3 ms·
The author didn't really mean "real world" here. That is a misnomer. The article is about explaining why productivity gains have slowed even in the face of bett
by nonameiguess 5y ago
The author didn't really mean "real world" here. That is a misnomer. The article is about explaining why productivity gains have slowed even in the face of better software techniques. Machine learning has possibly made YouTube more addictive than it otherwise would have been, but this isn't increasing aggregate economic output for the world. It's just concentrating ad revenue in Google accounts, where it used to be spread between many more content distribution platforms.
- themacguffinman 5y ago> but this isn't increasing aggregate economic output for the world How is it not? Demand is increased as people want to consume more content, and supply has risen to match it. We have more creative & interesting content by more creators than ever, that's certainly a huge increase in overall economic output by any measure. If you want to make some separate point about how "this isn't good for society" then make it, the economic productivity benefits of YT are huge regardless.
- asdff 5y agoI think you'd have to consider the productivity benefits of youtube relative to the productivity benefits of anything else. For instance, a customer goes on youtube for three hours and sees some advertisements or whatever. Pays nothing. Another customer goes to a local restaurant with some friends for three hours. Spends $60 on food and drinks. Of the two, what is better for the economy? I would wager spending disposable income within the local economy is better than watching advertisements for companies registered in Dublin or wherever has the lowest taxes.