To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In this chapter, we depart from the observation that a strong motivation for large firms to invest substantial amounts into R&D for an AGI is due to the winner-takes-all effects it may bestow on them. This feature, while important to incentivize AI investment, has the downside that it implies that AI arms races may take place. And the danger of an AI arms race is that it may result in an inferior AGI from a human safety perspective. In this chapter, we model such an AI arms race as an innovation contest and show how a government can steer such an arms race so as to obtain a better outcome in terms of the quality of the AGI. A crucial insight from our modeling is that the intention (or goals) of teams competing in an AGI race, as well as the possibility of an intermediate outcome (“second prize”), may be important.
Computability on uncountable sets has no standard formalization, unlike that on countable sets, which is given by Turing machines. Some of the approaches to define computability in these sets rely on order-theoretic structures to translate such notions from Turing machines to uncountable spaces. Since these machines are used as a baseline for computability in these approaches, countability restrictions on the ordered structures are fundamental. Here, we show several relations between the usual countability restrictions in order-theoretic theories of computability and some more common order-theoretic countability constraints, like order density properties and functional characterizations of the order structure in terms of multi-utilities. As a result, we show how computability can be introduced in some order structures via countability order density and multi-utility constraints.
We give a simple method to estimate the number of distinct copies of some classes of spanning subgraphs in hypergraphs with a high minimum degree. In particular, for each $k\geq 2$ and $1\leq \ell \leq k-1$, we show that every $k$-graph on $n$ vertices with minimum codegree at least
contains $\exp\!(n\log n-\Theta (n))$ Hamilton $\ell$-cycles as long as $(k-\ell )\mid n$. When $(k-\ell )\mid k$, this gives a simple proof of a result of Glock, Gould, Joos, Kühn, and Osthus, while when $(k-\ell )\nmid k$, this gives a weaker count than that given by Ferber, Hardiman, and Mond, or when $\ell \lt k/2$, by Ferber, Krivelevich, and Sudakov, but one that holds for an asymptotically optimal minimum codegree bound.
This chapter deals with how microeconomics can provide insights into the key challenge that artificial intelligence (AI) scientists face. This challenge is to create intelligent, autonomous agents that can make rational decisions. In this challenge, they confront two questions: what decision theory to follow and how to implement it in AI systems. This chapter provides answers to these questions and makes three contributions. The first is to discuss how economic decision theory – expected utility theory (EUT) – can help AI systems with utility functions to deal with the problem of instrumental goals, the possibility of utility function instability, and coordination challenges in multiactor and human–agent collective settings. The second contribution is to show that using EUT restricts AI systems to narrow applications, which are “small worlds” where concerns about AI alignment may lose urgency and be better labeled as safety issues. The chapter’s third contribution points to several areas where economists may learn from AI scientists as they implement EUT.
This chapter deals with how public policy can steer AI, by taking how it can impact the use of big data, one of the key inputs required for AI. Essentially, public policy can steer AI through putting conditions and limitations on data. But data itself can help improve public policy – also in the area of economic policymaking. Hence, this chapter touches on the future potential of economic policy improvements through AI. More specifically, we discuss under what conditions the availability of large data sets can support and enhance public policy effectiveness – including in the use of AI – along two main directions. We analyze how big data can help existing policy measures to improve their effectiveness and, second, we discuss how the availability of big data can suggest new, not yet implemented, policy solutions that can improve upon existing ones. The key message of this chapter is that the desirability of big data and AI to enhance policymaking depends on the goal of public authorities, and on aspects such as the cost of data collection and storage and the complexity and importance of the policy issue.
In this chapter, we describe the development of AI since World War II, noting various AI “winters” and tracing the current boom in AI back to around 2006/2007. We provide various metrics describing the nature of this AI boom. We then provide a summary and discussion of the salient research relevant to the economics of AI and outline some recent theoretical advances.
This chapter provides a motivation for this book, outlining the interests of economists in artificial intelligence, describing who this book is aimed at, and laying out the structure of the book.
In this chapter, we take the production function enriched with AI abilities from Chapter 4, and apply it to study the implications for progress in AI on growth and inequality. The crucial finding we discuss in this chapter is that understanding the nature of AI as narrow ML and its effect on key macroeconomic outcomes depends on having appropriate assumptions in growth models. In particular, we discuss the appropriateness of assuming, as most standard endogenous growth models today do, that economies are supply driven. If they are not supply driven, then demand constraints, which can arise from the diffusion of AI, may restrict growth. Through this, we show why expectations that AI will may lead to “explosive” economic growth is unlikely to materialize. We show that by considering the nature of AI as specific (and not general) AI and making appropriate assumptions that reflect the digital AI economy better, economic outcomes may be characterized by slow growth, rising inequality, and rather full employment – conditions that rather well describe economies in the West.
In this chapter, we consider the future of AI. We base our speculation on informed discussions of the implications of current socioeconomic and technological trends, and on our understanding of past digital revolutions. This allows us to provide insights on where the economy is heading, and what this may imply for economics as a science. Future avenues for research are identified.
A linear equation $E$ is said to be sparse if there is $c\gt 0$ so that every subset of $[n]$ of size $n^{1-c}$ contains a solution of $E$ in distinct integers. The problem of characterising the sparse equations, first raised by Ruzsa in the 90s, is one of the most important open problems in additive combinatorics. We say that $E$ in $k$ variables is abundant if every subset of $[n]$ of size $\varepsilon n$ contains at least $\text{poly}(\varepsilon )\cdot n^{k-1}$ solutions of $E$. It is clear that every abundant $E$ is sparse, and Girão, Hurley, Illingworth, and Michel asked if the converse implication also holds. In this note, we show that this is the case for every $E$ in four variables. We further discuss a generalisation of this problem which applies to all linear equations.
In the field of laparoscopic surgery, research is currently focusing on the development of new robotic systems to assist practitioners in complex operations, improving the precision of their medical gestures. In this context, the performance of these robotic platforms can be conditioned by various factors, such as the robot’s accessibility and dexterity in the task workspace. In this paper, we present a new strategy for improving the kinematic and dynamic performance of a 7-degrees of freedom robot-assisted camera-holder system for laparoscopic surgery. This approach involves the simultaneous optimization of the robot base placement and the laparoscope mounting orientation. To do so, a general robot capability representation approach is implemented in an innovative multiobjective optimization algorithm. The obtained results are first evaluated in simulation and then validated experimentally by comparing the robot’s performances implementing both the existing and the optimized solution. The optimization result led to a 2% improvement in the accessibility index and a 14% enhancement in manipulability. Furthermore, the dynamic performance criteria resulted in a substantial 43% reduction in power consumption.