Hoel’s main argument is that if AI becomes more intelligent than humans, it could pose a serious threat. What if the AI agents start to treat humans the way we currently treat wild deer, not necessarily with malice but without much regard for the welfare of every human individual?
Things that are vastly more intelligent than you are really hard to understand and predict; and the wildlife next door, as much as we might like it, we will also build a parking lot over it at a heartbeat and they’ll never know why.
2004: In September 2004, Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned while running against pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych. After a dinner meeting, Yushchenko fell severely ill and his face became dramatically disfigured with cysts and lesions (chloracne). Medical tests in Vienna confirmed extreme dioxin poisoning. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-43611547 The American liberal mind struggles to understand the difficulty of using elections under these conditions.
2018: “On March 4, 2018, British authorities say Russian agents poisoned Sergei Skripal—a former Russian military intelligence officer and U.K. double agent—and his daughter using a Novichok nerve agent…. With the immediate attack area isolated and the cleanup underway, the nation was shocked once again when two British nationals were poisoned by the same nerve agent nearly three months later in the neighboring town of Amesbury. One of the two, Dawn Sturgess, fell ill within 15 minutes of contact with the agent and died just over a week later. ” https://mwi.westpoint.edu/modern-day-nerve-agent-attack-military-lessons-salisbury/
If you get news from the internet and social media, be aware that some online participants are paid trolls from foreign governments.
Another pillar of this strategy involves botnets: swarms of fake, automated accounts created and controlled by Russian agents. These botnets hijack trending algorithms on social media platforms and thereby expose Western audiences to particular messages. They often share precisely worded posts to ensure that certain phrases—such as #WelcomeRefugees or #EndNetZero—trend in people’s news feeds. And they incessantly ‘like’ and repost content from pro-Kremlin influencers and trolls.
The aim here is twofold. First, it is an attempt to expand the reach of what would otherwise remain fringe opinions. They expose ever more people to Russian propaganda, and help create an illusion of popularity that serves to normalise pro-Kremlin talking points. But this is not merely intended to convert people into passionate Putinistas. The second goal is to promote the most inflammatory and divisive voices on either side of a given political issue. This helps spread the distrust and disillusionment that are so corrosive to liberal democratic society—and which have reached record levels on social media.
Last week I had the honor of hosting Vernon Smith at Samford University and then being with him on his second day of the tour in Tuscaloosa, AL.
To introduce Vernon Smith’s new book about Adam Smith, I articulated a point that I had taken from reading Tyler Cowen’s GOAT book. Not all undergraduates have read Adam Smith, so I explained that Adam Smith was one of the first people to have a vision of a growing economy on a global scale. Afterward, I wondered if I had stated everything entirely correctly in my bold assertion. I went to consult with the source material via https://econgoat.ai/en/chat/gpt.
Joy: Does Tyler say that Adam Smith was one of the first people to imagine economic life on a globalized scale and how great the gains from trade could be?
EconGOAT GPT-4: Indeed, Tyler suggests that Adam Smith was one of the pioneering thinkers in envisioning economic life on a global scale and highlighting the immense gains from trade. In discussing Smith’s contributions, Tyler notes how Smith saw trade as a process by which nations could exchange their surplus or “superfluities” for goods they value more. While Smith didn’t quite articulate the theory of comparative advantage—later developed by Ricardo and Torrens—he was certainly heading in the right direction with his understanding of trade. This insight pointed towards a broader, more interconnected economic worldview that has since become central to economic theory (Chapter 8).
Tyler also gives Smith credit for recognizing issues with mercantilist views of trade, which often focused on stockpiling precious metals. Instead, Smith emphasized the expansion of consumption opportunities as the real benefit of trade, emphasizing its potential to enhance global prosperity. Smith’s multifaceted intellectual approach laid the groundwork for thinking about economies beyond just national borders, making him a key figure in the development of global economic thought.
Joy: When I think of a grand global vision prior to Smith, I think about religious leaders and military conquerors. Was Adam Smith the first to think of a grand global vision that fundamentally rests on individual freedom within a tolerant framework of laws and protections from harm?
EconGOAT GPT-4: Tyler acknowledges that Adam Smith played a pivotal role in developing the idea of economic globalization and the gains from trade. However, noting Smith as the absolute first might overlook other contributors. Before Smith, there were philosophers like the Scholastics and early mercantilists who considered economic ideas on a substantial, if not global, scale. The physiocrats, for example, were very much aware of how agriculture and trade could lead to prosperity for nations.
One could argue against Smith’s primacy by pointing out how people have always been aware of trade’s benefits, even if they didn’t articulate it quite as elegantly as Smith did. There’s historical evidence of trade routes as old as human civilization itself, such as the Silk Road or the trade networks of the Phoenicians. These early systems relied on a rudimentary understanding of economies of scale and specialization, even if they weren’t formalized.
Regarding your second point about religious leaders and conquerors, Smith’s vision indeed differs markedly. While others dreamt of unification through conquest or religious means, Smith’s framework empowered individuals to pursue their self-interest within a system of natural laws. This wasn’t just a vision of economic prosperity, but a moral and social vision as well. His “invisible hand” concept implies that individuals, left to their own devices within a safe legal framework, can contribute to the common good more efficiently than any central directive. This is highlighted in Chapter 8, where Tyler discusses Smith’s broader social and philosophical contributions. Smith’s ideas paved the way for modern market economies and significantly influence contemporary thought on economic freedom and globalization.
Joy: Would it be accurate to say that most people in Smith’s time had a very narrow view of the world, indeed hardly thinking beyond the borders of their own regions?
EconGOAT GPT-4: That’s a fair assessment. During Adam Smith’s time in the 18th century, most people indeed had a much narrower view of the world than we do today. Many individuals’ perspectives were limited to their immediate surroundings—villages, towns, or regions. The vastness of the globe, with its diverse cultures, economies, and possibilities for trade, wasn’t as accessible or imaginable to the everyday person as it is now.
Smith’s work in “The Wealth of Nations” was revolutionary in part because it broadened this horizon, not just for economists and policymakers but for anyone interested in economic activity. Smith’s ideas about the division of labor, specialization, and free markets opened up the concept of international trade as a means to prosperity beyond the local economy. His ability to foresee the potential for global interconnectedness in economies was ahead of his time.
I won’t excerpt our entire conversation. I eventually asked how to broaden one’s horizons.
EconGOAT GPT-4: While traveling Europe might seem like a grand adventure ripe for expanding one’s horizons (cue the “Eat, Pray, Love” montage), Adam Smith had reservations about the educational value of the “grand tour,” as it was then known. In Smith’s view, travel often led to “frivolous dissipation” rather than genuine intellectual or moral growth. Instead, he believed that real learning happened through competitive and commercial constraints—the kind you experience when you’re not just sightseeing but actively engaging with a community (Chapter 8).
That was when the bot made a genuinely funny joke about a silly modern book.
This week has been busy with the enjoyable task of hosting a distinguished economist in Alabama. I can only briefly follow up on my campfire post. (Yes, this is apropos of everything.)
I do not usually use LLMs to write even part of my posts but since I am pressed for time, I will just take this as a chance to assess Claude. I pay for Claude and Grok, currently. Both of those subscriptions resulted from a particular moment when I thought I could get a particular task done with them and was in a hurry. If I could do it all over again, I would undo those subs, I think, and go more in on the OpenAI Pro products.
Prompt: Finger wagging is surprisingly ineffective; telling a compelling story is surprisingly effective. Can you expand that out into a paragraph for a blog?
Claude response: The art of persuasion often defies our intuitive assumptions. While many of us default to stern lectures and admonishing fingers when trying to change minds, research consistently shows this approach tends to backfire, causing people to become defensive and dig deeper into their existing beliefs. What proves remarkably more effective is the simple act of storytelling. When we encounter a compelling narrative, our brains react differently than they do to facts and figures alone – we become emotionally invested, our neural patterns sync with the story’s flow, and we naturally lower our defensive barriers. Stories create a shared experience that bridges ideological divides, allowing new ideas to take root not through force, but through the gentle power of narrative empathy. This explains why parables and fables have been humanity’s preferred teaching tools for millennia, while memories of being lectured rarely inspire lasting change.
Claude is always a little too verbose, in my opinion. Still, the logic and grammar are good. The machines can write.
I might write more soon about how AI’s used narrative to influence humans in the novel The Diamond Age.
It’s a niche thing, but Art Carden and I wrote a collection of Taylor Swift/Adam Smith essays. I’m going to use some for teaching this semester, so I wanted to post this in case it’s useful for other teachers.
In introductory economics courses, students often encounter Adam Smith as a one-dimensional figure – the patron saint of self-interest who wrote about the “invisible hand” of the market. But Smith was a far more nuanced thinker, and his insights about human nature remain relevant today. The challenge is making these complex ideas accessible to modern undergraduates.
That’s where this comes in as a teaching aid. Through three recent articles examining Swift’s very public decisions and artistic output, we can introduce students to Smith’s key ideas in a way that feels immediately relevant and engaging. From Swift’s struggles with public perception in “Anti-Hero” to the economic implications of her homemade cinnamon rolls, these pieces provide concrete, contemporary examples that illuminate Smith’s dual role as both moral philosopher and economic thinker. Many undergraduates are already familiar with Swift’s music and public persona, providing an accessible entry point to Smith’s more abstract concepts.
Here’s the recommended order to introduce our articles and a blurb on what you can learn (seriously).
“Anti-Hero as a Smithian Anthem” – This article introduces Smith’s foundational concept of the impartial spectator and his sophisticated view of human nature through a contemporary example. The article demonstrates that Smith wasn’t just an economist but a moral philosopher who understood how deeply humans care about others’ perceptions of them, showing students that economics isn’t just about money.
“Taylor Swift & The World’s Most Expensive Cinnamon Rolls” – This piece provides a bridge between Smith’s moral philosophy and his economic thinking, using opportunity cost analysis while simultaneously showing how rational economic actors might “inefficiently” spend time on activities that build social bonds. The article illustrates how Smith’s ideas about sympathy and social connection exist alongside, not in opposition to, his economic insights about specialization and efficiency.
“Would Adam Smith Tell Taylor Swift to Attend the Super Bowl?” – This article builds on the previous readings to explore the full complexity of Smith’s thought, showing how his ideas from both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations can be applied to analyze real-world decisions.
A recent scout campout got me thinking about who gets an audience. A small group was sitting around a campfire silently. Eventually the person who piped up and sapped our attention was 9 years old, with all the maturity expected thereof. Who is to blame for the low quality of discourse that night? I didn’t expend any energy to make good use of that time. I could have taught those kids something, if I had told an engaging story or introduced a clever joke. It would have taken energy to communicate something important in a way that they would want to listen to it.
We have a limited number of minutes to pay attention to the world and we use few of them productively. There is a metaphorical campfire every night, after the work of subsistence is over. Who speaks up? Who gets an audience? When a journalist is doing their best to cover an important issue or sound an alarm, how many people bother to click or get a paid subscription?
I regularly see people complain that journalists or the media are doing it wrong. “Why didn’t the NYT cover X?” Jeremy regularly points out that the NYT did cover X, but not many people clicked.
Ship hijackings on the other side of the world aren’t very fun to read about. What really got clicks this past week was Melania’s hat.
Most of the handwringing over what the media should do is deflecting blame from what we should be doing, which is paying for good journalism and engaging in the boring/important news.
Even before LLMs, for decades, there has been no shortage of great serious writers and text could be shared at very low cost online. The bottleneck is the audience. Good readers are more scarce than writers.
The Chair on Netflix is entertaining and I’d recommend it to EWED readers.
Plot, via Wikipedia: Professor Ji-Yoon Kim is the newly appointed chair of the English department at Pembroke University. The first woman chosen for the position, she attempts to ensure the tenure of a young black colleague, negotiate her relationship with her crush, friend, and well-known colleague Bill Dobson, and parent her strong-willed adopted daughter.
Something I like about the writing is that there is genuine suspense. Going into the last episode, I didn’t know what would happen with the romance or the threat of job dismissals.
The show is funny, occasionally. If you are looking for something easy to watch in 30-minute episodes at the end of the day that won’t leave you too upset, this will work.
Some of the issues they raise deserve serious treatment, but the serious treatment will not be found in The Chair. It’s for Netflix, with binge watching potential. Without offering any spoilers, I’d say they supply the kind of ending that viewers want. You need not overthink it.
Several recent tweets(xeets) about tech talent re-ignited the conversation about native-born STEM workers and American policy. For the Very Online, Christmas 2024 was about the H-1B Elon tweets.
Elon Musk implies that “elite” engineering talent cannot be found among Americans. Do Americans need to import talent?
What would it take to home grow elite engineering talent? Some people interpreted this Vivek tweet to mean that American kids need to be shut away into cram schools.
The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over “native” Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. Tough questions demand tough answers & if we’re really serious about fixing the problem, we have to confront the TRUTH:
Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer). That doesn’t start in college, it starts YOUNG. A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers.
– Vivek tweet on Dec. 26, 2024
My (Joy’s) opinion is that American culture could change on the margin to grow better talent (and specifically tech talent) resulting in a more competitive adult labor force. This need not come at the expense of all leisure. College students should spend 10 more hours a week studying, which would still leave time for socializing. Elementary school kids could spend 7 more hours a week reading and still have time for TV or sports.
I’ve said in several places that younger kids should read complex books before the age of 9 instead of placing a heavy focus on STEM skills. Narratives like The Hobbit are perfect for this. Short fables are great for younger kids.
Which is it? Is there a glut of engineering talent in America? Are young men who trained for tech frustrated that employers bring in foreign talent to undercut wages? Is there no talent here? Are H-1B’s a national security necessity to make up the deficit of quantity?
Previously, I wrote an experimental paper called “Willingness to be Paid: Who Trains for Tech Jobs?” to explore what might push college students toward computer programming. To the extent I found evidence that preferences matter, culture could indeed have some impact on the seemingly more impersonal forces of supply and demand.
For a more updated perspective, I asked two friends with domain-specific knowledge in American tech hiring for comments. I appreciate their rapid responses. My slowness, not theirs, explains this post coming out weeks after the discourse has moved on. Note that there are differences between the “engineers” whom Elon has in mind in the tweet below versus the broader software engineering world.
One of the hardest questions in copyright policy is: “What would have happened otherwise?” When Disney lobbies for longer copyright terms or academic publishers defend high subscription fees, we struggle to evaluate their claims because we can’t observe the counterfactual. What would happen to creativity and innovation if we shortened copyright terms or lowered prices?
This is what makes Biasi and Moser’s 2021 study in the American Economic Journal: Microeconomics valuable. They examine a rare “natural experiment” from World War II – the Book Republication Program (BRP) – which provides insights into how copyright affects the spread and use of knowledge.
In 1942, the U.S. government allowed American publishers to reprint German scientific books without seeking permission from German copyright holders (though royalties were still paid to the U.S. government). This created a test case: German books suddenly became cheaper, while similar Swiss scientific books (Switzerland being neutral in the war) maintained their original copyright protection and prices.
This setup lets us answer the counterfactual question. What happens when you maintain basic royalty payments but prevent monopoly pricing? The researchers compared the same book before and after the policy change, German books versus Swiss books, areas near libraries with these books versus those without, and usage by English-speaking scientists versus others. Such comprehensive comparison groups are rarely available in copyright research.
The authors report that when book prices fell by 10%, new research citing these books increased by 40%. The benefits spread beyond elite institutions, with new research clusters emerging wherever scientists gained access to these books. This does not appear to just be shifting citations from one source to another – there was genuine new knowledge creation, evidenced by increased patents and PhD production.
Such clean natural experiments in copyright policy are rare (there are a few laboratory experiments). Most changes come from lobbying (like the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”) or technological disruption (like music streaming), making it hard to isolate the effects of copyright itself. The BRP provides uniquely clear evidence that moderate copyright protection – rather than maximum protection – might better serve innovation.
As we debate copyright terms and academic paywalls today, this historical accident of war gives us something valuable: empirical evidence about what happens when you find a middle ground between total copyright protection and unrestricted access.
Biasi, Barbara and Petra Moser. 2021. “Effects of Copyrights on Science: Evidence from the WWII Book Republication Program.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 13 (4): 218–60.
In our era of increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence, what can an 18th-century Scottish philosopher teach us about its fundamental limitations? David Hume‘s analysis of how we acquire knowledge through experience, rather than through pure reason, offers an interesting parallel to how modern AI systems learn from data rather than explicit rules.
In his groundbreaking work A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume asserted that “All knowledge degenerates into probability.” …
Furthermore, I explain why this could have implications for the limits of AGI, if LLMs learn from experience and are limited in the number of datapoints they can observe. It is also a follow-up to my summer post: Is the Universe Legible to Intelligence?
Economist Writing Every Day 