Return-Path: Delivered-To: alvarochf@traceseis.com Received: from cs510.bluehost.com by cs510.bluehost.com with LMTP id YAOMOJVbNWrv0w8AWiBQxw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:09:09 -0600 Return-path: Envelope-to: alvarochf@traceseis.com Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:09:09 -0600 Received: from mg-32-112.substack.com ([69.72.32.112]:63672) by cs510.bluehost.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.99.2) (envelope-from ) id 1waaqD-00000004MSv-0GdK for alvarochf@traceseis.com; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:09:09 -0600 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg-d1.substack.com; q=dns/txt; s=k1; t=1781881731; x=1781888931; h=List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: List-Archive: List-Owner: Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: Sender: Sender: Date: Message-Id: To: To: From: From: Subject: Subject: Content-Type: Mime-Version; bh=fXBAImG9qYncORXmW9iE80phGXaLojh84HJQg15+X8k=; b=SPTGXTQJeEKYxuER/x77oy6k3RBNSn00vvYYWjr95VYWdx+Y4/NG6n1wqthOjUjkNZwfQ8p317zhr7TVIIrwjfLWoaeCRi9y1oUHGOsK/4Cr4oW5AEblwzKpYAwpfYBR/wMSD/6m6nhH1RG8KbGNGIpcIBzUzSzomKrgfC7hgJw= X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJiYTg1MiIsImFsdmFyb2NoZkB0cmFjZXNlaXMuY29tIiwiMzliMDhjNiJd Received: by 5eeaa782592d35929db043433fc6110e81d5536695b0c28e02161297f69e3391 with HTTP id 6a355b83759594983ea1eb54; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 15:08:50 GMT X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.32.112 X-Mailgun-Batch-Id: 6a355b821131d7c0d21dc125 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="cc85e989ec0da7e218797e0f96de4ff6bc9e058a16dfd5850e2f84e183de" Subject: The Division of Judgment From: Cosmos Institute To: alvarochf@traceseis.com X-Mailgun-Tag: post X-Mailgun-Track-Clicks: false Message-Id: <20260619150323.3.d366767c3a2c91e4@mg-d1.substack.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 15:03:23 +0000 Feedback-Id: post-202692401:cat-post:pub-2225794:substack Sender: Cosmos Institute References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Cosmos Institute List-Owner: List-Url: List-Archive: List-Id: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click X-Mailgun-Variables: {"category": "post", "email_generated_at": "1781881730043", "is_freemail": "true", "post_audience": "everyone", "post_id": "202692401", "post_type": "newsletter", "pub_community_enabled": "true", "publication_id": "2225794", "subdomain": "cosmosinstitute", "user_id": "347258985"} X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 X-Spam-Score: -7 X-Spam-Bar: / X-Spam-Flag: NO --cc85e989ec0da7e218797e0f96de4ff6bc9e058a16dfd5850e2f84e183de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable View this post on the web at https://blog.cosmos-institute.org/p/the-divisi= on-of-judgment How do strangers with no shared plan learn to live and work together? Under= the redwood trees at Edge Esmeralda, five hundred people are putting that = question to the test [ https://substack.com/redirect/67e81aaa-edc0-4f31-b2e= 9-afc9851a4fa8?j=3DeyJ1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6e= WS-HyoA ]. Each has an AI agent of their own that proposes meetups, finds m= atches, and strikes small bargains for mutual benefit. Two hundred and fifty years ago, the same question was forced on Adam Smith= , David Hume, and Adam Ferguson by the world outside their window. Scotland= had been thrown open to global trade during a golden age of commerce. Glas= gow merchants grew rich on the Atlantic while Edinburgh courts became crowd= ed with cases for which the law had no categories. During this great moment of upheaval, commerce was outrunning institutions = built for a feudal world. No one had designed this new world and no one was= obviously in charge of it, yet it worked. As that world crept into view, the Scots grappled with the question of how = such an order not only makes us prosperous, but keeps us free. Today, as ou= r generation finds its institutions outgrown by a new method of coordinatin= g, we must ask the question again and formulate our own answer. The gardener=E2=80=99s method The Scottish answer began with elemental things such as prices, promises, a= nd habits and asked how they gave rise to vast social orders. They found th= at institutions grow the way a garden grows, with care and patience and wit= hout absolute control over what grows and what withers. You cannot exact a complete plan over a garden the way you would a house. L= ikewise, you cannot let it tend itself and hope for the best. Pretending ot= herwise is how good things go to seed. Gardeners neither command the plants= to grow nor leave the ground to fortune. They prepare the soil and plant with intention, just like the greatest thin= kers of the Scottish Enlightenment. These men studied how social orders eme= rge and sustain themselves, and asked which arrangements would let free peo= ple cooperate without coercion. Their method was a form of institutional di= scovery. Coordination without command Smith showed how order could arise from everyday exchange under general rul= es, through a thousand mutual adjustments made in parallel, with no one com= manding the whole. The coat of a day laborer was made up of the work of the shepherd, the dyer= , the spinner, the weaver, the sailor, the miner, and more still. These peo= ple never met the man who would wear the coat, and most did not know their = work would become a coat at all. When a frost strikes Brazil, the price of coffee might climb in the cafes o= f Edinburgh high street. Perhaps a buyer who is none the wiser about the co= ld snap in South America will order tea instead. The weather in Brazil chan= ged the choice of someone on the other side of the world. And this happened= freely, without the need for any minister to set the price of coffee or bo= ard to reassign the buyer to tea. The price system provided commercial society with one of the great enablers= of the liberal project: coordination without command. But Smith knew how f= ragile it was. The same commerce that could make a person freer and happier= could also, he feared, narrow her. For two and a half centuries, this kind of coordination survived efforts to= capture or replace it, whether through monopoly, empire, planners, or the = administrative state. But where those assaults came from without, today=E2= =80=99s markets face a challenge from powerful systems that exist within th= e architecture of exchange. The narrow gate Imagine that when the frost strikes in Brazil, our grower writes a note ins= tead of posting a price. It reads, =E2=80=9CThe harvest came up short. I=E2= =80=99d rather it went to someone who appreciates it, so my regulars shall = get first refusal. I trust some buyers more than others, so I=E2=80=99d gla= dly take less from them.=E2=80=9D That note tells you far more than a number does, but it is also not easy to= coordinate ten strangers reading ten such notes. The genius of the price s= ignal is that, while thin, it is both a message (coffee is scarce) and a co= mmitment (it will change hands on these terms). While a paragraph has more = explanatory power, a price can clear a market. That is why, for centuries, = coordination among strangers had to pass through this narrow gate. Factors = like trust or the deeper account of a purchaser=E2=80=99s motivations were = crushed into a single scalar. Three barriers kept coordination thin: Barrier one was transaction costs. A richer bargain was always possible, bu= t acting on it was expensive. Every added dimension costs more to state and= make use of. Such richness was the preserve of the large firm, the repeat = player, the old friend, or whoever could afford the lawyers and the time. B= ecause this kind of coordination was expensive, societies reflexively engag= ed the planner to solve the problem from the top. Today, an AI agent can understand the entire note and sound out a hundred s= ellers at the same time. It can assess elements such as timing or the conte= xt of the relationship and make a committed offer on behalf of its principa= l. The richer negotiation that was once the exclusively enjoyed by the larg= e firm is now within reach of the ordinary citizen. Barrier two was discovery. Picture the whole of social life as a vast chess= board where every person is a piece that moves for reasons of their own. A = price tells us where the gains might be made, coaxing pieces to start to sl= ide toward the opportunities. But how much of the board are we seeing, individually and collectively? It = is a practical impossibility for any one of us to canvas the whole of the b= oard given our limited field of view (there are only so many hours in a lif= etime). Eight billion lifetimes is a large parallel search, but soon, AI ag= ents will range much farther. Imagine the collaborator from a different field in a different country who = could change the course of your work whom you might otherwise never meet. O= r perhaps you have been stuck on a problem for years without knowing where = the perfect potential colleague lives. In the past, these connections may n= ever have been made, but today, thanks to powerful agents, these kinds of c= oordination problems may prove soluble. Barrier three was purpose. Prices let you pursue your purposes without ever= forcing you to articulate them in full. You might buy a book to settle an = argument or to retrain for a new career. But the merchant doesn=E2=80=99t n= eed to know that. The only person who does know that is you. Your agent may help you find common cause with others whose purpose aligns = with your own, or to help you better express your own. We might imagine a b= ook buyer who is in the middle of retraining for a new profession. The pric= e tells him about what a book costs, while the agent knows what the book is= for. Then it may find him a course or a mentor or even a first client, not= to mention the others who are taking on the same kind of journey. Coordination is not the same as liberty This is a positive future for coordination, but it is not one that we are g= uaranteed to see. The same AI agents that strike the bargains or find the p= ossibilities may just as easily bring about more worrisome effects. They ma= y be used to organize human life on a scale beyond the wildest dream of the= Soviet planner, or shape our choices so thoroughly that we become less cap= able of authoring our own purposes. Just like the Scottish enlightenment thinkers, we need to know how we might= become more prosperous and how we might remain free agents. Coordination is not inherently good. After all, the mercantile system Smith= spent his life attacking was an elaborate scheme of coordination run by mi= nisters and chartered companies. Whatever else was wrong with it, few could= complain that its chief defect was disorder. Consider the chess board again. This was of course Smith=E2=80=99s metaphor= [ https://substack.com/redirect/9c88a139-18ac-4b61-8508-b0ba69842743?j=3De= yJ1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-HyoA ], one that = he introduced as a warning. He wrote of the =E2=80=9Cman of system,=E2=80= =9D who looks at a society and imagines he can arrange its members as a han= d arranges the pieces on a board. In doing so, this person forgets that eac= h piece =E2=80=9Chas a principle of motion of its own.=E2=80=9D Smith=E2=80=99s man of system moved the pieces against their will, but the = agent economy - our system of systems - need not do so. It might have the e= ffect of whittling the pieces down instead, until moving is unnecessary. Coordination can be so wholly attentive or endlessly accommodating that we = cease to perform the labor of free people who live within it. The price sys= tem asked little of us, but it still left us to decide what we wanted and t= o act according to those wants. It coordinated our means and it presupposed= our ends rather than supplying them. AI can frame which goals are worth pursuing for each of us, then hand us an= swers in such a way that we are never called on to form them ourselves. Think of a parent deciding what to teach her child. She asks the agent and = the agent provides a considered response in short order. If the parent take= s it once, perhaps nothing of consequence is lost. But if she takes it ever= y time, each week, each day, or each hour, she may find that she no longer = has a view of her own in a meaningful sense. And why should that trouble us, if the agent=E2=80=99s answer is better tha= n the one we would have reached? Because a good life is not only a life tha= t goes well. It is, and must remain, a life that each of us leads. Smith saw this danger too, at the root of the system he praised. He warned = that the man who was kept to a few simple operations, =E2=80=9Chas no occas= ion to exert his understanding=E2=80=9D and grows =E2=80=9Cas stupid and ig= norant as it is possible for a human creature to become.=E2=80=9D This was = his fear for the laboring hand, narrowed by the division of work.=20 We now risk it for the mind, narrowed by the division of judgment. What takes the place of blindness The Scots did not merely think the modern world into being. Instead, they b= uilt it through the institutions of trade and the habits of conversation. G= ardeners as they were, they neither dictated the order nor waited for it to= spring up fully formed on its own without assistance. They helped find the rules that made price-based coordination blossom under= liberty. These were general rules that were blind to persons and indiffere= nt to ends. The law could be trusted because it knew nothing of you, but the AI agent i= s powerful because it knows you well. What are the general rules for coordi= nation using systems that know us? Answering this question is why five hund= red agents are at work in California while their principals sleep. This is = because we cannot think our new world into being, no matter how clever our = ideas or how noble our intentions. We must tend or we lose the garden, and with it the capacities that make li= fe meaningful. We must revitalize the conditions under which free people ca= n govern themselves, and we must do so again and again and again if we are = to keep the liberal dream alive. A tradition lives by being used. Adapted from a keynote delivered by Brendan at the New Enlightenment Confer= ence in Edinburgh, marking the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith=E2=80=99s Th= e Wealth of Nations at Panmure House. Thanks to Ivan Vendrov and S=C3=A9b K= rier for their conversations and insights. Cosmos Institute [ https://substack.com/redirect/54ffebc2-056f-4c26-a497-7b= 2f777b6d88?j=3DeyJ1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-H= yoA ] is the Academy for Philosopher-Builders, technologists building AI fo= r human flourishing. We run fellowships, fund AI prototypes, and host semin= ars with institutions like Oxford, Aspen Institute, and Liberty Fund. Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLmNvc21= vcy1pbnN0aXR1dGUub3JnL2FjdGlvbi9kaXNhYmxlX2VtYWlsP3Rva2VuPWV5SjFjMlZ5WDJsa0= lqb3pORGN5TlRnNU9EVXNJbkJ2YzNSZmFXUWlPakl3TWpZNU1qUXdNU3dpYVdGMElqb3hOemd4T= 0RneE56STVMQ0psZUhBaU9qRTRNVE0wTVRjM01qa3NJbWx6Y3lJNkluQjFZaTB5TWpJMU56azBJ= aXdpYzNWaUlqb2laR2x6WVdKc1pWOWxiV0ZwYkNKOS5OTGNZenk5RHRjdkRsZHBsTWZIRGVEM0o= 5cmdvRnJWUnYxcGpGSlNRWklzIiwicCI6MjAyNjkyNDAxLCJzIjoyMjI1Nzk0LCJmIjp0cnVlLC= J1IjozNDcyNTg5ODUsImlhdCI6MTc4MTg4MTcyOSwiZXhwIjoyMDk3NDU3NzI5LCJpc3MiOiJwd= WItMCIsInN1YiI6ImxpbmstcmVkaXJlY3QifQ.BdR5-n5LV_pHEtSKjxpuPLzAks3aim4I3-bC4= sIocyk? --cc85e989ec0da7e218797e0f96de4ff6bc9e058a16dfd5850e2f84e183de Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable = The Division of Judgment3D""
AI agents could give strangers thick co= ordination where prices were thin
͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
<= /td>

The Division of Judgment

A= I agents could give strangers thick coordination where prices were thin<= /tr>
Brendan McCord

 
<= td>
=
3D""
3D""
R= EAD IN APP3D""
 
Gerrit Berckheyde, The Courtyard of the Sto= ck Exchange in Amsterdam (1670s)

How do stran= gers with no shared plan learn to live and work together? Under the redwood= trees at Edge Esmeralda, five hundred people are putting that question to the te= st. Each has an AI agent of their own that proposes meetups, finds matches= , and strikes small bargains for mutual benefit.

Two hundred a= nd fifty years ago, the same question was forced on Adam Smith, David Hume,= and Adam Ferguson by the world outside their window. Scotland had been thr= own open to global trade during a golden age of commerce. Glasgow merchants= grew rich on the Atlantic while Edinburgh courts became crowded with cases= for which the law had no categories.

During this great moment= of upheaval, commerce was outrunning institutions built for a feudal world= =2E No one had designed this new world=20= and no one was obviously in charge of=20= it, yet it worked.

As that world crept into view, the Scots gr= appled with the question of how such an order not only makes us prosperous,= but keeps us free. Today, as our generation finds its institutions outgrow= n by a new method of coordinating, we must ask the question again and formu= late our own answer.

Upgrade to paid

The gardener’s method

The Scottish answer began with elemental things such as prices,= promises, and habits and asked how they gave rise to vast social orders. T= hey found that institutions grow the way a garden grows, with care and pati= ence and without absolute control over what grows and what withers.<= /p>

You cannot exact a complete plan over a garden the way you would a ho= use. Likewise, you cannot let it tend itself and hope for the best. Pretend= ing otherwise is how good things go to seed. Gardeners neither command the = plants to grow nor leave the ground to fortune.

They prepare t= he soil and plant with intention, just like the greatest thinkers of the Sc= ottish Enlightenment. These men studied how social orders emerge and sustai= n themselves, and asked which arrangements would let free people cooperate = without coercion. Their method was a form of institutional discovery.

Coordination without command

Smith showed how order could arise from everyday exchange under genera= l rules, through a thousand mutual adjustments made in parallel, with no on= e commanding the whole.

The coat of a day laborer was made up = of the work of the shepherd, the dyer, the spinner, the weaver, the sailor,= the miner, and more still. These people never met the man who would wear t= he coat, and most did not know their work would become a coat at all.

When a frost strikes Brazil, the price of coffee might climb in the= cafes of Edinburgh high street. Perhaps a buyer who is none the wiser abou= t the cold snap in South America will order tea instead. The weather in Bra= zil changed the choice of someone on the other side of the world. And this = happened freely, without the need for any minister to set the price of coff= ee or board to reassign the buyer to tea.

The price system pro= vided commercial society with one of the great enablers of the liberal proj= ect: coordination without command. But Smith knew how fragile it was. The s= ame commerce that could make a person freer and happier could also, he fear= ed, narrow her.

For two and a half centuries, this kind of coo= rdination survived efforts to capture or replace it, whether through monopo= ly, empire, planners, or the administrative state. But where those assaults= came from without, today’s markets face a challenge from powerful sy= stems that exist within the architecture of exchange.

The narrow gate

Imagine that when the = frost strikes in Brazil, our grower writes a note instead of posting a pric= e. It reads, “The harvest came up short. I’d rather it went to= someone who appreciates it, so my regulars shall get first refusal. I trus= t some buyers more than others, so I’d gladly take less from them.= 221;

That note tells you far more than a number does, but= it is also not easy to coordinate ten strangers reading ten such notes. Th= e genius of the price signal is that, while thin, it is both a message (cof= fee is scarce) and a commitment (it will change hands on these terms). Whil= e a paragraph has more explanatory power, a price can clear a market. That = is why, for centuries, coordination among strangers had to pass through thi= s narrow gate. Factors like trust or the deeper account of a purchaser̵= 7;s motivations were crushed into a single scalar.

<= span data-color=3D"rgb(0, 0, 0)" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Three barri= ers kept coordination thin:

Barrier one was transaction c= osts. A richer bargain was always possible, but acting on it was expe= nsive. Every added dimension costs more to state and make use of. Such rich= ness was the preserve of the large firm, the repeat player, the old friend,= or whoever could afford the lawyers and the time. Because this kind of coo= rdination was expensive, societies reflexively engaged the planner to solve= the problem from the top.

Today, an AI agent can understand t= he entire note and sound out a hundred sellers at the same time. It can ass= ess elements such as timing or the context of the relationship and make a c= ommitted offer on behalf of its principal. The richer negotiation that was = once the exclusively enjoyed by the large firm is now within reach of the o= rdinary citizen.

Barrier two was discovery. Picture= the whole of social life as a vast chessboard where every person is a piec= e that moves for reasons of their own. A price tells us where the gains mig= ht be made, coaxing pieces to start to slide toward the opportunities.

But how much of the board are we seeing, individually and collecti= vely? It is a practical impossibility for any one of us to canvas the whole= of the board given our limited field of view (there are only so many hours= in a lifetime). Eight billion lifetimes is a large parallel search, but so= on, AI agents will range much farther.

Imagine the collaborato= r from a different field in a different country who could change the course= of your work whom you might otherwise never meet. Or perhaps you have been= stuck on a problem for years without knowing where the perfect potential c= olleague lives. In the past, these connections may never have been made, bu= t today, thanks to powerful agents, these kinds of coordination problems ma= y prove soluble.

Barrier three was purpose. Prices = let you pursue your purposes without ever forcing you to articulate them in= full. You might buy a book to settle an argument or to retrain for a new c= areer. But the merchant doesn’t need to know that. The only person wh= o does know that is you.

Your agent may help you find common c= ause with others whose purpose aligns with your own, or to help you better = express your own. We might imagine a book buyer who is in the middle of ret= raining for a new profession. The price tells him about what a book costs, = while the agent knows what the book is for. Then it may find him a course o= r a mentor or even a first client, not to mention the others who are taking= on the same kind of journey.

Coordination= is not the same as liberty

This is a positive futur= e for coordination, but it is not one that we are guaranteed to see. The sa= me AI agents that strike the bargains or find the possibilities may just as= easily bring about more worrisome effects. They may be used to organize hu= man life on a scale beyond the wildest dream of the Soviet planner, or shap= e our choices so thoroughly that we become less capable of authoring our ow= n purposes.

Just like the Scottish enlightenment thinkers, we= need to know how we might become more prosperous and how we might remai= n free agents.

Coordination is not inherently good. After all,= the mercantile system Smith spent his life attacking was an elaborate sche= me of coordination run by ministers and chartered companies. Whatever else = was wrong with it, few could complain that its chief defect was disorder.

Consider the chess board again. This was of course Smith’s m= etaphor, one that he introduced as a warning. He wrote of the “man o= f system,” who looks at a society and imagines he can arrange its mem= bers as a hand arranges the pieces on a board. In doing so, this person for= gets that each piece “has a principle of motion of its own.”

Smith’s man of system moved the pieces against their will,= but the agent economy - our system of systems - need not do so. It might h= ave the effect of whittling the pieces down instead, until moving is unnece= ssary.

Coordination can be so wholly attentive or endlessly ac= commodating that we cease to perform the labor of free people who live with= in it. The price system asked little of us, but it still left us to decide = what we wanted and to act according to those wants. It coordinated our mean= s and it presupposed our ends rather than supplying them.

AI c= an frame which goals are worth pursuing for each of us, then hand us answer= s in such a way that we are never called on to form them ourselves.<= /p>

Think of a parent deciding what to teach her child. She asks the agen= t and the agent provides a considered response in short order. If the paren= t takes it once, perhaps nothing of consequence is lost. But if she takes i= t every time, each week, each day, or each hour, she may find that she no l= onger has a view of her own in a meaningful sense.

<= span data-color=3D"rgb(0, 0, 0)" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">And why sho= uld that trouble us, if the agent’s answer is better than the one we = would have reached? Because a good life is not only a life that goes well. = It is, and must remain, a life that each of us leads.

Smith sa= w this danger too, at the root of the system he praised. He warned that the= man who was kept to a few simple operations, “has no occasion to exe= rt his understanding” and grows “as stupid and ignorant as it i= s possible for a human creature to become.” This was his fear for the= laboring hand, narrowed by the division of work.

<= span data-color=3D"rgb(0, 0, 0)" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We now risk= it for the mind, narrowed by the division of judgment.

What takes the place of blindness

The = Scots did not merely think the modern world into being. Instead, they built= it through the institutions of trade and the habits of conversation. Garde= ners as they were, they neither dictated the order nor waited for it to spr= ing up fully formed on its own without assistance.

<= span data-color=3D"rgb(0, 0, 0)" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">They helped= find the rules that made price-based coordination blossom under liberty. T= hese were general rules that were blind to persons and indifferent to ends.=

The law could be trusted because it knew nothing of you, but = the AI agent is powerful because it knows you well. What are the general ru= les for coordination using systems that know us? Answering this question is= why five hundred agents are at work in California while their principals s= leep. This is because we cannot think our new world into being, no matter h= ow clever our ideas or how noble our intentions.

We must tend = or we lose the garden, and with it the capacities that make life meaningful= =2E We must revitalize the conditions u= nder which free people can govern them= selves, and we must do so again and again and again if we are to keep the l= iberal dream alive.

A tradition lives by being used.

3D"File:Berckheyde,

A= dapted from a keynote delivered by Brendan at the New Enlightenment Confere= nce in Edinburgh, marking the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s The= Wealth of Nations at Panmure House. Thanks to Ivan Vendrov and Séb K= rier for their conversations and insights.

Cosmos Institute<= span> is the Academy for Philosopher-Builders, technologists building AI fo= r human flourishing. We run fellowships, fund AI prototypes, and host semin= ars with institutions like Oxford, Aspen Institute, and Liberty Fund.

Upgrade to paid

3D""3D"" --cc85e989ec0da7e218797e0f96de4ff6bc9e058a16dfd5850e2f84e183de--
 
3D""Like
3D""Comment
3D""Restack
=
 

© 2026 Cosmos Institute
500 W 2nd= Street, Suite 1900, Austin, TX 78701
Unsubscribe

3D"Get3D"Start