Course talk:CPSC522/Artificial Intelligence and Economic Theory

This is really well written and well researched. A proper literary review is no small feat and this was well done.

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 4
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. N/A
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. N/A
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 4
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 4
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 4
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 5

I would give this page a 19/20

I thought it was very well written on a subject that has interesting potential for the future. The use of examples was also helpful. It would be great if you could add in more figures. Pictures would also help break down the wall of text and make it seem less long.

With regards to your concerns about length, perhaps cutting down the literature review a bit could be a solution. Instead of reviewing each historical paper, simply summarize the conclusions and directions the landscape of research is taking and provide links to papers in the bibliography. This assignment focuses on "looking forwards" so a shorter section on the background shouldn't be penalized.

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. -
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
• It is correct. 5
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 3
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 3
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. -
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 5
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 4

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 18

I really liked your article and how you've covered the breadth of the topic. Some of the positive points about the article are:

1. Its a great introduction to the confluence of Artificial Intelligence and Economics
2. It is extremely lucid and has an amazing flow of thought
3. Even though the article is long I suggest you stick to the length because its a good compilation of information and might be useful for someone reading in the future
4. It might be that the article is not doing substantial hypothesis testing but it discusses a topic that has the potential to change economic theory as we know it

Because of these reasons, I would give it 19 out of 20.

• My main concern with this article is that it doesn't actually *test* a hypothesis....

• The effect of hypothetical 0-cost AI labor replacing human labor - any thoughts on how that would mold society? Basic minimum income? Class stratification? Revolution?

• Read through the article and each section seems indispensable. Very nice flow too wouldn't want to make it choppy just for the sake of shortening it. Possibly replace quotes with shorter sentences in your words. Possibly remove explicit references to literature and just cite sentences describing what you want to say.

To my critiquers: This article is a bit long and I'd very much like to cut it a quite a bit. Suggestions for what to cut will be appreciated. What works, what doesn't?