Now, this is really funny. It’s not that in the current issue of Regulation, I reviewed the latest book of Daron Acemoglu co-authored with his MIT colleague Simon Johnson, and I didn’t find much to praise. What is truly funny is ChatGPT’s answer to a related question I asked “him” yesterday night.
First, a short word on Acemoglu and Johnson’s book, Power and Progress. As I explained in my review, “A Fashionable Appeal to a Benevolent State,” the authors
argue that for technology to be beneficial to society and create no unemployment, inequality, or poverty, it needs to be controlled by social power (especially trade unions) and government regulation. “Progress is never automatic,” they say; it must be directed.
It seems that for Acemoglu and his co-author, it is a general principle that individual choices are inefficient and must be controlled by a benevolent state’s collective choices. My review contains many illustrations. I also point to some cheesy statements and clichéd expressions. As we will see below, one of them, which is not the most damning, was used by ChatGPT without any prodding from me. In my review of Power and Progress, I noted:
In a few places…, the magical “social” mutates into “societal,” which only has the look and feel of something more scientific.
In this post, my intention was to quote a few, more substantial, passages of my review, when I had the idea of asking ChatGPT the following question:
Please write something, in the style and ideology of MIT economist Daron Acemoglu, on the idea that for dating and marriage to be beneficial to society, they must be controlled by social power (including trade unions) and government regulation, not just by selfish individual choices.
Our friendly robot’s answer threw me off course. I cannot but share it with the readers of EconLog instead of my own prose. I am quoting our whole conversation and ChapGPT’s whole answer, literally; I gave him no other hint. Here is what he answered (OpenAI. [2024]. ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com January 10, 2023):
In exploring the intersection of dating, marriage, and societal benefits, Daron Acemoglu’s framework of institutional economics can shed light on the role of social power and government regulation in shaping these fundamental aspects of human relationships. Acemoglu’s work emphasizes the significance of institutions in determining economic and social outcomes, arguing that inclusive institutions are crucial for fostering prosperity and well-being.
Applying this perspective to the realm of dating and marriage, one might contend that the trajectory of these relationships should not be left solely to the discretion of individual choices but rather should be guided by broader social mechanisms. In this view, the overarching goal is to create institutions that promote equitable access to relationship opportunities and ensure positive externalities for society at large.
Social power, including the influence of trade unions, can be seen as a force for balancing the dynamics of dating and marriage. Trade unions, traditionally associated with labor markets, could extend their influence to advocate for fairness and inclusivity in the realm of relationships. By negotiating and regulating aspects of dating and marriage, trade unions may contribute to reducing inequalities and promoting social cohesion.
Government regulation, as proposed by Acemoglu’s perspective, becomes a crucial tool in shaping the incentives and constraints within the dating and marriage market. This could involve policies aimed at addressing issues such as income disparities, discrimination, and access to education – all of which influence the dynamics of relationship formation. Government intervention might also target areas like parental leave, childcare support, and affordable housing to create an environment conducive to stable and fulfilling relationships.
In this framework, the emphasis shifts from an entirely laissez-faire approach to one that acknowledges the broader societal implications of individual choices in the realm of dating and marriage. By fostering institutions that encourage inclusivity, reduce inequalities, and promote social welfare, the collective benefits of stable relationships can be maximized, aligning with Acemoglu’s vision of inclusive institutions driving societal well-being.
This is ChatGPT speaking, not Acemoglu. But our friendly robot succeeded surprisingly well in extending the prestigious author’s framework to another area of life. In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, one of the novel’s characters repeats the observation of Miranda in Shakespeare’s The Tempest: “O brave new world, that has such people in it!”
READER COMMENTS
Jose Pablo
Jan 11 2024 at 1:17pm
It is very disappointing when great thinkers (I did like Why Nations Fail, back them the institutions that Acemoglu was defending seemed to be the classic liberal ones) fall down this slippery slope.
And when it rains it pours, Huemer recently published an article defending why he knows what the right fertility rate has to be. And why knows better than the individuals actually making that decision. It is probably just a matter of time before he knows better too, the amount of potatoes humans must grow.
This seems to be a too big to handle temptation for brilliant minds (the philosopher king is always looming like a shadow). Not even die hard anarchists / liberals seem to be free from this “I know better” syndrome.
Monte
Jan 11 2024 at 5:58pm
Yes, the fatal conceit of an evil genius (a.k.a. the Dunning-Kruger effect).
David Henderson
Jan 11 2024 at 2:22pm
Wow, Pierre. Great idea and amazing result!
MarkW
Jan 11 2024 at 2:29pm
Amazing — I wonder what other ‘modest proposals’ ChatGPT could be induced to produce?
David Seltzer
Jan 11 2024 at 4:14pm
Pierre: Another epoch, Acemoglu’s mentor is Benito Mussolini. May I quote the little Dictator, with apologies to Charlie Chaplin. We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become.
Jose Pablo
Jan 11 2024 at 5:49pm
David, I am assuming Mr Mussolini meant:
“… the more restricted the freedom of OTHER individualS must become”
Matthias
Jan 12 2024 at 1:52am
If you like this kind of thing, you might also like https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/02/24/book-review-just-giving/
That review predates the spread of GPT, but the flavour is similar.
MarkW
Jan 12 2024 at 8:16am
I read quite a bit of SlateStarCodex, but I missed that one — that’s really great.
Roger McKinney
Jan 12 2024 at 11:07am
Great and funny! But don’t stop at dating and marriage. Maybe tge state should decide who has children, how many and what gender. Should the state determine our genders regardless of our chromosomes?
Jose Pablo
Jan 13 2024 at 10:15am
Should the state determine our genders regardless of our chromosomes?
If that increases the “social wellbeing”, Yes, of course!
Cost-benefit analysis should be conducted by independent government agencies, in order to determine when it is “positive for society” to decide how many children we should have, and which gender our children have to have.
This last aspect (the gender our children have to have) was left unaddressed by the Chinese government, when ruling how many children Chinese citizens should had, with terrible consequences.
Let’s learn from the Chinese government mistakes!
Cost-benefit analysis, in any case, will always allow our governments to pick up the right policies to be implemented. They are the ultimate weapon of a new breed of phylosopher kings.
Jose Pablo
Jan 13 2024 at 10:21am
Mr. Acemoglu could chair this agency in charge of performing cost-benefit analysis. That way we can be sure that “science” and “inclusive institutions” are at the forefront when determining our individual behavior.
Roger McKinney
Jan 12 2024 at 11:11am
We should have anticipated this nonsense since at the end of Why Nations Fail he contradicts the main point of the book abd criticizes freedom in the US while justifying more state intervention in the market. Maybe his latest book is penance for Why Nations Fail?
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 12 2024 at 3:03pm
Roger: His book in-between with James Robinson (The Narrow Corridor) was worse than the one you mention, but not as bad as the current one. I reviewed The Narrow Corridor in Regulation.
Roger McKinney
Jan 12 2024 at 3:16pm
It must be depressing to read that nonsense!
T Boyle
Jan 12 2024 at 1:43pm
But in fact society does manage personal relationships, and does so very intrusively and with precious little (and in some places declining) respect for individual choices or autonomy.
The institution of marriage has been given substantial legal significance and every western government – possibly every government – promotes it. Indeed, a trend of rejecting the freedom not to marry has taken root in many parts of the western world (although often thinly disguised as “cohabitation law” or “de facto relationship law” or similar rather than “common-law marriage” as in the past), deeming people to be subject to family law even when they consciously and openly chose to avoid it.
Not only is your example NOT an illustration of how such socialized thinking can lead to outcomes no-one would support, it is only a modest extension of the socialized thinking that is already almost universally accepted today.
Jose Pablo
Jan 14 2024 at 8:24am
Yes, quoting Sartre: “Hell is other people”
The least individuals need is the “inclusive institutions” (or any other kind) that control the police and the courts, helping “other people” to be “hell”.
Richard W Fulmer
Jan 15 2024 at 10:55am
From your review of Power and Progress:
How do Acemoglu and Johnson propose to “socially control” technology and technological development without a surveillance state?
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 15 2024 at 12:10pm
Richard: That’s a good question that does not seem to have crossed the authors’ minds. Perhaps they define the surveillance state as a state that surveils only people whom they like?
Mark Brophy
Jan 17 2024 at 11:33am
In the spirit of economist Paul Krugman’s views on societal dynamics and economic structures, one might argue that the regulation of dating and marriage by social power, including trade unions, and government intervention is essential for ensuring broader economic stability and social equity.
From a Krugmanesque perspective, relationships are not isolated from the economic framework of society. Krugman might contend that individual choices in dating and marriage, if left entirely to selfish motivations, can contribute to economic imbalances and disparities. By incorporating social power, such as the influence of trade unions, into the equation, there is an opportunity to address issues of income inequality and promote a more egalitarian distribution of resources.
Krugman might argue that government regulations play a crucial role in setting the rules of the game to ensure that relationships contribute positively to social cohesion. This could involve policies that promote family-friendly workplaces, equal opportunities, and social safety nets to mitigate the economic risks associated with relationships.
In this perspective, the idea is not to infringe upon personal freedoms but to recognize that the economic implications of dating and marriage extend beyond individual choices. By leveraging social power and government intervention, society can strive for a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, fostering a system where relationships contribute to the overall well-being of the community.
It’s important to note that this response is a speculative interpretation of how Paul Krugman might approach the topic, based on his economic theories and general viewpoints. If you are seeking Paul Krugman’s specific views on this matter, it is recommended to refer to his writings and statements.
Mark Brophy
Jan 17 2024 at 11:39am
In the whimsical and satirical style of Kurt Vonnegut, one might imagine a commentary on the regulation of dating and marriage as a tale of societal absurdity and human folly.
Picture, if you will, a world where the whims of individual hearts are subjected to the bureaucratic dance of social power and governmental oversight. In Vonnegut’s universe, this would likely be portrayed as a comically misguided attempt to shape the unpredictable and often chaotic nature of human relationships.
Vonnegut might spin a tale where a Ministry of Love, complete with its own set of quirky regulations, attempts to guide the course of romantic entanglements. Picture a protagonist navigating a labyrinthine bureaucracy, filling out forms to obtain permission for love, and attending relationship counseling sessions conducted by well-meaning, but hilariously inept, government officials.
The satire might revolve around the irony of attempting to regulate the deeply personal realm of human connection. Vonnegut could use this premise to poke fun at the absurdity of trying to fit the unpredictable, messy, and beautiful tapestry of love and relationships into the rigid framework of bureaucratic control.
Through his unique blend of humor and social commentary, Vonnegut might question whether such regulations, driven by a desire to shape societal benefits, would truly enhance the richness of human connections or instead lead to a sterile, regimented version of love.
It’s essential to note that this response is an imaginative interpretation in the style of Kurt Vonnegut and may not capture the complexity and nuance of his actual views. Vonnegut’s works often employed satire and absurdity to explore deeper truths about the human condition, and his specific take on the regulation of dating and marriage is not explicitly known.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 20 2024 at 12:14pm
Mark: I am curious. Is it you or ChatGPT itself playing Kurt Vonnegut? I suspect the latter.
For our readers who wouldn’t know who Kurt Vonnegut was, meet Harrison Bergeron, whom I rapidly mention in a Regulation book review (see p. 65).
Mark Brophy
Jan 17 2024 at 11:50am
In a style inspired by former President Barack Obama’s rhetoric, one might articulate a perspective on dating and marriage that seeks to balance individual freedom with the broader well-being of society. This viewpoint could emphasize the importance of a collective approach, involving social power, including trade unions, and government regulation, to foster relationships that contribute positively to the community.
From an Obama-esque perspective, the narrative might acknowledge the value of personal choices in dating and marriage but argue that a certain degree of social and governmental influence is necessary to ensure a harmonious and equitable society. This approach could align with Obama’s emphasis on collective responsibility and shared values.
In this narrative, social power, including organizations like trade unions, might be seen as instrumental in promoting fairness and equality within relationships. Government regulations could be framed as safeguards to address issues such as domestic violence, ensure parental responsibility, and support the overall well-being of families.
The language used might echo Obama’s calls for unity and shared responsibility, emphasizing the idea that a society is strongest when individuals, social institutions, and government work in concert. The narrative could highlight the positive outcomes of relationships that are not solely driven by selfish individual choices but are guided by a broader commitment to the common good.
It’s essential to note that this response is a simulated interpretation in the style of former President Barack Obama and aims to capture the essence of his rhetorical approach. The actual views of any political figure are complex, and this interpretation may not fully encompass the nuances of Obama’s specific stance on the regulation of dating and marriage.
Comments are closed.