3 ms·
Yes they are because they treat tech as an externality. This has a double negative effect because that also means that politicians arent being presented with t
by ThomPete 10y ago
Yes they are because they treat tech as an externality.
This has a double negative effect because that also means that politicians arent being presented with the right scenarios as they are guided by the very economist models that doesent factor tech in.
It boggles my mind that the arguments i hear from economist is basically the same tired horse cariages argument. Thats litterally all they have.
- Swizec 10y agoThe question isn't "What happened to horse carriages", they're now cars. Obviously. But where did all the horses go?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Almaviva 10y agoHorses haven't shown the same level of adaptation to different skill sets that humans have.
- ethbro 10y ago(In 50 years) Humans haven't shown the same level of adaptation to different skill sets that GP AIs have.
- ThomPete 10y agoAnd neither have humans. How many +40 will be able to change career? I find the dismissive attitude really unfounded and blind to the realities we live in.
- Almaviva 10y agoThe problem is fundamental and serious, what to do when a growing number of people have literally nothing valuable to contribute to an economy. But horses aren't a good analogy to shed light on it. Horses are more analogous to steam engines than people, in their historical function on the economy.
- ThomPete 10y agoHorses are a bad analogy if you want to prove that AI wont take over most jobs. They are however a great analogy if you want to see how technology once it reaches a certain point renders biological beings sub-par useless as part wealth creation.