Will generative AI mean the end of rational ignorance?

In this Substack post back in March, Andy Hall made the case for generative AI to create 'political superintelligence':

The more I work with and study AI, the more I believe it can give every human being on the planet access to a sort of political superintelligence, if we shape it right. And that intelligence, in turn, can make governments smarter and more effective, representatives more faithful, and institutions more responsive than anything we’ve built in over 2,000 years of experimenting with democracy.

Hall's post is worth reading in its entirety, but I want to explore a related point - will generative AI mean the end of rational ignorance for voters? Rational ignorance is the idea that it may be better for voters to not know what decisions policymakers are making on their behalf. That's because it's costly (in terms of time and effort) for voters to keep track of how the decisions that policymakers (and politicians) make on their behalf will affect them (economists call those monitoring costs). The benefit that a voter would receive by becoming informed of what policymakers (and politicians) are doing is relatively small, because their ability to change an election (and therefore policy) is very small. When the monitoring costs are greater than the benefits of being better informed, then voters would be better off not paying the monitoring costs. That is, voters would be better off not paying attention to what the policymakers (and politicians) are doing - the voters would be better off remaining rationally ignorant. This theory of rational ignorance was introduced in the 1950s by the late economist Anthony Downs.

Where does generative AI fit into this? Generative AI could meaningfully lower the monitoring costs for voters, as it gives the opportunity for voters to ask for quick summaries of policy proposals that may affect them. This will be even more effective as generative AI understands more about users' preferences. Moreover, agentic AI offers voters even greater opportunity to investigate what policymakers (and politicians) are doing, at relatively low cost.

When the monitoring costs decrease, then the rationale for voters to remain rationally ignorant weakens. We might expect voters to become more engaged with what the government is doing on their behalf, and to be more active in engaging with government to make their preferences known. Or, at least, maybe voters will delegate these activities to their favourite agentic AI model.

There are, of course, some reasons for caution. Generative AI might reduce the cost of obtaining political information without reducing the cost of checking whether that information is accurate or unbiased. Moreover, an overly sycophantic generative AI that knows the voter's preferences might reinforce the voter's existing views rather than challenging them. So, perhaps generative AI simply moves the monitoring costs from monitoring the government to monitoring the generative AI?

Hall makes the point that political superintelligence has the potential to increase the quality of governance. If generative AI enables voters to become better informed at low cost, it could strengthen political accountability. Policymakers (and politicians) who know that voters can easily scrutinise their decisions may be less willing to act against voters’ interests, or may face greater consequences when they do.

We may not have political superintelligence yet, and large numbers of voters may still be rationally ignorant. However, it may not be long before we start to see some substantive changes in the political process, driven in part by the emergence of generative AI.

[HT: Marginal Revolution for the Andy Hall post]

This week in research #135

Here's what caught my eye in research over the past week:

• Katz and Jung (open access) estimate the macroeconomic impact of generative AI using cross-country data over the period 2022 to 2025, finding that generative AI contributed to increasing the productivity of most workers, regardless of their education, contract type, full or partial work time, and vulnerability level
• Dills and Raghav (with ungated earlier version here) find that state legalization of recreational marijuana in the US substantially reduced arrests and disciplinary incidents for drug law violations on college and university campuses
• Wang and Wong find an overall negative association between financial literacy and use of Buy-Now-Pay-Later services in the US
• Funahashi and Cardazzi (with ungated earlier version here) find that sports stadiums increase the value of nearby properties in Japan
• Sayre (with ungated earlier version here) finds no evidence that Airbnb entry leads to a substantial increase in eviction filings overall, but that there is a modest increase in eviction filings in neighbourhoods with a high poverty rate and/or a high concentration of renter households
• Hampole, Truffa, and Wong (with ungated earlier version here) find that female MBAs are 24 percent less likely than male MBAs to enter senior management within 15 years of graduation, and that having a larger proportion of female MBA section peers increases the likelihood of entering senior management for women but not for men

Could prosecuting STI transmission increase infections?

In my ECONS102 class this week, we covered unintended consequences - where an incentive is created that works against what was originally intended. One of my favourite examples is the familiar (but possibly apocryphal) story about cobras in Delhi, as I noted in this 2015 post:

The government was concerned about the number of snakes running wild (er... slithering wild) in the streets of Delhi. So, they struck on a plan to rid the city of snakes. By paying a bounty for every cobra killed, the ordinary people would kill the cobras and the rampant snakes would be less of a problem. And so it proved. Except, some enterprising locals realised that it was pretty dangerous to catch and kill wild cobras, and a lot safer and more profitable to simply breed their own cobras and kill their more docile ones to claim the bounty. Naturally, the government eventually became aware of this practice, and stopped paying the bounty. The local cobra breeders, now without a reason to keep their cobras, released them. Which made the problem of wild cobras even worse.

Just because the consequences of a policy are unintended, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are unforeseen. Sometimes, we can anticipate what will go wrong with a particular policy. And it's not just policies that can go wrong. Any change in costs or benefits that alters people’s incentives can produce unintended consequences. As an example, consider this recent article in The Conversation by Bridget Haire and David Carter (both University of New South Wales):

In an Australian first, a Canberra man has been convicted for giving genital herpes to a sexual partner...

This recent case represents a significant expansion of criminal law into sexual health. It sets an unhelpful legal precedent, and undermines successful public health messages.

Decades of research have concluded that prosecuting disease transmission doesn’t reduce infection and may make things worse...

But criminalising transmission can create perverse incentives not to seek medical care and treatment. If a person genuinely doesn’t know their status, it can be more difficult to prove “reckless” transmission.

The intuitive case for punishment is especially strong in this case: the man knew his status, denied having an STI when directly asked, and repeatedly had unprotected sex with his partner. However, the punishment itself will change incentives for other people.

Ideally, we want people to know their STI status. For curable STIs, diagnosis enables treatment. For example, for infections such as herpes, it allows people to use medication and other precautions that reduce the risk of further transmission.

At one level, it makes sense to punish people who knowingly infect others with an STI. That creates a strong disincentive to transmit STIs to other people. However, criminalising STI transmission also reduces the incentive to get tested, because a person not knowing that they are infected might be able to use their lack of knowledge of their infection status as a defence in a criminal case. So, we might expect that fewer people would get tested for STIs. So, on the one hand there are disincentives to transmit STIs, but on the other hand there are disincentives to find out whether you are infected with an STI, which leads to move STI transmission. If the latter effect is larger, then overall there could be higher prevalence of STIs and greater incidence of new infections.

And so, rather than reducing STI infections, criminalising those who transmit STIs may have the unintended consequence of increasing STI infections overall.

Why rising honey prices may increase kiwifruit orchard costs

This week, my ECONS102 class covered rational behaviour, one aspect of which is the cost-benefit principle: that when evaluating mutually exclusive alternatives, a rational decision-maker will choose the alternative that offers the greatest net benefit (the greatest difference between benefits and costs). So, it was interesting to see a good example of this in The New Zealand Herald just last month:

There’s growing competition for beehives as honey prices sweeten again and kiwifruit orchards continue to grow...

[Beekeeper Liam Gavin] said renewed confidence in honey production is seeing some pivot away from pollination.

“I sort of describe it as the tug of war between honey and pollination.

“Both are needing more beehives. So which one, where are they going to go? And that’ll all be down to, like, region-specific [stuff], and what people like to do in terms of how they beekeep.”...

With honey prices coming back up, [New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Incorporated chief executive Colin] Bond expected more beekeepers would prioritise honey over pollination, which would create a challenge for kiwifruit growers.

Beekeepers can position their hives primarily to generate income from honey production, or primarily to generate income by providing pollination services. Thus, for a particular hive at a particular time, honey production and paid pollination are mutually exclusive alternatives.

A rational beekeeper, applying the cost-benefit principle, would compare the expected net benefit from using their hives for pollination with the expected net benefit from using them for honey production. That comparison would include pollination fees, expected honey revenue, transport and feeding costs, risks to hive health, and other relevant costs and benefits. As honey prices increase, the opportunity cost of committing hives to pollination increases. Ceteris paribus (holding all else constant), as honey prices increase fewer hives will be offered for pollination.

So, if kiwifruit growers (and other farm and orchard businesses that depend on pollination) want to secure enough hives for pollination, they will probably need to offer higher pollination fees. That would raise their pollination costs and, consequently, their overall orchard operating costs.