Religion

Joy on AI in Higher Education

Joy Buchanan1 Comment

I was interviewed for an article “Navigating AI in Christian Higher Education“. Here’s an excerpt:

Rosenberg: What impact do you foresee in your field due to the increasing sophistication of AI, and what kind of skills do you think your students will need to be successful?

Buchanan: AI will reshape economic analysis and modeling, making complex data processing and predictive analytics more accessible. This will lead to more sophisticated economic forecasting and policy design. Economists will become more productive, and expectations will rise accordingly. While some fields might resist change, economics will be at the forefront of AI integration.

For students aiming to succeed, it’s crucial to embrace AI tools without relying on them excessively during college. Strong fundamentals in economic theory and critical thinking remain essential, coupled with data science and programming skills.

Interdisciplinary knowledge, especially in tech and social sciences, will be valuable. Adaptability and lifelong learning are key in this evolving field. Human skills like creativity, communication, and ethical reasoning will remain crucial.

While AI will alter economics, it will also present opportunities for those who can adapt and effectively combine economic thinking with technological proficiency.

Federalism in Action: The Case of Alcohol and Local Autonomy

Zachary Bartsch4 Comments

Where would you expect Federalism to occur? In other words, where would expect a government to devolve authority to a lower government. Importantly, this is different from freedom vs authoritarianism. The lower government might choose to be more or less free. For example, right now in Florida there is a state-wide constitutional amendment on the ballot that would enshrine each individual’s right to hunt and fish. Ignoring the particulars of what that means, it’s clearly a step toward centralizing policy rather than decentralizing it. Central governments can be strong and protect citizens, or they can strip us of rights. Either way, being small players and far-removed, it’s difficult for us to affect the policy decisions.

That concern is philosophical, however. Maybe my opinion shouldn’t matter (one could easily argue). Even as a matter of prudence, one-size-fits all sets a standard, but the standard may not be a good fit for every locality and circumstance. There is a trade-off between ease of navigating a uniform policy across the land and customized policies that are particular to local priorities. Given that Americans can vote, is there a way for us to think about when a policy will be (should be?) centralized vs decentralized?

There is a great case study by Strumpf & Oberholzer-Gee* on the matter of alcohol policy after the end of national prohibition. The US has a dizzying array of liquor laws across the country and even across states. Some states have a central policy of dry or wet, while others devolve the authority to lower governments. How should we think about that policy? What determines the policy of central versus devolved authority?

Continue reading →

How Many People Think the Earth is Flat, and Doesn’t Move?

Scott Buchanan2 Comments

Most of us have read or heard references to flat-earthers. I have always assumed they are some tiny tongue-in-cheek group which is just playing out an elaborate joke on the rest of us. The Greeks figured out by 300 A.D. that the earth was round, and this tidbit was incorporated into medieval scholarship, so there has never been much religious or traditional impetus for a flat earth. I was therefore a bit surprised to learn that flat earth beliefs are very serious to many folks, and that such beliefs seem to be on the rise.

From Wikipedia:

In 2020, it was reported that based on polling by Datafolha, 7% of Brazilians believed in a flat Earth. A 2018 YouGov poll found that around 4% of the population of the United States believed in flat Earth while the POLES 2021 Survey found around 10% of the United States population believed that the Earth is flat. A 2019 YouGov survey found that around 3% of British people supported flat Earth.

Digging into that 2018 YouGov poll finds that 2% of Americans resolutely say the earth is flat, but many others who lean towards a round earth are not quite sure. Flat-earthism is more prevalent in Millennials than in older folks, only 66% of Millennials firmly believe the earth is round :

While an overwhelming majority of Americans (84%) believe that the Earth is round, at least 5% of the public say they used to believe that but now have their doubts.
Flat earthers find traction in their beliefs among a younger generation of Americans. Young millennials, ages 18 to 24, are likelier than any other age group to say they believe the Earth is flat (4%).

Apparently, a YouTube channel launched in 2015 by real-life pinball wizard Mark Sargent (“…a competitive video game player, winning one virtual pinball tournament”), which has amassed over two million views, has played a role in popularizing flat earth beliefs. In his brand of geography, the center of the earth-disk is roughly the North Pole, and the edge of the earth-disk lies in what we normally think of the extreme south, and is surrounded by an ice-wall. Several basketball players (Kyrie Irving, Wilson Chandler, Draymond Green) and a rapper (B.o.B) have come out in favor of flatness. The NASA conspiracy of a round earth is crumbling…

 I think some of this flat-earth polling is just ignorance, especially those who are not sure. But there are those who “have their reasons”, often citing various (pseudo) scientific arguments to support their beliefs:

Research by Carlos Diaz Ruiz and Tomas Nilsson on the arguments that flat Earthers wield, shows three factions, each one subscribing to its own set of beliefs.

The first faction subscribes to a faith-based conflict in which atheists use science to suppress the Christian faith. … their arguments use the Scripture – word-by-word – to support an argument that enables God to really exist.

The second faction believes in an overarching conspiracy for knowledge suppression. Building upon the premise that knowledge is power, the flat Earth conspiracy argues that a shadowy group of “elites” control knowledge to remain in power. In their view, lying about the fundamental nature of the Earth primes the population to believe a host of other conspiracies. …

The third faction believes that knowledge is personal and experiential. They are dismissive of knowledge that comes from authoritative sources, especially book knowledge. 

Belief in geocentricity (i.e., that the earth is stationary and the sun goes around the earth) is even more widespread than belief in a flat earth. From Wikipedia:

According to a report released in 2014 by the National Science Foundation, 26% of Americans surveyed believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.  Morris Berman quotes a 2006 survey that show currently some 20% of the U.S. population believe that the Sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the Sun (heliocentricism), while a further 9% claimed not to know. Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth.  A study conducted in 2005 by Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University, an expert in the public understanding of science and technology,  found that about 20%, or one in five, of American adults believe that the Sun orbits the Earth.  According to 2011 VTSIOM poll, 32% of Russians believe that the Sun orbits the Earth.

Geocentrism seems particularly driven by religious concerns, although I think the polls also heavily reflect plain ignorance. There are passages in the Bible which, if taken literally, seem to mandate a stationary earth and a moving sun. The Roman Catholic church has tiptoed away from its condemnation of Galileo four hundred years ago, and essentially accepted his contention that such passages were never intended to be taken literally. Nevertheless, Catholic layman Robert Sungenis has vigorous argued for geocentricity and Bible literalism, publishing books such as Galileo Was Wrong. On the fundamentalist Protestant side, there is the Association for Biblical Astronomy, with its web site www.geocentricity.com. They make arguments to dismiss the usual scientific conclusions on this matter.

Geocentricity is somewhat poignant for me, because a good friend of mine from college later became deeply attached to it, to the point that he rejected my thinking as apostate when I disagreed. He was a bright guy and an Ivy League graduate. Which just goes to show that fringe beliefs can have unexpected appeal.

Persistent Beliefs

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

The things that happen between people’s ears are difficult to study. Similarly, the actions that we take and the symbolic gestures that we communicate to the people around us are also difficult to study. We often and easily perceive the social signals of otherwise mundane activities, but they are nearly impossible to quantify systematically beyond 1st person accounts. And that’s me being generous. Part of the reason that these things are hard to study is that communication requires both a transmitter and a receiver. One person transmits a message and another person receives it. Sometimes, they’re on slightly or very different wavelengths and the message gets garbled or sent inadvertently and then conflict ensues.

Having common beliefs and understandings about the world help us to communicate more effectively. Those beliefs also tend to be relevant about the material world too. A small example is sunscreen. Because a parent rightly believes that sunscreen will protect their child from short-run pain and long-run sickness, they might lather it on. But, due to their belief, they also signal their love, compassion, and stewardship for their child. A spouse or another adult failing to apply sunscreen to a child signals the lack thereof and conflict can ensue even when the long-term impact of one-time and brief sun exposure is almost zero.

People cry both sad and happy tears because of how they interpret the actions of others – often apart from the other external effects. Therefore, beliefs imbue with costs and benefits even the behaviors that have seemingly immaterial consequences otherwise. We can argue all day about beliefs. And while beliefs might change with temporary changes in the technology, society, and the environment, core beliefs need to be durable over time. Therefore, if this economist were to recommend beliefs, then I would focus on the prerequisite of persistence before even trying to find a locally optimal set.

Here are three inexhaustive criteria for a durable beliefs:

Continue reading →

Is the Universe Legible to Intelligence?

Joy Buchanan7 Comments

I borrowed the following from the posted transcript. Bold emphasis added by me. This starts at about minute 36 of the podcast “Tyler Cowen – Hayek, Keynes, & Smith on AI, Animal Spirits, Anarchy, & Growth” with Dwarkesh Patel from January 2024.

Patel: We are talking about GPT-5 level models. What do you think will happen with GPT-6, GPT-7? Do you still think of it like having a bunch of RAs (research assistants) or does it seem like a different thing at some point?

Cowen: I’m not sure what those numbers going up mean or what a GPT-7 would look like or how much smarter it could get. I think people make too many assumptions there. It could be the real advantages are integrating it into workflows by things that are not better GPTs at all. And once you get to GPT, say 5.5, I’m not sure you can just turn up the dial on smarts and have it, for example, integrate general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Patel: Why not?

Cowen: I don’t think that’s how intelligence works. And this is a Hayekian point. And some of these problems, there just may be no answer. Like maybe the universe isn’t that legible. And if it’s not that legible, the GPT-11 doesn’t really make sense as a creature or whatever.

Patel (37:43) : Isn’t there a Hayekian argument to be made that, listen, you can have billions of copies of these things. Imagine the sort of decentralized order that could result, the amount of decentralized tacit knowledge that billions of copies talking to each other could have. That in and of itself is an argument to be made about the whole thing as an emergent order will be much more powerful than we’re anticipating.

Cowen: Well, I think it will be highly productive. What tacit knowledge means with AIs, I don’t think we understand yet. Is it by definition all non-tacit or does the fact that how GPT-4 works is not legible to us or even its creators so much? Does that mean it’s possessing of tacit knowledge or is it not knowledge? None of those categories are well thought out …

It might be significant that LLMs are no longer legible to their human creators. More significantly, the universe might not be legible to intelligence, at least of the kind that is trained on human writing. I (Joy) gathered a few more notes for myself.

A co-EV-winner has commented on this at Don’t Worry About the Vase

(37:00) Tyler expresses skepticism that GPT-N can scale up its intelligence that far, that beyond 5.5 maybe integration with other systems matters more, and says ‘maybe the universe is not that legible.’ I essentially read this as Tyler engaging in superintelligence denialism, consistent with his idea that humans with very high intelligence are themselves overrated, and saying that there is no meaningful sense in which intelligence can much exceed generally smart human level other than perhaps literal clock speed.

I (Joy) took it more literally. I don’t see “superintelligence denialism.” I took it to mean that the universe is not legible to our brand of intelligence.

There is one other comment I found in response to a short clip posted by @DwarkeshPatel  by youtuber @trucid2

Intelligence isn’t sufficient to solve this problem, but isn’t for the reason he stated. We know that GR and QM are inconsistent–it’s in the math. But the universe has no trouble deciding how to behave. It is consistent. That means a consistent theory that combines both is possible. The reason intelligence alone isn’t enough is that we’re missing data. There may be an infinite number of ways to combine QM and GR. Which is the correct one? You need data for that.

I saved myself a little time by writing the following with ChatGPT. If the GPT got something wrong in here, I’m not qualified to notice:

Newtonian physics gave an impression of a predictable, clockwork universe, leading many to believe that deeper exploration with more powerful microscopes would reveal even greater predictability. Contrary to this expectation, the advent of quantum mechanics revealed a bizarre, unpredictable micro-world. The more we learned, the stranger and less intuitive the universe became. This shift highlighted the limits of classical physics and the necessity of new theories to explain the fundamental nature of reality.
General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) are inconsistent because they describe the universe in fundamentally different ways and are based on different underlying principles. GR, formulated by Einstein, describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy, providing a deterministic framework for understanding large-scale phenomena like the motion of planets and the structure of galaxies. In contrast, QM governs the behavior of particles at the smallest scales, where probabilities and wave-particle duality dominate, and uncertainty is intrinsic.

The inconsistencies arise because:

  1. Mathematical Frameworks: GR is a classical field theory expressed through smooth, continuous spacetime, while QM relies on discrete probabilities and quantized fields. Integrating the continuous nature of GR with the discrete, probabilistic framework of QM has proven mathematically challenging.
  2. Singularities and Infinities: When applied to extreme conditions like black holes or the Big Bang, GR predicts singularities where physical quantities become infinite, which QM cannot handle. Conversely, when trying to apply quantum principles to gravity, the calculations often lead to non-renormalizable infinities, meaning they cannot be easily tamed or made sense of.
  3. Scales and Forces: GR works exceptionally well on macroscopic scales and with strong gravitational fields, while QM accurately describes subatomic scales and the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear). Merging these scales and forces into a coherent theory that works universally remains an unresolved problem.

Ultimately, the inconsistency suggests that a more fundamental theory, potentially a theory of quantum gravity like string theory or loop quantum gravity, is needed to reconcile the two frameworks.

P.S. I published “AI Doesn’t Mimic God’s Intelligence” at The Gospel Coalition. For now, at least, there is some higher plane of knowledge that we humans are not on. Will AI get there? Take us there? We don’t know.

ChatGPT on Advent

Joy Buchanan2 Comments

I have a paper that emphasizes ChatGPT errors. It is important to recognize that LLMs can make mistakes. However, someone could look at our data and emphasize the opposite potential interpretation. On many points, and even when coming up with citations, the LLM generated correct sentences. More than half of the content was good.

You can read ChatGPT’s take on a wide variety of topics within economics, in the appendix of our paper. The journal hosts it at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/05694345231218454/suppl_file/sj-pdf-1-aex-10.1177_05694345231218454.pdf If that link does not work then the appendix has been up on SSRN since June in the form of the old version of the paper.

Apparently, LLMs just solved an unsolvable math problem. Is there anything they can’t do? Considering how much of human expression and culture revolves around religion, we can expect AI’s to get involved in that aspect of life.

Alex thinks it will be a short hop from Personal Jesus Chatbot to a whole new AI religion. We’ll see. People have had “LLMs” in the form of human pastors, shaman, or rabbis for a long time, and yet sticking to one sacred text for reference has been stable. I think people might feel the same way in the AI era – stick to the canon for a common point of reference. Text written before the AI era will be considered special for a long time, I predict. Even AI’s ought to be suspicious of AI-generated content, just in the way that humans are now (or are they?).

Many religious traditions have lots of training literature. (In our ChatGPT errors paper, we expect LLMs to produce reliable content on topics for which there is plentiful training literature.)

I gave ChatGPT this prompt:

Can you write a Bible study? I’d like this to be appropriate for the season of Advent, but I’d like most of the Bible readings to be from the book of Job. I’d like to consider what Job was going through, because he was trying to understand the human condition and our relationship to God before the idea of Jesus. Job had a conception of the goodness of God, but he didn’t have the hope of the Gospel. Can you work with that?

Continue reading →

It Takes a Village

Zachary Bartsch3 Comments

Many households are now 2-income households. And that can make parenting a slog.

You go to work for 8-10 hours, you may or may not need to provide transportation for children to/from school, and child-care can eat a substantial portion of income. If the children are small, then the parents clean the floors, the dishes, and the clothes. Not to mention any home improvements or repairs. And food! Do you want to eat a home-cooked meal as a family? If both parents work typical hours, then prepare to eat no earlier than 6 PM, and maybe as late as 7:30.

Hey but there’s the weekend, right? NOPE! Someone has to do that big weekly shopping trip. How long is that going to take? The whole ordeal is enough to make someone think twice before having that 2nd kid. After all, if one kid getting sick throws a wrench in even a single day’s routine, then the whole week can be affected. How many sick kids before things stop getting done? Having a grandparent around to help would be a huge privilege and blessing.

At this point, I think that I can begin to call myself an experienced parent. I’ve got 4 kids who are ages 6 and younger. Plenty of modern conveniences make life easier. Many groceries can be purchased ahead of time for ‘order pick-up’ or online for delivery. Nice. Books are super cheap, and so are bubbles and drawing supplies. If I have to get some work/chores done while the kids are awake, then I can buy myself some time. But, like it or not, when the kids are asleep in the evening is when most chores will get done.

Continue reading →

Dysfunctional Virtue: A Tale of No Profits

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

For-profit firms are well-oriented. The managers within firms may not make profit their only explicit priority, but it is pre-requisite to their other concerns. Without profits, firms eventually cease to exist. Non-profits are different. They might have revenues due to sales and operate much like a for-profit firm. But, they many times operate on revenue from donations and endowments. Because the success of non-profits is harder to measure, the signals of triumph and defeat do not orient the employees as clearly. The result can be that there is a lot of ruin in a non-profit. Plenty of tasks are done inefficiently, poorly, or not at all.

Mission-driven non-profits are able to attract enthusiastic, dedicated employees given the pay that they offer. But, supporting the mission of such an organization often acts as an implicit “belief test”, filtering out other would-be job applicants who self-select out of applying to open positions for which they are otherwise qualified. Indeed, part of the purpose of mission statements is to filter for the kind of employees that the organization managers or donors desire. While the employees may be enthusiastic and dedicated to the mission, that is mostly separate from whether they have the technical skills to flourish in their position and to effectively serve the organization.

Continue reading →

To Dunk or Not to Dunk

Joy Buchanan1 Comment

I’m writing an article about fast-fashion, so I’m reading Fashionopolis by Dana Thomas. 

This paragraph is from the intro chapter:

Since the invention of the mechanical loom nearly two and a half centuries ago, fashion has been a dirty, unscrupulous business that has exploited humans and Earth alike to harvest bountiful profits. Slavery, child labor, and prison labor have all been integral parts of the supply chain at one time or another – including today. On occasion, society righted the wrongs, through legislation or labor union pressure. But trade deals, globalization, and greed have undercut those good works.

She invokes religion with “good works.” Thomas and I are of different opinions concerning globalization and “greed” and legislation. My instinct is to rip this paragraph apart. Has legislation never been motivated by greed? Has globalization not improved the lives of children? Has the mechanical loom not improved the lives of women who used to spend hours spinning and weaving by hand?

I am also reading pastor Tim Keller’s biography right now, so I’m having a What Would TK Do moment.

With his gifts (smart, funny, articulate…), Keller could have made a fortune by taking a side. He could have picked the Right or the Left. He could have expertly appealed to a Side, convincing them that they were good-smart and the Other is evil-stupid. Instead, Keller relentlessly stayed in the center. One of his books is actually called Center Church.

Continue reading →

The Value of Student Organizations and On-Campus Education: Anecdotal Evidence from Tim Keller

Joy Buchanan6 Comments

Tim Keller, who was the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, died last week. Starting and growing a church in Manhattan takes talent. I am reading Tim Keller’s biography by Collin Hansen through the lens of Tyler’s Talent book.

How did a successful leader and famous speaker get started? Keller is not described in the book as an outgoing child. Although academically gifted, “He grew up socially awkward, a wallflower…”

In 1968, Keller started at Bucknell University. Keller, who would go on to write multiple best-selling books, may have refined some of his writing skills through his coursework. From my reading, the most important aspect of his college experience was not the classes but the chance to be a leader of a campus (religious) club and having so many peers close by to practice “working” with. “Some 2,800 students lived within short walking distance of each other…[on campus].”

He planned retreats and invited famous guest speakers who appealed to his audience. He got feedback on the effectiveness of different messages and programs. Due to Keller’s efforts, the college club chapter meetings more than doubled in size. You can see the beginnings of the man who would go on to manage a large organization and attract over 5,000 people to hear him on the Sunday after 9/11.

In the debate over the value of a college education, the value of the experience students gain from holding officer positions in campus clubs is underrated. The information or credentials that can be obtained through online classes doesn’t build this kind of social capital. For leaders of organizations, college clubs are how some of them gained momentum and developed confidence.

Students can learn in a low stakes environment. For example, an ambitious club president can get 20 students to show up for pizza instead of 8. Club leaders get to make the key decisions and solve the problems that determine the success of their organization, because the faculty are too busy to micromanage club meetings. This gives students accurate feedback on the success of their own ideas.

In-person campus-based education is more than acquiring knowledge from textbooks. It is a dynamic environment in which students can develop social skills and form their network for future professional support. By participating in these organizations, students learn collaboration, decision-making, problem-solving, and mentoring — skills that are transferable across various domains of life.