Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) highlight the potential of this technology to affect productivity, growth, inequality, market power, innovation, and employment. This volume seeks to set the agenda for economic research on the impact of AI. It covers four broad themes: AI as a general purpose technology; the relationships between AI, growth, jobs, and inequality; regulatory responses to changes brought on by AI; and the effects of AI on the way economic research is conducted. It explores the economic influence of machine learning, the branch of computational statistics that has driven much of the recent excitement around AI, as well as the economic impact of robotics and automation and the potential economic consequences of a still-hypothetical artificial general intelligence. The volume provides frameworks for understanding the economic impact of AI and identifies a number of open research questions. Contributors: Daron Acemoglu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Philippe Aghion, Collège de France Ajay Agrawal, University of Toronto Susan Athey, Stanford University James Bessen, Boston University School of Law Erik Brynjolfsson, MIT Sloan School of Management Colin F. Camerer, California Institute of Technology Judith Chevalier, Yale School of Management Iain M. Cockburn, Boston University Tyler Cowen, George Mason University Jason Furman, Harvard Kennedy School Patrick Francois, University of British Columbia Alberto Galasso, University of Toronto Joshua Gans, University of Toronto Avi Goldfarb, University of Toronto Austan Goolsbee, University of Chicago Booth School of Business Rebecca Henderson, Harvard Business School Ginger Zhe Jin, University of Maryland Benjamin F. Jones, Northwestern University Charles I. Jones, Stanford University Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University Anton Korinek, Johns Hopkins University Mara Lederman, University of Toronto Hong Luo, Harvard Business School John McHale, National University of Ireland Paul R. Milgrom, Stanford University Matthew Mitchell, University of Toronto Alexander Oettl, Georgia Institute of Technology Andrea Prat, Columbia Business School Manav Raj, New York University Pascual Restrepo, Boston University Daniel Rock, MIT Sloan School of Management Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University Robert Seamans, New York University Scott Stern, MIT Sloan School of Management Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan Joseph E. Stiglitz. Columbia University Chad Syverson, University of Chicago Booth School of Business Matt Taddy, University of Chicago Booth School of Business Steven Tadelis, University of California, Berkeley Manuel Trajtenberg, Tel Aviv University Daniel Trefler, University of Toronto Catherine Tucker, MIT Sloan School of Management Hal Varian, University of California, Berkeley
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".