Government hallucinates just as badly as AI does
The current worry de jour over artificial intelligance is that it hallucinates. This is the process whereby an AI (or an LLM to be more accurate) trains on the output of other AIs (or LLMs). Given that there’s no logic or fact check on the output of the earlier models then the input into the later wanders somewhat from reality. Therefore, however clever the workings of the model itself we get GIGO -garbage in and garbage out.
What is less appreciated is that government works the same way. We have, for example, an entire political class that has forgotten its own definition of poverty. Which is living in a household on less than 60% of median household income, adjusted for household size (which can be measured before or after housing costs). This is a measure of inequality, not poverty.
Of course, it’s entirely possible to worry about inequality, not that we here do very much. But it is something different from poverty. The difference between having two pairs of trainers like the lad next door and having no shoes like no one in the country sort of difference.
But because of the insistence on not recalling the definition in use we’ve half the political class insisting we must solve child poverty - something we’ve already solved, many decades back. There is still that child income inequality, if that’s something we want to worry about, but that is a different thing.
Or, today’s example:
But the city that birthed Greggs has now gone to war on unhealthy food, bringing in an ambitious ban on new takeaway and fast food openings in a desperate bid to combat soaring obesity rates.
It follows complaints that fast food chains and takeaways have effectively colonised poorer areas of the city, creating so-called “food swamps” where access to healthy, nutritious meals is nearly impossible, driving generations of children and families into ill-health.
New takeaways have been outlawed in any ward where more than 10pc of children aged 10 to 11 are obese. Starkly, that leaves all but two. It follows a similar move in neighbouring Gateshead, which has banned new takeaways since 2015.
The first problem is the lack of thinking in this iteration of the model. The complaint is that there are lots of fast food shops. OK, so that means that it’s a low margin business - lots of competition does that, destroys profit margins. Now, why would a low margin business cluster in the low rent areas of the city? Anyone? Bueller?
Ah, good, so that’s obvious after 30 seconds of thought. OK, if a local councillor, perhaps 5 minutes thought.
But it’s worse than this. Consider their measure in use there, that counting of child obesity. As Chris Snowdon has been shouting for many a year the numbers are an entire fabrication. The input into this model is an entirely made up - and wrong - output from an earlier incorrect model. This isn’t going to work you know.
As with the worries over AI and LLMs. If the input to this iteration of the model is going to be the incorrect output of the last then government is going to end up hallucinating. We end up being GOSPLAN’d as pointed out elsewhere:
For exactly the same reason too - there’s no looking out the window at reality going on to error check the inputs to the next set of output generation. Which is exactly what happened at GOSPLAN of course. The Five Year Plan said that tractor production would rise 50%. As the Five Year Plan was over-fulfilled - as they always were - then that meant that there were more than 50% more tractors. Therefore Kazakhstan could all be planted with wheat despite everyone in Kazakhstan awaiting a horse let alone a tractor. The Plan then insists that as all Kazakhstan is now planted with wheat there is enough bread for all and so the system collapses - for no one did count the tractors nor even ask the wife about the queue at the bread shop.
Now of course GOSPLAN was extreme and we’re not - aha, aha, aha - doing anything so damn stupid. Except, of course, we are.
At which point the only interesting question is how do we get them to stop doing this? Our own answer tends to simply having less government so that there’s less for them to go mad about.
Tim Worstall