美国劳工统计局的新局长人选，特朗普选择了「MAGA 派」

深潮Опубліковано о 2025-08-11Востаннє оновлено о 2025-08-12

一个政治色彩浓厚的人选执掌 BLS，可能进一步动摇市场对美国核心经济指标的信心。

撰文：叶桢，华尔街见闻

美国总统特朗普提名一位长期公开质疑官方经济数据的「MAGA 派」人物出任统计局局长，加剧了外界对于 BLS 未来政治独立性以及其经济数据可信度的深切担忧。

8 月 12 日，特朗普通过社交媒体 Truth Social 宣布，保守派经济学家 EJ Antoni 将出任美国劳工统计局（BLS）新任局长。特朗普在帖子中写道，「我们的经济正在蓬勃发展，E.J.将确保发布的数字是诚实和准确的」。该职位需要获得参议院的确认。

7 月非农爆雷后，特朗普火速解雇了前任局长 Erika McEntarfer，在没有提供证据的情况下，指责由前总统拜登任命的 McEntarfer 为政治目的操纵数据。

对投资者和政策制定者而言，BLS 数据的公正性至关重要。最近的就业报告已从根本上改变了市场对劳动力市场的看法——从稳固转向近乎停滞，并对美联储此前顶住特朗普降息压力、维持利率不变的决定提出了疑问。

如今，一个政治色彩浓厚的人选执掌 BLS，可能进一步动摇市场对美国核心经济指标的信心。

Bannon 力推的人选 政治立场鲜明

EJ Antoni 是保守派智库传统基金会的首席经济学家，拥有经济学博士学位，也是特朗普第一任期高级顾问、在保守派圈子中极具影响力的 Steve Bannon 力推的人选。据报道，Bannon 曾称 Antoni 是「在完美时机执掌 BLS 的完美人选」。

Antoni 的政治立场鲜明，他本人也毫不避讳。在最近一份就业报告发布后，他在 Bannon 的播客节目中被问及 BLS 是否由「MAGA 共和党人」掌管时，他回答说：「不幸的是，没有。」他补充说，这正是「我们持续遇到各种数据问题」的部分原因。

此外，Antoni 是「Project 2025」政策蓝图的贡献者之一，该项目主张在劳工部（BLS 的上级部门）内最大程度地增加政治任命官员的比例。

他还是 Unleash Prosperity 的高级研究员，该组织的领导层包括 Steve Forbes、Arthur Laffer 和 Stephen Moore 等知名人士，并定期向特朗普提供政策建议。

动摇「金本位」声誉的解雇风波

特朗普对 BLS 数据的公开攻击和对高层的人事干预，始于 McEntarfer 被解雇的事件。

8 月 1 日，在 BLS 公布了疲软的就业数据后，特朗普迅速解雇了她。该报告显示，过去三个月平均就业增长仅为 3.5 万人，同时对 5 月和 6 月的数据进行了高达 25.8 万人的下修，这是自疫情以来最大规模的向下修正。

特朗普声称这些数字是「被操纵的」，旨在让他和共和党人难堪。而 BLS 则表示，数据修正是纳入更多信息和季节性调整后的常规操作，旨在长期内提高数据准确性。

解雇 McEntarfer 的决定，在专业圈内引发了巨大震动。

BLS 局长的任期为四年，通常会跨越共和党和民主党政府，以确保工作的连续性和独立性。

就连特朗普自己任命的 McEntarfer 前任 William Beach 也批评称，这一解雇是「破坏性的」，并且「损害了 BLS 的信誉」。事件发生后，McEntarfer 的副手 William Wiatrowski 一直担任代理局长。

BLS 或面临重大改革

一旦任命通过，Antoni 计划对 BLS 进行重大改革。他曾呼吁对该机构所有的数据收集、处理、分析和发布流程进行「从上到下」的审查，并表示 BLS 应在其网站上公布更多信息以提高透明度。

与此同时，特朗普政府也已提出更广泛的机构改革方案。其 2026 年预算提案建议，将 BLS 划归至商务部管辖，与人口普查局、经济分析局等其他经济统计机构并列。该提案还计划削减 BLS 的预算和人员编制，这将加剧该机构本已面临的资金挑战。

作为负责发布美国就业和通胀等关键经济数据的机构，BLS 的产出是制定从薪资标准到调整社会保障福利等一系列商业和政策决策的基础。

尽管隶属于劳工部，但它在很大程度上作为独立机构运作。将一位公开的政治盟友安插在这一关键位置，其独立性和数据的纯粹性正面临前所未有的考验。

Пов'язані матеріали

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit5 хв тому

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit5 хв тому

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手2 год тому

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手2 год тому

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit3 год тому

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit3 год тому

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbit3 год тому

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbit3 год тому

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbit5 год тому

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbit5 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片