No, Artificial Intelligence Will Not Solve All Problems

A Popular Trope

Renowned historian and epidemiologist John M. Barry recently made a statement that has become all too common today. He suggested that artificial intelligence (AI) will enable us to implement pandemic lockdowns and develop vaccines more effectively in the future. He believes that AI could sift through vast amounts of data to determine which restrictions are most beneficial and which have the greatest cost. He also sees AI as a tool to expedite drug development.

Such statements have become a trend among experts, often used to appear modern and informed, even if they don't fully understand the subject. This frequent reference to AI as a panacea for all future problems is becoming increasingly frustrating.

The Power of AI

Imagine a scenario where AI dictates that your favorite local bar must close. It's not hard to envisage local media treating AI as the ultimate authority, disregarding any human objections. This is not a new phenomenon. Every time a new technology emerges, experts assure us that it will solve all human problems in the future. They often advocate for it to be integrated into government policy, believing it will rectify all government issues.

Historical Precedents

This is exactly what happened with computers in the mid-1950s. The prevailing claim was that computers would enable socialism's central planning. This claim was offered as a solution to a longstanding problem that had puzzled intellectuals since the 1920s.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, socialists claimed they could restructure economic life to function more efficiently and stimulate greater economic growth once capitalist systems were abolished. However, Ludwig von Mises pointed out a significant flaw in this theory in 1922. He argued that if you collectivize the capital stock, you eliminate trading for all capital goods. This means that none will carry a market price that signals relative scarcities. Without these, you cannot have accurate accounting. Without accurate accounting, you cannot determine profits and losses, and you cannot know if your actions are efficient or wasteful.

The Role of Computers

Despite these challenges, attempts to centrally plan economies persisted. After World War II, a new tool emerged: the computer. The idea was that we no longer needed market-generated prices. Instead, we could input resource availability and consumer demand into the computer, and it would provide the answer to what and how much to produce.

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, eager to stimulate useful production, trusted these new ideas and attempted to use the computer to solve problems. The results were as expected: it didn't work. The computer was, and always is, garbage in and garbage out. There is simply no substitute for market prices generated through trading and price discovery.

AI and Pandemic Planning

Despite these lessons, we are now being told that artificial intelligence will solve all the problems associated with pandemic planning. The same problem persists: garbage in and garbage out.

Barry's idea is to input seroprevalence levels in a community, along with transmission and infection fatality rates, into an AI system. The AI will then reveal the costs and benefits of shutting things down. However, there is no one-size-fits-all answer, not for communities and not for individuals.

The Limitations of AI

In many ways, the epidemiological models that imposed lockdowns on us were born of the same primitive analytical tools that drove central planning models in the 1950s. They seem to work perfectly on paper, but when applied to real life, they fall short. The data is incomplete and inaccurate, the assumptions about spread are wrong, and the pathogen's mutations typically outsmart the planners' intentions.

As a result, we now have pandemic planners considering AI as a potential solution, following a disastrous experience last time. The truth is that the next pandemic plan will fail just as badly as the last one, no matter how many computer programs the planners throw at the problem. The real issue among elite government planners and intellectuals is hubris.

Conclusion

AI has its uses, but replacing human action and intelligence is not one of them. It can never happen. If we attempt that—and surely we will—the result will be disappointing at best.

F.A. Hayek said that economic planning by government embodies a pretense of knowledge. That's nothing compared with the ambition of governments throughout the world to control and manage the whole of the microbial kingdom. There is nothing that AI can do to achieve that. And like communism, the attempt only creates nothing but destruction.

Final Thoughts

While AI has its place in our modern world, it's important to remember that it's not a cure-all solution. It cannot replace human action and intelligence, and attempts to do so will likely lead to disappointment. What are your thoughts on this topic? Do you agree or disagree? Share this article with your friends and let's start a conversation. And don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6pm.