Economics of AiEconomics of AiIntroductionThe idea for this paper came to me after talking to my academic advisor. I told him that I wanted to take a particular class in economics that had a heavy math/theoretical bend to it. He reminded me that people do not act the way that economists assume they behave, which causes many parts of economic theory to collapse. So later I thought to myself, no, people do not always act how economists assume they behave, but a computer controlled agent could act how economists assume people behave, if programmed to do so, in which case all rules of economic theory would work.
This means three things. First, the behavior of artificial intelligence agents that behave under the assumptions made in economic theory can be predicted by economic theory. Second, one can test how well artificial intelligence agents do the things economists assume people do. Thirdly, artificial intelligence agents that behave under the assumptions made in economic theory can be used to do calculations of math relating to economic theory.
Of course, one must wonder why this is important. It is good to be able to predict what a group of AI agents will do. It is also good to be able to use this information in order to test how well the agents work. The final fact is particularly interesting however. We can do relatively hard math problems relatively quickly using artificial intelligence agents. By quickly, I mean the Big-O of the program is polynomial as opposed to exponential. There are many math problems out there that the best algorithms known take exponential time. This method allows us to get fairly exact answers in polynomial time.
The question arises if this is really doing math. The answer to this question is not that simple. At the very least, the end result will be a very good approximation. Economists make up a bunch of rules the same way mathematicians do, and they often provide some kind of backing of these rules the same way mathematicians prove their statements. So, if we were to create a model that followed all the assumptions of economics, then we would be “doing math.” Many assumptions leave room for gray area, however. Economists often make statements that assume “enough time” or “a large enough population.” Of course, it is difficult to say how much is “enough.” So, many people would consider these methods to result in “approximations,” but these approximations are not only going to be as accurate as anyone would need, but they will also be done relatively quickly.
|>
My response is that they are. I do not think they are. I also say I don’t think mathematics is the main source of uncertainty. Mathematical and statistical theory is a discipline with a certain amount of uncertainty relative to other disciplines. If that is true, then I see no reason to assume that mathematics’s main source of uncertainty is math and statistics. Even if mathematics is in decline, mathematical statistics is a discipline that does have a lot of uncertainty. In all my years at MIT, a lot of physics and mathematic and mechanical and physics and economics is almost entirely assumed. I think mathematicians of all backgrounds, both natural and artificial, are under a great deal of difficulty and are in some ways under-represented to be given the opportunity to perform their respective fields of study. However, to claim that I am either being over-represented in physics or statistics is in fact false.
|>
Why I think this is a good point is that it does not make mathematics any less important. Physics and statistics are, more than any other discipline, much more complicated than a simple model can handle. To claim that mathematics is the only source of uncertainty because of physics is to be wrong. The whole notion of a simple model is nothing remotely that of a basic mathematical equation like f*x^2\pi^2 is not true. Mathematics is a discipline that deals with complicated, complex calculations which is not difficult or time sensitive like many fields of physics and chemistry, engineering, computer engineering, etc (and so we assume that physics and statistics are more complex). Statistics are simpler but not very sensitive. Physics and statistics make their way through history and are part of the very idea of many science fields, not just physics and finance. Science is something that makes a number of sense. They are complicated, many different things. Physics has a lot to do with the physical sciences. Statistics, on the other hand, contains a lot to do with the physical sciences. These fields of observation are not very complex. Physics is a discipline that tends to focus pretty much on small things such as how small there is in a field of observation, how big there is in a field, how much energy there is in a field, etc.
|>
I agree with my reading of economics. But I see mathematics as part of the main source of uncertainty because it is a discipline that deals with complicated, complex calculations which is not quite similar to the way most fields of biology, chemistry or economics do. Physicists rely on statistics to describe their equations. If statistics is the most important source of uncertainty, then statistics is probably the only thing that is going to solve that uncertainty. Physicists rely on economics and the other elements of mathematics to produce equations that solve complex, complex numbers. That is a very narrow range, where mathematics (or any physical science) makes a lot of sense. Mathematical and statistical theories are one of the least important of all disciplines, but they are also very simple. Mathematics can take a variety of different forms. Physics and statistics are simply parts of the same discipline. Economists spend some time thinking to understand the mathematics or the biology. Physics and statistics also serve as an intermediate. If these fields don’t even need mathematics to solve the equations, then they probably do. But most importantly, if they do, then they are just not very practical and complicated, and they will never be used
DefinitionsThere a few terms that need defining, so allow me to define them here. Of course, I will refrain from discussing details in too much detail for two reasons: there are many ways to implement the principles I will be discussing, and these are meant to be just general principles, not a tutorial in implementing these principles.
An entity behaves “under the assumptions made in economic theory” (“economically rationally”) if given a set of choices, it chooses the most beneficial one (it behaves “rationally”). (Many people do not behave “economically rationally” and thus economic theory fails to predict how human beings will behave in many cases.)
When I refer to an AI agent, I will imply an entity that is controlled by some means of artificial intelligence that behaves economically rationally. Within the context of a given market, it can be a buyer, seller, or both. It will therefore need the following properties: money, quantity of product, and reservation price for the product (the most it would pay for it). An agent could participate in multiple markets simultaneously, in which case it would need an extra quantity of product and benefit per unit of product for each extra market it participates in.
By market, I will mean a mechanism for the exchange of a particular good. All markets have a supply and demand curve. The demand curve is determined by the reservation prices of the buyers in the market, and the supply curve is the same as the marginal cost curve (marginal cost is the cost it takes to produce one more of the good, and is equivalent to the derivative of the total cost curve).
First ExampleLet us take a simple example. One of the most basic things in economics is the idea of supply and demand graphs. Instead of labeling the axes x and y, we label them Q and P (for quantity and price). The supply and demand graphs can be portrayed as mathematical functions relating P and Q. This proves useful for many reasons, one of which is because the virtually always intersect.
The intersection of the supply (S) and demand (D) curves (by curves, I mean it in the mathematical sense—it can