Maxwell Tabarrok

The Offense-Defense Balance of Gene Drives

Con­gres­sional In­sider Trading

Four Ran­dom­ized Con­trol Tri­als In Economics

End Sin­gle Fam­ily Zon­ing by Over­turn­ing Eu­clid V Ambler

Ro­mae Industriae

The Best Bits From Build, Baby, Build

An AI Man­hat­tan Pro­ject is Not Inevitable

Con­tra Ace­moglu on AI

Four Fu­tures For Cog­ni­tive Labor

Tax Cuts and Innovation

Low Fer­til­ity is a De­growth Paradise

Is There Really a Child Penalty in the Long Run?

Against Stu­dent Debt Can­cel­la­tion From All Sides of the Poli­ti­cal Compass

Two Ver­nor Vinge Book Reviews

• Maxwell Tabarrok 23 Apr 2024 20:13 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Mjreard’s comment on: AI Reg­u­la­tion is Unsafe

  Yes that’s fair. I do think that even specific advocacy can have risks though. Most advocacy is motivated by AI fear which can be picked up and used to support lots of other bad policies, e.g how Sam Altaman was received in congress.

• Maxwell Tabarrok 23 Apr 2024 20:11 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: tlevin’s comment on: AI Reg­u­la­tion is Unsafe

  I do make the “by default” claim but I also give reasons why advocating for specific regulations can backfire. E.g the environmentalist success with NEPA. Environmentalists had huge success in getting the specific legal powers and constraints on govt that they asked for but those have been repurposed in service of default govt incentives. Also, advocacy for a specific set of regulations has spillovers onto others. When AI safety advocates make the case for fearing AI progress they provide support for a wide range of responses to AI including lots of nonsensical ones.

AI Reg­u­la­tion is Unsafe

A High De­cou­pling Failure

The 2nd De­mo­graphic Transition

Me­ta­science of the Ve­su­vius Challenge