Artificial intelligence and the man of the system

In this episodehosts Russ Roberts welcomes Zvi Mowshowitz to discuss the merits of AI, reasons for optimism and concern, AI as ‘man of the system’ and technology as the last bastion of the freedom to innovate.

Artificial intelligence is still in its infancy, but it is quickly learning to walk. What was once just a few chatbots is one generative AI revolution, redefining the way we communicate, learn and do business, and it’s just getting started. AI will continue to get smarter, but ‘smart’ in what sense? In this episode, Mowshowitz makes the point that Google is not “smart”, just has much more access to information. Is generative AI different? Mowshowitz says yes, but it’s complicated. In general, “smart” means a high level of understanding, problem solving, and creative ingenuity. Chatbots do indeed show understanding for some questions, but Mowshowitz clarifies that this also has a lot to do with the way questions are asked. Roberts adds that he doesn’t know if Chat GPT can create metaphors that change people’s views of the world, that involve powerful intellectual creativity.

Mowshowitz is a short-term optimist. He brushes aside concerns such as job destruction, arguing that there are many jobs waiting to happen beneath the surface. However, Mowshowitz makes a distinction between short-term, but current and visible concerns such as misinformation and confusion about deepfakes and the long-term existential questions that cast doubt on a prosperous partnership with AI. One such question concerns creative intelligence itself. How should AI be maintained? Is it even possible?

On the other hand, a key point for AI optimism lies in the direction of progress. The dial of progressas outlined by Mowshowitz on his Substack, Don’t worry about the vase, is a metaphorical dial that represents a collective decision about whether societies allow individuals to innovate and take risks freely, or require consent to be given and progress to be observed. In Mowshowitz’s eyes, AI is one of the few places that can move up the dial. Mowshowitz sees a scourge of red tape in various sectors that is handcuffing potential innovators, hence the massive influx into AI, crypto and CIS in general. In a sense, AI is a last bastion of opportunity innovationfor ingenuity, for chaotic dynamics and potential for rapid progress.

… over the years we’ve moved from a United States that was very much into, ‘You go out there and there’s an open field and you kind of do whatever you want to do as long as you don’t hurt anyone else or someone else’s property’, to a world where the vast majority of the economic system requires detailed permissions subject to very detailed regulations that make it very, very difficult to innovate and improve. And I completely agree with Andreessen and Cowen, and I think with you and with a lot of other people, that this is really holding us back. This makes us much less rich. This makes us much worse off. And that we would be much better off if we loosened the reins.”

However, Mowshowitz is not a long-term AI optimist. On the contrary, he claims that many optimistic models have no gears, they are too simple. According to Mowshowitz, these models lack structure, coherence and logical transfer. Not enough time is spent exploring the inner workings of the world within the model.

“When you have AI in the brain, everything is somehow a metaphor for the problem. Marx writes this huge thing about how terrible capitalism is; we are going to overthrow it; we are going to create this communist utopia. And then he writes five pages that are completely vague about what the communist utopia will be. We have many more people doing similar things. AI is another example of this where a lot of people say, “We’re going to build this amazing AI system that’s going to have all these capabilities, and then we’re going to have this Brave New World where everything is going to be. great for us humans and we’re going to live a great life.’ And then they spend one paragraph trying to explain, “What are the dynamics of that world?” For example, what are the incentives? Why is this system in equilibrium? Given the incentives inherent in all the dynamics involved, why do people survive in the long run?”

Roberts fuels the pessimism and challenges the argument that AI is on the rocks. Roberts suggests that AI will embody the goals of its creators, regulators, and users. In his words, the driverless car does not strive, the more likely the human concern using AI to perpetuate damage. Then he points to Adam Smith’s man of the system. The man of the system believes he can solve problems in society by orchestrating individuals, much like moving the pieces on a chessboard. What he does not understand, however, is that the pieces all work through their own principle of movement, completely independent of the will of the man of the system. Roberts believes that AI faces the same problem: there are clear limits to AI’s ability to influence the world through control, namely a lack of information, especially when it comes to subjective information that resides in the minds of individuals themselves located.

Mowshowitz further states that the system’s human is a human, with a limited ability to access, store, process and use information. AI does not have this limitation to the same extent.

“You have to ask yourself, ‘Okay, what’s going wrong in an important sense with the systems guy?’ The systems guy has a very limited amount of computing power, in one important sense. Right? This man of systems is a man. He can only understand systems that are so complex, he can have all the data in the world in front of him, he can’t use so much of it in a meaningful way… And he’s trying to be one man dictating all these things. . He has a hopeless task ahead of him. He’s going to fail… But when we talk about the AI, he doesn’t necessarily have to think about the bigger picture…’

The connecting factor between the progress indicator and man’s continued failure of the system lies in individual separateness. There is no form of aggregate knowledge that the human of the system can access, because it only exists in the minds of single individuals. As a result, progress flourishes when individuals, who have the most information about their specific strengths and preferences, can pursue their vision for their own lives. The man of the system who wants to impose his vision of progress on the rest of society does not understand that individuals are an end in themselves, and not a means to achieve a unilaterally determined vision of social welfare.

However, this does not mean that it is not harmful to shift the progress button to requiring permission to innovate. Although separateness ensures that the man of the system is doomed to fail in the pursuit of his goal own By codifying the rules of the game, the objectives of the individuals treated as chess pieces can easily be sacrificed at the altar of nationalism, corporate monopoly or power acquisition. While AI has the potential to push the dial, a man of the system could very well use the same technology to stifle further innovation and overall human freedom.

Related EconTalk episodes:

Eliezer Yudkowsky on the dangers of AI

Nick Bostrom on superintelligence

Erik Hoel on the threat to humanity from AI

Dan Klein on the theory of moral sentiments, episode 6

Michael Munger on permissionless innovation

Related LF Network Content:

Katherine Mangu-Ward on AI: Reality, Concerns and OptimismGreat antidote podcast

Harari and the danger of artificial intelligenceby Pierre Lemieux, at Econlib

Accelerating artificial intelligence instead of regulating itby John O. McGinnis of Law and Liberty

Neoliberalism on probation: artificial intelligence and existential risksby Walter Donway, at Econlib

ChatGPT and economic planningby Pierre Lemieux, at Econlib