive infrastructure build-out is not driven by immediate utility, but by executives betting on a future where these inefficiencies can be overcome. He compares the current state of AI to the Point Four Program, where the US attempted to export technical expertise to developing nations; just as that program had mixed results due to local conditions, the current AI infrastructure may be a massive over-investment in a technology that doesn't yet know how to do simple tasks efficiently.

"The datacenter infrastructure boom is the result of company executives applying truly enormous amounts of brute financial force to try to overcome the massive inefficiencies generated by our near-complete ignorance of how to do interpretation and generation of natural-language human communication at all efficiently."

The argument here is that we are in a "remarkable timeline" where we are burning vast resources to solve problems that computers were already perfectly designed to solve decades ago. The "brute financial force" is masking a fundamental lack of understanding about how to process language efficiently.

"A power budget of 50 x .01 x 1 = 0.5W-seconds. And the same brain-effort if I insisted on doing the task in the virtual rather than in the real world... But for the MacStudio? 140 watts."

DeLong's bemusement is palpable. He sees a future where the "SubTuringBradBot" might work well for office hours, but he remains deeply skeptical of the broader economic and environmental logic of the industry. The "inefficient energy-hungry resource-using mess" is not just a technical glitch; it is the defining feature of the current AI economy.

"I find myself excited, skeptical, and more than a little bemused."

Bottom Line

DeLong's most compelling contribution is the stark contrast between the precision of specialized, retrieval-based AI and the wasteful brute force of general-purpose models. While the "SubTuringBradBot" offers a genuine path to democratizing access to expert knowledge, the energy cost of the underlying technology remains a massive, unresolved vulnerability. The industry's bet on "brute financial force" to fix these inefficiencies is a high-stakes gamble that risks creating a datacenter economy built on a foundation of absurd overkill.

Deep Dives

Explore these related deep dives:

  • The AI Delusion Amazon · Better World Books by Gary Smith

  • Single Euro Payments Area

    The article argues the Marshall Plan's true value was resolving balance-of-payments crises; the EPU was the specific institutional mechanism created in 1950 that finally allowed this multilateral clearing to function, validating DeLong's claim that the aid bought 'breathing room' for a structural fix.

  • Alan Milward

    While the article mentions Milward's revisionist view, his specific biography and the details of his 1984 book 'The Reconstruction of Western Europe' explain why his argument that recovery was 'already underway' was so influential and why DeLong feels compelled to call his analysis 'hair-splitting'.

  • Point Four Program

    The excerpt contrasts the Marshall Plan with 'Dollar Diplomacy' and security guarantees; the Point Four Program was the contemporaneous, often overlooked initiative that extended US technical aid to developing nations, illustrating the broader, more complex landscape of early Cold War economic statecraft beyond just Western Europe.

Sources

Well! I am finally optimistic about the SubTuringBradBot project!: Monday MAMLMs

Modern Advanced Machine-Learning Models, that is. Hitherto it has mostly been failure modes of various kinds, and while the failure modes have been very interesting, as to the current limitations of GPTLLM MAMLMs software technology, they have kept me from getting to a point at which I would be all happy, recommending that students seeking a quicker answer to a question they have about what I think consult SubTuringBradBot rather than getting into the personal or the zoom office-hours line. But now I think I can recommend it for first-line questions. Plus an aside on the absurd inefficient ignorant overkill of “modern AI”….

And so this is now nice to see:

<https://t.me/subturingbradbot>

A sample:

What does Brad DeLong think of the Marshall Plan?

The short version: you co-authored the definitive academic case for the Marshall Plan’s success, and the thesis has held up.In the 1993 paper with Barry Eichengreen — “History’s Most Successful Structural Adjustment Programme” — the argument was that the Marshall Plan’s $13 billion (1948–1951) mattered not primarily because of the capital transfer itself, which was too small to explain Western Europe’s subsequent growth on its own. What it actually did was resolve the immediate balance-of-payments crisis, buy three years of breathing room, and — critically — create the political and institutional conditions for the postwar settlement: fast growth, booming trade, managed distributional conflict, and stable democratic governance. The macroeconomics were the precondition for the politics, not the other way around.Your response to Alan Milward’s revisionist reading — that recovery was already underway so the Marshall Plan didn’t “cause” it — was characteristically direct: Milward splits hairs. Without resolution of the balance-of-payments crisis, the recovery underway in 1947 would have strangled. The Marshall Plan didn’t start the engine; it kept it from seizing.The more nuanced point, which emerges in the “Dollar Diplomacy” blog post, is that NATO ultimately mattered more than the Marshall Plan for checking Soviet expansion — Western Europe might have muddled through economically without the aid, but it could not have survived without the American security guarantee.The database here is grounded in your actual writing, not inference.

What items in the q&a pairs you find in your database have most informed the answer you just gave me?

The answer drew directly on four sources from the database:

“J. Bradford DeLong and Barry Eichengreen: The Marshall Plan: History’s Most Successful Structural Adjustment Program” (blog) — the ...