In an age of accelerating progress in artificial intelligence (AI), everyone is debating AI’s implications for the labor market or national security. There is far less discussion of what AI could or should mean for philanthropy.
Many (not all) insiders now say artificial general intelligence (AGI) stands a good chance of happening in the next few years. AGI is a generative AI model that could, on intellectually oriented tests, outperform human experts on 90 percent of questions. That does not mean AI would be able to dribble a basketball, make GDP grow by 40 percent a year or, for that matter, destroy us. Still, AGI would be an impressive accomplishment — and over time, however slowly, it could change our world.
For purposes of objectivity, I would put aside universities, where I work, and consider other areas in which philanthropic returns would become higher or lower.
One big change is that AI would enable individuals, or very small groups, to run large projects. By directing AIs, they would be able to create entire think tanks, research centers or businesses. The productivity of small groups of people who are very good at directing AIs would go up by an order of magnitude.
Philanthropists ought to consider giving more support to such people. Of course that is difficult, because right now there are no simple or obvious ways to measure those skills. However, that is precisely why philanthropy might play a useful role. More commercially oriented businesses might shy away from making such investments, because of risk and because the returns are uncertain. Philanthropists do not have such financial requirements.
Another possible new avenue for philanthropy in a world of AI, as odd as it might sound: intellectual branding. As quality content becomes cheaper to produce, how it is presented and curated (with the help of AI, naturally) would become more important. Some media properties and social influencers already have reputations for trustworthiness, and they would want to protect and maintain them. However, if someone wanted to create a new brand name for trustworthiness and had a sufficiently good plan to do so, they should receive serious philanthropic consideration.
Then there is the matter of AI systems themselves. Philanthropy should buy good or better AI systems for people, schools and other institutions in very poor countries. A decent AI in a school or municipal office in, say, Kenya, could serve as translator, question-answerer, lawyer and sometimes medical diagnostician. It is not yet clear exactly what those services might cost, but in most very poor countries there would be significant lags in adoption, due in part to affordability.
A good rule of thumb might be that countries that cannot always afford clean water would also have trouble affording advanced AI systems. One difference is that the near ubiquity of smartphones might make AI easier to provide.
Strong AI capabilities also mean that the world might be much better over some very long time horizon, say 40 years hence. Perhaps there would be amazing new medicines that otherwise would not have come to pass, and as a result people might live 10 years longer. That increases the return — today — to fixing childhood maladies that are hard to reverse. One example would be lead poisoning in children, which can lead to permanent intellectual deficits. Another would be malnutrition. Addressing those problems was already a very good investment, but the brighter the world’s future looks and the better the prospects for our health, the higher those returns.
The flip side is that reversible problems should probably decline in importance. If we could fix a particular problem today for US$10 billion, maybe in 10 years’ time — due to AI — we would be able to fix it for a mere US$5 billion. So it would become more important to figure out which problems are truly irreversible. Philanthropists ought to be focused on long time horizons anyway, so they need not be too concerned about how long it would take AI to make our world a fundamentally different place.
For what it is worth, I did ask an AI for the best answer to the question of how it should change the focus of philanthropy. It suggested (among other ideas) more support for mental health, more work on environmental sustainability and improvements to democratic processes. Sooner rather than later, we might find ourselves taking its advice.
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS