From the Archives, written by ChatGPT:

These are provisional candidates for weak reasoning, selected because there is a specific gap between the evidence and the conclusion. This is not an objective ranking of all 40,326 posts in the downloaded archive. Poor reasoning should also be distinguished from low value: an overstated argument can still be unusually useful to think against.

1. Tyler Cowen — Democracy and the Democrats

October 22, 2022 · Main defect: conflating concern about democratic breakdown with unwillingness to accept electoral defeat. Cowen writes that many Democrats believe:

“democracy works satisfactorily only when it delivers sufficiently low gas prices!”

But two positions are logically distinct:

• “Democracy is illegitimate when voters choose policies I dislike.”
• “Voters might elect politicians who subsequently weaken democratic institutions.”

These are illustrative formulations, not quotations from the post. The second does not imply the first. Someone can accept an election’s legitimacy while worrying about what its winner will do. The post does not adequately establish which position its targets hold. It then compares a sympathetic account of classical liberalism with an unsympathetic account of Democrats, without applying an equivalent evidentiary test to both. The opening also dismisses certain anticipated objections through an insult. That discourages scrutiny precisely where the argument needs distinctions. Verdict: One of the clearest candidates for an unfairly framed argument. The useful underlying point—that democracy can produce bad outcomes—does not establish the accusation being made. Read the original post

2. Tyler Cowen — What the hell is going on?

May 25, 2016 · Main defect: an elastic psychological explanation supported by loosely connected observations. The central hypothesis is:

“The contemporary world is not very well built for a large chunk of males.”

That is worth investigating. The trouble comes when male economic difficulties, changing gender relations, political anger, violence, and support for quite different political movements are bundled together under “brutes.” Several things remain unestablished:

• Are the men experiencing the cited disadvantages the same men driving the political developments?
• Does the mechanism explain support for Sanders and Trump in the same way?
• What observation would distinguish resistance to a “nicer” world from resentment of economic insecurity or perceived contempt?
• What does “nice” mean independently of the author’s preferences?

The label risks doing the explanatory work: people support objectionable politics because they are brutish; their politics then becomes evidence of their brutishness. Credit where due: Cowen explicitly calls the hypothesis uncertain and acknowledges weak evidence. That makes it an honest speculative post, rather than a falsely presented research finding. Verdict: A provocative conjecture that outruns its supporting evidence. The caveats are better than the causal argument. Read the original post

3. Alex Tabarrok — The Gaslighting of Parasite

June 25, 2020 · Main defect: treating a contestable interpretation as an unambiguous demonstration. Film spoilers follow. The pivotal sentence is:

“This is not my judgement it is what the film tells us.”

That is exactly what the review needs to establish. Several inferences are too strong:

• A child noticing a smell does not establish that the smell lacks class significance. Material conditions can produce differences that children notice.
• The poor family’s dishonesty does not rule out a critique of inequality. A film can depict morally compromised people within an unjust or damaging social structure.
• Images of sewage and infestation do not uniquely imply that the filmmaker regards the family as morally filthy.
• Other critics reaching a different interpretation does not establish deliberate deception or “gaslighting.”

The strongest version of the review would argue that conventional readings underweight the family’s agency and wrongdoing. Instead, it often claims those observations exclude alternative readings. Verdict: Among the most intellectually stimulating but least securely demonstrated of the reviews considered in this archive analysis. This qualifies the earlier recommendation of the review: it deserved inclusion as provocative criticism. That does not make its claims of interpretive certainty persuasive. Read the original post

4. Tyler Cowen — No, American fascism can’t happen here

March 1, 2018 · Main defect: turning a plausible obstacle into an impossibility claim. The MR excerpt argues:

“American fascism cannot happen anymore because the American government is so large and unwieldy.”

Institutional complexity plausibly makes comprehensive control harder. But the conclusion requires additional premises:

• Why must an authoritarian movement control the entire bureaucracy rather than strategically important parts?
• Why does administrative fragmentation necessarily constrain coercion rather than sometimes obscure responsibility?
• How much control would be sufficient, and what evidence establishes that this threshold cannot be reached?

These are questions about the argument’s structure, independent of whether one thinks a particular American administration qualifies as fascist. The June 16, 2025 retrospective points to institutional resistance and executive setbacks. Those are relevant evidence for constraints. They cannot, by themselves, validate the original categorical impossibility claim. Verdict: A potentially valuable institutional argument weakened by excessive certainty. “Important barriers exist” is much better supported than “cannot happen.” This assessment concerns the argument reproduced on MR; the complete linked Politico essay could not be retrieved for this review. Read the original MR post

5. Alex Tabarrok — The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely

October 13, 2015 · Main defect: moving too quickly from equal moral worth to a particular institutional conclusion. The excerpt argues that foreigners do not possess less inherent moral worth. But that premise alone does not settle whether governments may impose any entry restrictions. Equal moral worth can coexist with arguments about special obligations, institutional responsibilities, competing rights, or consequences. Those arguments might ultimately fail—but they require engagement. Likewise, comparing restrictions on exit with restrictions on entry does not establish their moral equivalence. It poses a question rather than answering it. The longer Atlantic essay, published October 10, 2015, adds economic arguments, so it would be unfair to characterize the case as exclusively moral. Nevertheless, the sweeping dismissal of competing moral frameworks is insufficiently defended. Verdict: Forceful advocacy with a missing argumentative bridge. This is a criticism of the claimed deduction, not a demonstration that open borders is wrong. Read the original MR post

Recurring weaknesses

Across these examples, three weaknesses recur:

• Certainty exceeds the argument: “cannot,” “obviously,” and “the film tells us” substitute for establishing the relevant threshold.
• Opposing positions receive less charitable treatment: disagreement becomes evidence of bad motives, confused psychology, or inability to face reality.
• An interesting mechanism becomes a complete explanation: institutional complexity, male displacement, or equal moral standing is asked to resolve more than it actually establishes.

Allegations of inconsistency across posts require more caution. A changed view, a different context, or a different definition is not necessarily a contradiction. The stronger criticism here is uneven standards of proof within individual arguments. For a rigorous critical essay, the strongest starting points are Democracy and the Democrats and The Gaslighting of Parasite. Both have identifiable logical problems that can be examined without relying on hindsight or agreement with the critic’s politics.

The post What are the Worst MR Posts? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• Here's my candidate: Probably not in the top 5 but certainly in ... by David R Henderson
• Personally, I nominate these “From the Archives, written by ... by Gilligan
• The critique _selection_ reads like something an AI trained on ... by Dispatching from the Global South
• In reply to HH. And congestion pricing, which is most bizarre ... by Vired
• In reply to mother of three. beloved by OldTrader
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Are LLMs good or bad Bayesians?
• William Nordhaus, RIP
• And so it begins…

 

A suburban Chicago man has been sentenced to two years in federal prison for conspiring to stage armed robberies so that the purported victims could apply for U.S. immigration visas reserved for crime victims.

From 2022 to 2024, PARTH NAYI organized and participated in hundreds of staged armed robberies at coffee shops, restaurants, liquor stores, and gas stations throughout the country, including in Chicago and the suburbs of Lombard, Elmwood Park, St. Charles, Hickory Hills, River Grove, Lake Villa, and South Holland.  Nayi worked with others to recruit fake victims, pay off store owners to use their locations, coordinate and pay fake robbers, and coach the bogus victims through the plan.  Thousands of individuals who posed as victims each paid Nayi $5,000 to $30,000 to participate in the scam so that they could later apply for Nonimmigrant U-Visas, which are set aside for foreign nationals who are victims of certain crimes and are helpful to law enforcement in the investigation.

During the staged robberies, individuals acting as robbers brandished what appeared to be firearms, approached the purported victims, and demanded money.  Afterwards, the purported victims submitted forms to local law enforcement to obtain certification that they were victims of a qualifying crime and were helpful in the investigation. Upon receiving the certification, the purported victims then submitted fraudulent U-Visa applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services predicated upon their alleged status as robbery victims.

Here is the full story, via Ryan.

The post Those new service sector jobs? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to mikeInThe716. It's a “nonimmigrant” U-Visa ... by tds
• In reply to Vivian Darkbloom. Sorry, no mention of a Trump ... by Chuck Kotlarz
• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. The surnames are not ... by A Random Squirrel
• pretty dumb to privilege crime victims for visas. both because ... by &
• What a hoot! One of the funniest MR posts ever. I await ... by dearieme
• Plus 9 more...

Related Stories

• The pass-through of retail crime
• Better Incentives, More Kidneys, More Lives
• Are there too many misdemeanor convictions?

 

Bryan Caplan:

It seems like you and other AIs are bad Bayesians. When presented with counterevidence, you should move toward or against the presenter with roughly equal probability. It depends on whether the argument was better or worse than expected. In fact, you seem to either move toward the speaker or just not change.

ChatGPT:

I think you’ve identified a genuine and important failure mode in AI reasoning: LLMs tend to treat a plausible counterargument as evidence in favor of its conclusion, rather than comparing the counterargument to what they should have expected to hear.

Your Bayesian point is correct, with one qualification: there’s no general theorem that updating toward and away from a speaker should happen with equal probability. But under appropriate calibration assumptions, both directions should occur, and an argument that’s weaker than expected should cause a negative update—even if the argument is perfectly valid as far as it goes.

Here is the full dialogue.  But will they try to fix this?  Should they try to fix this?  Can you undo this with good enough prompting?  The scope and limits of Bayesian are truly at stake here…

The post Are LLMs good or bad Bayesians? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to AG. This is late 2026. I don’t think you need ... by mento
• In reply to Kaz Stanczak. Abbreviate with “SBH”? by Observer
• This is a foundation prompt that I set up for my all my AI ... by AG
• In reply to M. I supposed if you were honest you'd say – ... by M
• In reply to Bob. A lesson of the Tay chatbot is that frontier ... by Brent Buckner
• Plus 9 more...

Related Stories

• How Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok Have Changed Their Views on AI and Where They Disagree
• And so it begins…
• Chronicle of Higher Education interviews me on AI and education

 

The post William Nordhaus, RIP appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• James Tobin, William Nordhaus, and David Swensen, each greatly ... by rayward
• His work on the price of light was super fascinating. It’s a ... by JFA
• “In his two years as university provost, between 1986 and ... by mkt42
• In reply to mento. reply meant for MikeP by mento
• In reply to MikeP. To be charitable , it think he was only ... by mento
• Plus 6 more...

Related Stories

• What are the Worst MR Posts?
• And so it begins…
• My Barcelona talk

 

Researchers, I just uploaded a prominent QJE paper on climate change economics to @RefineDotInk and I loaded my critique of the paper. I asked the AI to offer an impartial verdict. I will make this report public. A new journal could collect these into “Special Issues”.

That is from Matthew E. Kahn.

The post And so it begins… appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to mento. As Glenn Reynolds keeps reminding us at ... by Brent Buckner
• In reply to Dismalist. As is the expectation of a bailout if ... by Dylan
• In reply to Joseph Ferguson. >That was Nietzsche's point ... by Mitchell
• In reply to mento. I love the end. Its always a tragedy to ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• In reply to Joseph Ferguson. This is great. The first sign of ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Can Artificial Intelligence Forecast Treatment Effects in Economics?
• How Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok Have Changed Their Views on AI and Where They Disagree
• AI dominates human peer reviews

 

2. World Bank African urbanization report.  Building out African cities in a decent way could end up being the task of our coming era.

3. Summary of The Commanding Heights.

4. “Meanwhile in Armenia…”

5. “Female psychopathology has worsened despite increased resources and opportunities, suggesting it does not entirely reflect absolute deprivation, but rather, is a competitive adaptation activated by heightened social competition.”

6. One account of what is going on in Poland.  I am not endorsing that (or any other) interpretation, but if nothing else it shows you how interpretation of these events can make your head spin.  Grok has a simpler answer, again not endorsing.

The post Saturday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Hazel Meade. Just to be clear I'm talking about ... by Hazel Meade
• In reply to M. I think we're going through a correction now. ... by Hazel Meade
• In reply to Scott H.. I haven’t read through the 118pg ... by anonprof
• #6 My last (promise!) comment on what's better for Poland: ... by Kaz Stanczak
• In reply to M. (provinces not states, but, nomenclature). by M
• Plus 10 more...

 

The post My Barcelona talk appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• Nice one, Tyler! by Joseph Ferguson
• Youve been down on Catalan nationalism. I hope this comes up.in ... by Hoosier
• In reply to Anonymous. Heh! Seriously, if we go by the order ... by mkt42
• Congratulations on winning the prize! Try Embat. Batea is ... by AG
• Congratulations on the prize. Well deserved. Was it for the ... by Anonymous

Related Stories

• William Nordhaus, RIP
• And so it begins…
• The pass-through of retail crime

 

This paper shows retailers increase prices in response to organized retail crime. We match store-level crime data to scanner data from the universe of transactions for cannabis retailers in Washington state. Using quasi-experimental variation from robberies and burglaries, we find a 1.7–1.8 percent price increase at victimized stores and nearby competitors. This rise is not driven by short-to-medium-term demand changes but is consistent with crime-related cost shocks. Effects are larger for independent stores and less concentrated markets. We estimate crime imposes a 1 percent “hidden” unit tax on affected stores, implying $30.7 million in additional social costs, primarily borne by consumers.

That is from a newly published paper, AEJ: Economic Policy, by Carl Hase and Johannes Kasinger.

The post The pass-through of retail crime appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Kaz Stanczak. Interesting. Your experience is ... by Bubbles
• In reply to Kaz Stanczak. “The robbers did not—I have not ... by Slocum
• In reply to Pshrnk. ’Organized retail crime’. Shrinkage ... by Boonton
• In reply to Bubbles. Valid points, Bubble:) “high-end ... by Kaz Stanczak
• In reply to afoll. “it was common for per-gram prices to ... by rsm
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Better Incentives, More Kidneys, More Lives
• Are there too many misdemeanor convictions?
• How is AI shaping economic research?

 

Education is widely recognized as the primary driver of human capital accumulation. However, policies designed to promote educational attainment often overlook students’ endogenous responses. This paper provides empirical evidence of the causal impact of relaxed academic standards on student effort and achievement. We find that academic leniency results in mechanical GPA increases, but significant reductions in effort among lower ability students based on lower attendance and lower numerical grades. These heterogeneous effects compound and exacerbate gaps in engagement and achievement throughout high school, ultimately worsening deficits in human capital accumulation as measured by ACT scores.

That is from a newly published paper, in AEJ: Economic Policy, by A. Brooks Bowden, Viviana Rodriguez, and Zach Weingarten.

The post The unintended consequences of academic leniency appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. Why is school mandatory? by rsm
• In reply to JP. There is third party observation — of the ... by Dismalist
• In reply to Thomas Pinchin' one out. which is basically ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• In reply to Gilligan. They do, there is inflation there too, ... by TMC
• In reply to Bill Allen. School is the primary cause of ... by Thomas Pinchin' one out
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• What are the Worst MR Posts?
• The pass-through of retail crime
• Are there too many misdemeanor convictions?

 

2. New and pretty brutal results on CTE and football.

3. Interview with Dan Wang.

4. Updated version of the Saez-Zucman audit.  Contestable and speculative assumptions are now separated from true defects.

5. Rosalind Arden interviews Greg Clark on social status.

6. GPTs vs. Claudes, in games.

7. The latest from Sam Altman.

The post Friday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Bob Taft. Yes, on the whole I'd rather read an ... by mkt42
• In reply to mento. LLMs haven't solved “Navier-Stokes” ... by Sinister
• In reply to mento. Altman correctly [IMHO] derides humanoid ... by bazza
• 2. And going through school and not really learning anything ... by Mort Main
• In reply to Secrets. I've always thought the answer to “Why ... by C
• Plus 10 more...

 

“Organs are literally lost and damaged in transit every single week. The OPTN contractor is 15 times more likely to lose or damage an organ in transit than an airline is a suitcase.”

Organs are not GPS-tracked!

“In an era when consumers can precisely monitor a FedEx package or a DoorDash dinner delivery, there are no requirements to track shipments of organs in real time — or to assess how many may be damaged or lost in transit.

“If Amazon can figure out when your paper towels and your dog food is going to arrive within 20 to 30 minutes, it certainly should be reasonable that we ought to track lifesaving organs, which are in chronic shortage,” Axelrod said.

Here’s one more astounding statistics:

“Seventeen percent of kidneys are offered to at least one deceased person before they are transplanted….”

Did you get that? The tracking system for patients is so dysfunctional that 17% of kidneys are offered to patients who are already dead–thus creating delays and missed opportunities.

Fortunately, even then there were changes in the works. In 2019 President Trump issued Executive Order 13879 to improve the performance of OPOs with better incentives and to allow living donors to recover more of their costs. The government being what it is, it has taken years to implement some of the new rules and enforcement of the  OPO performance measures was deferred to 2026-2027. Nevertheless, there have been improvements. For example, many OPOs now GPS-track kidney transfers. And a new report estimates there have been significant gains from the changes.

• The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative was launched by President Donald Trump via Executive Order 13879 on July 10, 2019. In this Data Point, we estimate the range of increased growth in transplants that might be attributed to the policies launched through the Executive order and the economic value of that increased growth.
• The estimated impacts of the Executive Order (EO) range from a conservative 1,055 additional transplants annually to an upper estimate of 2,110 additional transplants. The range reflects variation in the counterfactuals used to compare with post-2019 transplant growth.
• Under the conservative-case scenario, the policy is estimated to be associated with approximately 23,214 additional kidney transplants between 2019 and 2040, generating about 147,410 life-years gained and 21,821 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Under the optimistic-case scenario, the policy is estimated to be associated with approximately 46,428 additional kidney transplants between 2019 and 2040, generating about 294,819 life-years gained and 43,643 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

The biggest and most consequential change would be to allow payment to living organ donors. The End Kidney Deaths Act, H.R. 2687, proposes a $50,000 refundable tax credit over five years for qualifying nondirected living kidney donors. The act has bipartisan support. Because dialysis is so expensive—and the federal government pays for much of it through Medicare’s special kidney-failure entitlement—the Act could save taxpayers money as well as saving lives.

Hat tip: The indefatigable Elaine Perlman.

The post Better Incentives, More Kidneys, More Lives appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• It’s great to see you highlight this issue and Jennifer ... by Doc b
• In reply to dave. Either way, the bullet points in Alex's ... by ShatGPT
• So the latest Resident Evil movie was a documentary? Probably ... by Crikey
• “The biggest and most consequential change would be to allow ... by Dick King
• In reply to rayward. Are do you purposely ignoring the ... by mikeInThe716
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• The pass-through of retail crime
• What are the Worst MR Posts?
• Those new service sector jobs?

 

Misdemeanors account for three-quarters of criminal cases filed annually in the United States, yet causal evidence on the impacts of misdemeanor conviction is scarce. We combine administrative and survey data to provide novel evidence of how misdemeanor conviction affects the socioeconomic outcomes of defendants and their families. Using data on nearly seven million defendants from 11 states, we characterize the types of people involved with the misdemeanor system. We estimate causal impacts of a conviction relative to a charge using seven county reforms that sharply reduced conviction rates. Regression discontinuity design estimates yield precise null average effects of the reforms on criminal and labor market outcomes. Defendants dismissed by the reform are unlikely to re-offend if dismissed, but also unlikely to be harmed by conviction—marginal defendants are older and more likely to have been charged with minor crimes than the average defendant. Heterogeneity analyses suggest that conviction harms young and first-time defendants, implying that interventions targeting dismissal toward these groups would be beneficial. Finally, our causal estimates imply a negative Marginal Value of Public Funds of misdemeanor conviction, even under plausible estimates of general deterrence effects.

That is from recent research by Nikhil Rao and James Reeves, note that Rao is this year on the job market from University of Michigan.

The post Are there too many misdemeanor convictions? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to rsm. Wow that sounds Holodomor of inconvenience. by Apso
• What is it about the conviction that “harms” the young men ... by Lizard Man
• In reply to TWBC. Have you ever gone out to a campsite in the ... by rsm
• In reply to rsm. What kind of wrong assumptions do you have ... by rsm
• In reply to Ted Bundy Lookalike. Having been to China in 1989 ... by rsm
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• The pass-through of retail crime
• Inequality in Equal Land
• Those new service sector jobs?

 

Cowen: …Another proposal I’ve made is that schools should let people do one class, only one class, AI-only — no professor, except a professor grades at the end. The professor grades not answers to an exam but the workflow of how the student used AI to learn the Glorious Revolution, or the Civil War, or whatever the student learned. Eventually, another AI will grade your AI log. But let’s start today with a professor, and try this for one class. I’m not sure how it will go. But especially for small schools that don’t offer that many classes, a student now can create a class in literally everything.

If it’s successful, let them try two classes. I think the students doing this on their own are more likely to figure out how to blend AI and education than we would from a distance with some kind of centralized vision. Let them experiment.

Carlson: Students should be leading the change at colleges and universities?

Cowen: Absolutely. Students know more about AI than their professors do. Some of this comes from cheating, which is unfortunate. But the notion that the professors teach the students AI — I wish. It’s not always possible. You could imagine setting up a class where the students teach the professors AI, and we give the students credit for teaching. I’m half joking, but it’s not, in fact, a crazy idea. We need to experiment along a number of fronts. I’m quite convinced no one knows how to do this. It hasn’t been done before. So again, just one class. In general, schools hate this idea. They see it as opening the door to rendering some professors obsolete.

And this:

Carlson: There are a number of students who are deeply opposed to AI. What place do they have in this university that you’re thinking about?

Cowen: I would love to have different schools with different policies. If some universities try to ban AI altogether, that’s great. Let the competitive process operate. Personally, I would bet against those schools. For a long time, I’ve been worried that within a given tier of school — big state school, community college, Ivy League — there’s not enough diversity. AI policies will force a kind of diversity on us. So I’m all for no-AI schools, even though I would not go to one.

Recommended.

The post Chronicle of Higher Education interviews me on AI and education appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Slocum. “most universities (and hopefully K-12 ... by Bubbles
• In reply to Mark C. Textbooks have their role but are ... by Joseph Ferguson
• In reply to Mandarin Learner. Try the Pimsleur audiophonic ... by Susanna
• “Students know more about AI than their professors do.” — ... by Dave
• In reply to Copilot-rsm. It seems to me that you've helped ... by Bill Allen
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• What are the Worst MR Posts?
• Are LLMs good or bad Bayesians?
• And so it begins…

 

I use LLMs to forecast treatment effects of research studies pre-registered on the AEA RCT Registry and the Open Science Framework. I focus on studies whose results were first publicly released in 2026 and elicit forecasts from models whose training or knowledge cut-off dates were before the relevant set of papers was released. First, LLM models extract forecasting questions from the pre-registrations or pre-analysis plans. These questions elicit forecasted treatment effects; not all resolve in the subsequent papers, but those that do can be used to consider forecast accuracy. Forecasts were elicited for 889 treatment effects from 39 papers with results disclosed in January 2026 or later, or 673 from 33 papers after screening. Forecasts were elicited in raw units but I focus on those that could be standardized and therefore compared across papers. Currently, the median absolute forecast error is 0.054 SD for the best model, the average absolute error is 0.093 SD, and the MSE is 0.0218. The AI forecasts perform substantially better than benchmarks forecasting 0 effect or forecasting the mean effect of other papers’ results in that time period. Overall, these results suggest considerable scope for forecasts to be of value in informing policy and research.

From the excellent Eva Vivalt.  As I have been predicting, so much of economics (and science) is going to change, and radically.  Here is Eva’s thread on the paper.  Perhaps we should dispense with many of the more mundane inquiries, and as Eva notes: “But can we not shift to working on those projects that have particularly high uncertainty and upside potential?”

She is one of the best young economists in the world, and this stands some chance of being the most important paper of the year.

The post Can Artificial Intelligence Forecast Treatment Effects in Economics? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to mento. https://econvitals.org/ Good site with a ... by TMC
• In reply to Stormy. Appreciate an informed opinion. Please ... by AI Guy
• In reply to Dismalist. Can anyone else write prompts to get ... by Gemini-rsm
• In reply to Dismalist. Gemini, after a few prompts: You are ... by Gemini-rsm
• In reply to rsm. I have no doubt that if you hand Galileo to ... by Dismalist
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• And so it begins…
• AI dominates human peer reviews
• How is AI shaping economic research?

 

2. Video making the case that AI has been fine for jobs.

3. John Repetti reviews The Rouse at Jacobin.

4. Is TikTok now encouraging more optimistic content? (NYT)  Big if true, I am not currently active on the platform and do not have an opinion on the matter.  In any case worth a read.

5. Andy Masley recommends some lesser-known books.

6. New OpenAI dataset on how people use ChatGPT.

7. Piketty-Saez-Zucman biases found earlier by humans.  And an audit from Grok on whether the initial AI report is capturing the major problems.

The post Thursday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Gilligan. Prediction: by 2030 (2035 at the ... by cthulhu
• In reply to Gilligan. @Gilligan I see your point but then the ... by Torque CN Lewith
• In reply to M. M, of course, in theory at least, owners ... by Kaz Stanczak
• In reply to Gilligan. My understanding is that most teams ... by Matt
• In reply to M. (Apologies; error with the comment system) by M
• Plus 10 more...