| This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, a space-as-document for Bloomberg Opinion’s opinions. On Sundays, we look at the major themes of the week past and how they will define the week ahead. Sign up for the daily newsletter here. When people wonder what was behind my meteoric rise to the journalistic pinnacle of weekend newsletter writer, they often assume I must have gone to a prestigious journalism school (nope), studied finance or economics (nope), gained practical experience at a major Wall Street bank or interned for Jordan Belfort (nope, and if only). Rather, it comes down to my fateful decision to major in that noble if much mocked discipline, art history. Which helps explain why I didn’t hit the roof when my daughter broke the news that we were sending her university a quarter million bucks so she could do the same. You think I’m kidding, right? Educate yourself with this chart, courtesy of our Allison Schrager: The unemployment rate for art history grads is lower than that for anthropology (natch), communications (there is justice in the world), finance (huh?) and … computer engineering (huh???). We are even giving philosophy majors a run for their money! While the question in my day was whether majoring in an esoteric liberal art was worth the time and money, the question today is broader: Is it worth going to college at all? “In the postwar era, college was a bet that couldn’t fail. Not many people went to college in the first place, and those who did were rewarded with much higher earnings,” Allison writes. “This trend has started to turn. Not only does technological knowledge now command less of a premium, but many more Americans now have a degree, making it less valuable.” OK, point taken — but even if the inherent advantages of a degree have narrowed, it still counts for something, right? Um, well. “Recent graduates (age 22 to 27) had higher rates of unemployment than the general population,” Allison explains. “AI is a great at doing what new hires fresh out of college tend to do — writing emails, putting together PowerPoints, summarizing the highlights of last night’s game.” Given AI’s factually questionable blather, I worry that it will easily master art historians’ jargon about “rejecting the common perceptions and conventions of non-anti-art,” “highlighting what is excluded in order to invest the sanctum with its spatial purity,” and “questioning the commerce or carelessness of re-appropriation through producing a space-as-document.” Fortunately for anthro majors, not even the cleverest AI could mimic their mumbo jumbo. Well, maybe the one that produced this hilarious (and hopefully authentic) “emotion wheel” making the rounds on social media:  Source: @cait.bsky.social OK, back to jobs, or lack thereof. “Recently, the chief executive officer of AI firm Anthropic predicted AI would wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs,” writes Parmy Olson. “This has thrust college grads into a painful experiment across multiple industries, but it doesn’t have to be all bad. Employers must take the role of scientists, observing how AI helps and hinders their new recruits, while figuring out new ways to train them. And the young lab rats in this trial must adapt faster than the technology trying to displace them, while jumping into more advanced work.” Or, maybe they can just chill? A new paper from Apple researchers poured some cold water over the artificial-intelligence hype. “The study argues that the advanced reasoning models, heralded by some as a new frontier for how AI ‘thinks,’ fall well short of expectations. When a problem becomes sufficiently complex ... the models suffered a ‘complete accuracy collapse,’” reports Dave Lee. “The debate around the paper’s conclusions are only just starting. But it’s certainly useful that it arrived just as the iPhone maker’s perceived failing to build competitive AI capabilities comes back into sharp focus.” Very sharp focus in the company’s most promising market. “If you thought Apple Inc.’s artificial intelligence woes in the US were bad, just know that they could actually be worse. Look at China,” adds Catherine Thorbecke. “The AI iPhone features haven’t even arrived on the mainland. And those holding their breath for an update at this week’s Worldwide Developers Conference were again let down.” Things aren’t looking much better in India. “Worries about the future of Apple in the country had been set off by President Donald Trump, who said last month that he had told the company’s Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook that ‘I don’t want you building in India,’ ” writes Mihir Sharma. “This seemed to contradict hopes, shared by both Cupertino and New Delhi, that most iPhones for the US market would come from India by the end of 2026.” Meanwhile, Apple’s biggest Asian competitor is remaining suspiciously modest. “Huawei Technologies Co. founder Ren Zhengfei said that Americans have ‘exaggerated’ his company’s chip achievements, which ‘still lag behind the US by a generation,’ ” Catherine adds in a separate column. True, Huawei’s chips tend to overheat and aren’t as functional as those designed by Nvidia. But as Catherine points out, another reason for Ren’s humility may be US chip-export sanctions that “have cost his company billions of dollars.” “Export controls were at the center of the negotiations in London this week; for years, they have anchored America's strategy for economic warfare with Beijing. China wants few things more than a relaxation of curbs on its access to high-end semiconductors; so do corporate players and analysts who argue that they do more harm than good,” writes Hal Brands. “Ditching or dramatically rolling back the measures that preserve American's technological advantage — and that have been imposed, with bipartisan backing, over the past several years — would be strategic self-sabotage of the highest form.” Well, shooting yourself in the foot is certainly no way to invest the sanctum with spatial purity. More Mumbo Jumbo Reading: What’s the World Got in Store? - US rate decision, June 18: Waiting for the Fed All Summer Long – John Authers
- China shopping festival, June 18: Hong Kong’s Dollar Peg Is Too Tight — Shuli Ren
- Summer Solstice, June 20: A Luxury Travel Bubble Is Swelling – Kristen Bellstrom
As demonstrated above, artificial intelligence creates all sorts of tradeoffs and quandaries: efficiency vs. job creation; free trade vs. national security; Fnliinneon vs. Rëvolfed. But one would think tech investors would have few qualms about riding the AI gravy train. One would be wrong. “Alphabet Inc. has defeated three investor bids to study artificial intelligence hazards confronting the technology giant,” reports Andrew Ramonas at Bloomberg Law. “Shareholders at Alphabet’s annual meeting on Friday pushed the owner of Google, YouTube, and self-driving car company Waymo to report on risks its AI technology may pose to free speech, public welfare, and human rights.”  Parmy isn’t too Disappoofed that the challenges failed. “Technology’s potential harms to humans have long been a unifying force across the political spectrum, bringing Republican and Democratic lawmakers together to berate social media companies for fueling a mental health crisis,” she writes. “It would certainly be a good thing to shine a spotlight on whether Google is misusing personal data alongside the other proposals, but all lack any substance by calling on such disclosures to be commissioned by Alphabet itself, and crucially not by independent regulators or researchers. That makes these shareholder proposals look more like performative activism than an effort to create meaningful change” Yep, let’s get the performative activism out the boardroom and and keep it where it belongs: the anthro classroom. Notes: Please send liquid shot glasses and feedback to Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net. | 
