MoreRSS

site iconMarginal RevolutionModify

Blog of Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok, both of whom teach at George Mason University.
Please copy the RSS to your reader, or quickly subscribe to:

Inoreader Feedly Follow Feedbin Local Reader

Rss preview of Blog of Marginal Revolution

A Comparison of Agentic AI Systems and Human Economists

2026-04-21 12:25:44

This paper compares agentic AI systems and human economists performing the same causal inference tasks. AI systems and humans generally obtain similar median causal effect estimates. While there is substantial dispersion of estimates across model instances, the human distributions of estimates have wider tails. Using AI models as reviewers to compare and rank “submissions,” the following ranking emerges regardless of reviewer model: (1) Codex GPT-5.4, (2) Codex GPT-5.3-Codex, (3) Claude Code Opus 4.6, and (4) Human Researchers. These findings suggest that agentic AI systems will allow us to scale empirical research in economics.

I enjoy the name of the author, namely Serafin Grundl.  Here is the paper, via Ethan Mollick.  You could interpret these results as showing the AIs have fewer hallucinations.  And just to reiterate a key point from the paper:

The second part of this paper is an AI review tournament in which “submissions” (codes and write-ups) from humans and the AI models are compared and ranked against each other. The reviewers are the following AI models: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4. For each review the reviewer is asked to write a report comparing four submissions (human, Opus 4.6, GPT-5.3-Codex, GPT-5.4). Each reviewer model writes comparison reports for the same 300 comparison groups. The average rankings are strikingly similar across reviewer models: (1) Codex GPT-5.4, (2) Codex GPT-5.3-Codex, (3) Claude Code Opus 4.6, and 2(4) Human Researchers.

Who comes in last?  Hi people!

The post A Comparison of Agentic AI Systems and Human Economists appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Zimbabwe facts of the day

2026-04-21 02:04:36

Zimbabwe, often considered an economic basket-case because of its history of farm seizures and hyperinflation, is enjoying an idiosyncratic boom. High prices for the metal and other commodities have led to a surge of cash through its highly informal economy. They have made it easier for authorities to stop printing money and meddling in currency markets; inflation is at its lowest in about 30 years. The IMF has repeatedly revised upwards estimates for economic growth, most recently to at least 7.5% for 2025, almost double the African average…

Gold is not the only source of growth. The current tobacco crop will be the largest on record. Lithium, chrome and platinum miners, many of them Chinese, have raised production. Zimbabwe’s diaspora, mainly in South Africa, sent back $2.5bn last year. So overall demand is higher than ever, says a banker.

Here is more from The Economist.  We are told that the private vault sector is booming too.

The post Zimbabwe facts of the day appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Monday assorted links

2026-04-21 00:05:08

1. Sindarov profile.  And: “I know this GM who made 2600 at 19 without reading a chess book in his life.”  And Magnus on Sindarov vs. Gukesh.

2. Inflation-adjusted book prices over time.

3. On the Amanat Iran book and its excellence.

4. More on the wet market hypothesis.  We should all be uncertain, but it is mood affiliation (with conspiracy theorizing, for one thing) to be convinced of Lab Leak.  It is contributing to negative emotional contagion.

5. Review of the new Knausgaard series.  By Max Norman: “(I’d rather read Knausgaard on defecation than predestination, let alone whether machines can think or trees can feel.)”‘

6. AI and the arts, a short Instagram video.

7. AI and the pancreatic vaccine.  More testing is needed, but there is a reasonable chance that we have a good treatment for pancreatic cancer, and AI was instrumental in that.  It is mRNA as well, so a double burn on the haters.

The post Monday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Eight Rules to Regain Public Trust in Academia

2026-04-20 19:17:21

The Yale Report was quite good but for concision I prefer Kevin Bryan’s Eight Rules:

1. Produce and Teach Useful Knowledge
Universities exist to generate and teach useful knowledge. This knowledge is grounded in skeptical inquiry, empirical evidence, and logical deduction. “Useful” includes not only practical applications but also fundamental discoveries that expand our understanding of the world, even if their benefits are long-term.
2. Be Useful to All of Society
Universities are subsidized only if society at large finds them valuable. Research may take time to bear fruit, but its insights should ultimately serve the public good, communicated openly and accessibly, and presented with epistemic humility. Teaching should be done with care and draw on up-to-date research.
3. Attract Talent from All of Society
Useful knowledge can be created by people from any social or economic background. Do not waste talent. Do not select talent based on who knows “how to play the game”. Avoid insular language or norms that deter people from entering research.
4. Neutral, Objective Research Produces Useful Knowledge
Research must be neutral and objective. It is true that everyone has their individual background and preferences; nonetheless, unbiased research is still possible. Tradition, folk knowledge, and storytelling all play an important roles in society, but they are not the purpose of universities. There is no “Western science” or culturally-determined “ways of knowing”. Rather, research is open to all and can be performed identically regardless of background.
5. Hire, Promote, and Cite Based on Knowledge Contribution
Hiring, promotion, and citation must be based on an individual’s contribution to knowledge. Nepotism, group preferences, and adherence to specific “schools of thought” corrupt this process. When advancement is not based on merit, the public rightly questions our integrity and the objectivity of our findings.
6. Keep Personal Views Out of Research and Teaching
A scholar’s personal politics should be invisible in their research and teaching. If a finding is predictable based on the author’s identity or known views, the process has failed. Objectivity is the hallmark of credible science. Academics may hold private beliefs like anyone else, but their academic work must stand apart from them.
7. Research Fraud is Unacceptable
Fraud destroys trust. Misrepresentation of results, selective reporting, or methods designed to publish rather than to discover are also harmful. Proven fraud must bring immediate dismissal, as it violates the core purpose of academia.
8. Scientific Institutions Should Be Apolitical
Universities, journals, and scientific societies must remain non-partisan. Their public statements must be rare, restricted to issues of direct expert consensus, and made only when silence would be a greater threat to their integrity than speaking. Activism sacrifices credibility for influence – or worse yet, sacrifices credibility and influence alike.

I would add 9) Grades must be objective and useful discriminators of talent.

The post Eight Rules to Regain Public Trust in Academia appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

How long should a college degree take?

2026-04-20 15:01:44

It takes most college students at least four years to earn a bachelor’s degree. Christie Williams finished in three months.

The North Carolina human resources executive spent two months racking up credits through web tutorials after work in 2024, then raced through 11 online classes at the University of Maine at Presque Isle in four weeks. Later that year, she went back to earn her master’s — in just five weeks. The two degrees cost a total of just over $4,000.

Since then, she has coached a thousand other students on how to speed through the state college, shaving off years and thousands of dollars from the usual cost of a degree.

Here is the full story, via Anecdotal.

The post How long should a college degree take? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Will college get fixed?

2026-04-20 12:53:48

That is the topic of my latest Free Press column.  Here is one excerpt:

So schools will respond to cost pressures by letting quality deteriorate. More instruction will be of the inferior online variety. There are very good online experiences, but schools are too bureaucratic and not run well enough to deliver them. Fewer professors will be full-salaried, tenure-track professors. Administrators and staff will grow at much slower rates than over the last 20 years, a positive development.

That overall picture may sound grim, but adjustments will kick in to limit the costs. A global market will ensure that adjunct faculty are smarter and better than before. Students will get better at using AI to teach themselves, filling in the gaps left by university budget shortages.

At the same time, colleges and universities will get better at marketing and fundraising. Schools with famous football and basketball teams will be just fine. Schools will intensively market a few academic superstars and let the quality of their median tenured faculty decline. Every possible profit center in a university will be mined for extra revenue, whether extra housekeeping service for dormitory living or renting out the swimming pool and university library to nearby retirees.

And this:

Perhaps you commonly hear it said that “college is what you make of it.” That may sound like a cliché, but it is a truth that helps us understand this new world to come. A lot of students just flat out want to go to college. If they have to put more into the social side of learning to make it worthwhile, they will do so.

In sum, there will be a lot of painful adjustment, but the major institutions will not come close to disappearing.

The post Will college get fixed? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.