Those who read Tyler Cowen’s and Alex Tabarrok’s Marginal Revolution blog regularly, as I do, know that Tyler is a big fan of artificial intelligence (AI). Partly due to his posts and partly due to rave reviews by friends on Facebook, I’m realizing that I need to use it more.
Having said that, I want to comment on a recent post by Tyler in which he linked to an analysis, done by OpenAI’s Deep Research tool, of the costs and benefits of USAID. Here’s what Tyler asked it to do:
What are the best sources to read on US AID, and its costs and benefits? I want serious analyses, based on evidence, data, and possibly economic models. How does the program fare in cost-benefit terms? Please try to look past the rhetoric on both sides of the debate, pro and con, and arrive at an actual assessment of the agency in net cost-benefit terms. A five to ten page paper should be fine, with full citations, in any style.
Notice that Tyler asked it to “look past the rhetoric.” Since rhetoric, as Deirdre McCloskey often reminds us, is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, that is, the art of arguing,” it doesn’t make sense to ask AI to avoid rhetoric. To avoid rhetoric is to avoid making an argument. To assess costs and benefits is to argue.
Maybe, though, Tyler expects that AI will have the same mistaken idea about what rhetoric is that most of the public has. So maybe it’s not a problem. Although I think it is; see below.
Here’s what I noticed. Deep Research’s answer is an argument. And not only an argument but also one that is somewhat one-sided. Here for instance is how it deals with the idea that there may be downsides to some of USAID’s subsidies and interventions:
Democracy and Stability: The absence of USAID’s democracy programs is harder to game out, as changes in governance are path-dependent. In some cases, local forces for democracy might have prevailed even without external help (e.g. Eastern Europe’s desire to join the EU was a strong motivator). However, it is likely that progress would have been slower. Without technical support for elections and civil society, nascent democracies might have faltered or seen more contested processes. In places like Kenya in 2013, for instance, U.S. support to election commissions and peacebuilding helped avoid violence; without that, a repeat of the 2007 post-election violence could have occurred. On the other hand, one could argue that in certain countries, absence of U.S. political aid might have reduced suspicion of foreign influence and could have led to more organic change (a point critics raise, though evidence is scant either way). By and large, the counterfactual suggests that the world would not be more democratic had USAID never engaged – in fact, some gains in freedom and rights would likely be absent.
Notice that it doesn’t discuss the idea that USAID might have been used to overthrow governments. I don’t know if it’s true that USAID money was used to help overthrow Bangladesh’s government. This piece in The Times of India says that it might be true. But notice that Deep Research doesn’t even raise the issue.
Its dealing with other issues is similar. It takes a charge against USAID, vaguely suggests how it might be true, and then says that things are improving.
Also, it literally doesn’t mention some of the misuses of the money that the DOGE people have highlighted. Maybe the direction to avoid rhetoric was taken as a direction to avoid mentioning criticisms for which the critics stated their case passionately. So maybe Tyler shouldn’t have asked it to avoid rhetoric.
I’m not saying that the Deep Research approach is totally wrong. I’m simply pointing out the limits and expressing my skepticism. To his credit, Tyler’s mention of other sources means that he is not taking Deep Research as the last word on the subject either.
