The critical distinction is IMO that the examples he gives are all examples of where the prediction forms part of its own outcome. Whether interest rate go up depends on whether people think interest rates will go up. Same with GDP and all the other examples.
Having this recursion is a massive problem, because there might not be a stable point where the prediction and its outcome are fixed.
This may be why it's hard to steer cars automatically. I don't know enough about the subject, but it would seem to fit in the category of "fields where what you think affects what happens".
By contrast, a lot of other phenomena are complicated but do not have this prediction-feedback effect. The weather, astronomical observations, a lot of engineering systems.
Having this recursion is a massive problem, because there might not be a stable point where the prediction and its outcome are fixed.
This may be why it's hard to steer cars automatically. I don't know enough about the subject, but it would seem to fit in the category of "fields where what you think affects what happens".
By contrast, a lot of other phenomena are complicated but do not have this prediction-feedback effect. The weather, astronomical observations, a lot of engineering systems.