On a recent episode of EconTalk, host Russ Roberts and guest Tyler Cowen talked about artificial intelligence. AI has gotten a lot of attention, much of it sensationalized by the media and by activists. Some have pitched it as a godlike power that will solve every problem instantly; others fearmonger about the end of humanity. The conversation between Roberts and Cowen was a good dose of sanity and soberness.
While AI will present new challenges, it does not mean we should throw out everything we know about humans and incentives. Cowen emphasized repeatedly the need to reaffirm the principles of the U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Two comments from the podcast are especially worthy of note. The first is from Cowen, talking about the doomsday predictions some have made about AI’s potential. Cowen said:
I think they’re radically overestimating the value of intelligence. If we go back, as I mentioned before, to Hayek and Polanyi, pure intelligence is not worth as much as many people think. There’s this philosophy of scientism that Hayek criticized. And, the people who are most worried, as I see them, they tend to be hyper-rationalistic. They tend to be scientists. They tend not to be very Hayekian or Smithian. They emphasize sheer brain power over prudence. And, I think if you take this more Adam Smith-like/Hayekian worldview, you will be less worried.
The second is from Roberts. He’s making a similar point to the one he recently made at book length. (See my interview with Roberts about that book, Wild Problems, here.) Roberts said:
Most of the problems of the human experience are not solvable. They involve trade-offs. I come back to our classic — the dictum of our profession — “No solutions. Only trade-offs.”
And, trade-offs therefore require judgment. And, ChatGPT will never provide that, unless you believe in a social welfare kind of approach that you alluded to earlier.
And so, I think the belief that, quote, “smarter and smarter” computer tools will help us solve more and more problems is simply incorrect. It will solve many problems, and some of them will be quite important, potentially avoiding an asteroid. But many of the problems of the human experience are not due to a lack of intelligence. And I think that’s an understanding that you and I are trained in our bones from being economists, as both students and teachers, over the years. And, I think it’s very alien to the computer-science community.
As good economists, Roberts and Cowen both understand human nature and incentives. That understanding will always be helpful, no matter how good computers become.