Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon) header
Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon) profile picture

Economist investigating international trade and multinationals at the University of Oldenburg and @CESifoNetwork | previously @uni_tue @LMU_Muenchen

Oldenburg
Joined June 2021
Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)Photo by Peter Eppinger (@EppingerEcon)
Enjoying our 5th Global Economic Networks Workshop in New York City The full program: tinyurl.com/GEN5program Big thanks to my co-organizer Bo Kukharskyy and @BaruchCollege @CUNY for hosting us and to all contributors! 1/2
2
1
12
696
Peter Eppinger retweeted
Apropos of nothing, a friend received a rejection from a journal this week. R1’s ref report was obviously AI generated. 100% according to Pangram! Very, very likely that they didn’t even read the paper. And the editor just went with it. What are we even doing here? If you want AI feedback, you could put the paper through it yourself. We go to journals, presumably, because they have access to experts. “Experts” delegating their thinking to AI is very clearly a violation of this social compact. What is the point of paying hundreds of dollars and waiting months for feedback from referees who pretend that they are contributing something? I’m not anti-AI. I’m not against using it in refereeing either, if it’s done thoughtfully. But there are too many who are acting like it’s augmenting their expertise, when in fact they are letting it replace their thinking entirely. That’s a very dangerous norm to establish. If you replace your thinking entirely with AI, eventually you will be replaced.
15
6
1
64
6,497
Overnight, the Russians used 39 ballistic missiles and more than 120 attack drones and loitering munitions against our energy and critical infrastructure in Kyiv, the Kyiv region, and Kharkiv. A targeted Russian ballistic missile strike specifically against energy infrastructure – the very infrastructure covered by the ceasefire announced by the American President. The strike was entirely deliberate and demonstrative in its scale – Russia has never before shown such ostentatious disrespect toward the United States. Russia does not consider the American President’s statements strong. Unfortunately, at least 600,000 people are now without power. Outages could become even more widespread. Unfortunately, there is significant damage to facilities and equipment – at 26 facilities of our power system and four facilities in the oil and gas sector. I am grateful to the repair crews, all Ukrainian energy workers, and the personnel of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine for all their efforts to address the aftermath of this Russian strike. Tragically, there have been fatalities and injuries. We ask America and EVERYONE in the world who does not turn a blind eye to reality to respond – and to respond forcefully. Russia has squandered the opportunity for de-escalation and has clearly chosen to continue its insane war of annihilation. We ask President Trump to impose STRONG sanctions on Russia, especially since the Lindsey Graham bill, which was recently passed and signed into law, authorizes and regulates such measures. The American President has all the effective and necessary tools to bring peace closer through strength, justice, and pressure on the aggressor. We ask for additional packages of Patriot missile interceptors for Ukraine. It is entirely fair for us to tell the United States, Europe, and all our partners that no country in the world should be left alone to face such a deranged and pro-war actor as Russia. I am grateful to everyone who helps Ukraine! Peace can only come through strength, and we ask America to remember this principle of Reagan’s. Glory to Ukraine!
3,839
12,403
725
58,918
1,982,373
Peter Eppinger retweeted
Replying to @SophiaKazinnik
Oh, there's also plenty of constructive things to do: ▶️ pause frontier AI development ▶️ create proper governance structures for future development ▶️ require the labs to share data with researchers ▶️ publicly fund independent research using those data, Etc.
4
7
82
6,467
This should not happen. Must be called out. Will happen more frequently. Academics be aware of bad actors.
Interesting situation this week: got a referee request from a "premier open-access journal" for a paper that is a blatant, 100% AI-ripoff of one of my current working papers. Editor requests a "very brief referee report" so as to "keep the time between submission and final decision as short as possible". 🙃
215
Peter Eppinger retweeted
NYT's policy on guest op-eds is on point: Contributions should be in the author's voice. When AI grammar checks it, it is still in your voice. When AI writes / rewrites it, it is in AI-voice, not your voice. Op-ed readers are expecting human voices. A human voice is essential to the medium. This helps us think through the boundaries of where we find AI writing acceptable and unacceptable. Do we want to hear the writer's voice? In fiction and op-eds, arguably in journalism, we do, and AI writing should be banned and sanctioned. In some settings, we don't care about the voice, e.g. a product manual. I'm still not sure on academic articles. It probably depends on the article and discipline, and certainly depends on the model quality. At today's model quality, AI writing (in economics) seems to be quite a bit worse than human writing.
5
2
28
6,433
Peter Eppinger retweeted
Colada[139] Artificial Deadlines Part 2 Evidence of fraud in the 25 year old gradesheet behind the key finding in an influential paper on deadlines and procrastination (Ariely & Wertenbroch 2002) datacolada.org/139
6
67
26
392
121,651
Peter Eppinger retweeted
Thanks to @willmacaskill, @SamuelAlbanie, @tomcohen for taking the other side of this bet at 4:1 odds and to @andrewho03 for joining on my side. Here are the final terms we agreed on benjaminmoll.com/growth_bet/ More (within) ~7 years from now 😃
Would anyone like to take the other side of the following bet? I bet you (say) $25k inflation-adjusted that U.S. per capita real GDP growth will be <15% per annum in 2033 or any year before that. (15% implies a doubling time of ~5 years.) Note: I'm extremely bullish on AI and...
24
49
21
435
234,361
Peter Eppinger retweeted
Glad to share a recently accepted paper by JIE, in which we examine how the US-China trade war reshaped supply chains across the Asia-Pacific region. Free download within 50 days. authors.elsevier.com/a/1ndtV…
20
59
5,066
Triggered by the frantic discussions here, I had to finally read the piece criticizing @DAcemogluMIT... My take: I fully agree with the criticized scholar that the criticism itself is what's "oddly unconvincing." Not worth your time. You'd rather read one of his papers or books.
The Economist has run @DAcemogluMIT's response to their critical piece: Full response here: economist.com/letters/2026/0…
1
240
Peter Eppinger retweeted
Firms slice up global production to protect their knowhow @EppingerEcon, @Baruch_Zicklin @CUNY, Alireza Naghavi @KyotoU_News, Gianmarco Ottaviano @Unibocconi ow.ly/q6jR50ZAs93
4
5
1,990
“Hola, no me conocéis, soy Unai Simón, el portero de la selección española”
1,263
15,057
1,206
116,774
3,572,441
Messi is a genius on the ball, most of his teammates are thugs with no sense for the beautiful game - viva España 🇪🇸
15
55
6
1,207
53,312
Zucman vs. Zuckerberg
I have some tremendous news to share: we've just won a decisive victory against Mark Zuckerberg and the Silicon Valley billionaires 🧵
304
Out now in the @restatjournal: Our paper on how China's FDI liberalization boosted firm performance. A thread on the findings: nitter.cf/EppingerEcon/status/17… Thank you so much @HongMa_Tsinghua for the great collaboration! Looking forward to our next paper!
4
10
607
Important thread on AI in teaching. This is the big question all educators face now. We need a broad discussion. I agree with many of the comments: My best suggestion is a mix of enabling students to use AI well + testing/ grading based on pen-and-paper exams and presentations.
Before AI, the standard teaching approach worked reasonably well for both motivated and demotivated students. Now you kind of have to choose. You can teach them to learn with AI and they'll be superpowered, but doing so makes assessment / grading near impossible. 1/
198
Versteht noch irgendjemand warum Undav nicht in der Startelf steht?!?!
84
What a rotten deal we made with Iran. We get nothing (except laughter at our stupidity). They get everything, including delay and big cash!
1,370
12,898
2,372
33,713
Rostock, wie immer... Losen die überhaupt? #VfB
Ausnahmsweise mal wieder Rostock im DFB Pokal 👍🏼 #VfB
1
647