3 ms·

Hmmm I have my doubts about that, sounds like Cathie Wood talk. How will AI increase GDP? Seems like it could reduce GDP just as easily by putting all the wri

Hmmm I have my doubts about that, sounds like Cathie Wood talk. How will AI increase GDP? Seems like it could reduce GDP just as easily by putting all the writers, artists, coders, out of a job. This estimate is much more modest for AI increases by 2030. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/data-and-analytics/publications/artificial-intelligence-study.html https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/data-and-analytics/publicat... >The greatest economic gains from AI will be in China (26% boost to GDP in 2030) and North America (14.5% boost) I think of this article when I hear about decades of incredible growth on top of the already many decades of incredible growth. https://www.cold-takes.com/this-cant-go-on/ https://www.cold-takes.com/this-cant-go-on/

osigurdson 4y ago
It is pretty simple, really. The size of the economy, GDP and other metrics don't really matter. The real measure is how many hours does a person need to trade to get a particular product or service. If that goes to zero, we will be in good shape even if GDP is high or low. Nice to see that the "this-cant-go-on" author knows how to calculate 1.02^N and shocked themselves when typing a somewhat large N into the calculator. The thing they forgot is the size of the economy doesn't mean anything on its own. It isn't a physical thing that will take up all of the space in the universe eventually as the author seems to fear.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  PS - Cathy Woods ETFs perform great. One merely has to turn the chart upside down for a proper analysis.
- Volrath89 4y ago
  This sounds a bit to Keynes in 1930 predicting we will work 15 hours a week in the future. I don't know what is going to happen, but less young people and an ever-increasing age in the general population requiring services doesn't sound so good of a combination. Even if your metric "how many hours does a person need to trade to get a particular product or service" goes down.
- mym1990 4y ago
  I am confused how a person is getting wealthier in this world of yours if either a) there are not enough people to fill jobs due to a decline in population or b) robots do begin to replace high value jobs? Also, with your 0 coefficient you are assuming infinite wealth? That seems...unreasonable. Ultimately the author makes a good case if the assumption is that we never make it off Earth. Growth could probably be sustained at an exponential pace if we become interplanetary but it certainly won't happen overnight.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    "Wealth" is a measure of how many hours of effort need to be traded for a product or a service. The problem is, we've had jobs and money for so long that something seems fundamental about it. I assure you, there is nothing fundamental about these things: if a Ferrari can be 3D printed in the backyard with stuff lying around on the ground then everyone can have one (OK - you can't call it a Ferrari due to trademark issues - everyone can have a "RRRRari"). If we do ever reach "AI/robo summer" I certainly hope we appreciate it. If we don't, we deserve AI winter.

osigurdson 4y ago

It is pretty simple, really. The size of the economy, GDP and other metrics don't really matter. The real measure is how many hours does a person need to trade to get a particular product or service. If that goes to zero, we will be in good shape even if GDP is high or low. Nice to see that the "this-cant-go-on" author knows how to calculate 1.02^N and shocked themselves when typing a somewhat large N into the calculator. The thing they forgot is the size of the economy doesn't mean anything on its own. It isn't a physical thing that will take up all of the space in the universe eventually as the author seems to fear.

osigurdson 4y ago
PS - Cathy Woods ETFs perform great. One merely has to turn the chart upside down for a proper analysis.
Volrath89 4y ago
This sounds a bit to Keynes in 1930 predicting we will work 15 hours a week in the future. I don't know what is going to happen, but less young people and an ever-increasing age in the general population requiring services doesn't sound so good of a combination. Even if your metric "how many hours does a person need to trade to get a particular product or service" goes down.
mym1990 4y ago
I am confused how a person is getting wealthier in this world of yours if either a) there are not enough people to fill jobs due to a decline in population or b) robots do begin to replace high value jobs? Also, with your 0 coefficient you are assuming infinite wealth? That seems...unreasonable. Ultimately the author makes a good case if the assumption is that we never make it off Earth. Growth could probably be sustained at an exponential pace if we become interplanetary but it certainly won't happen overnight.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- osigurdson 4y ago
  "Wealth" is a measure of how many hours of effort need to be traded for a product or a service. The problem is, we've had jobs and money for so long that something seems fundamental about it. I assure you, there is nothing fundamental about these things: if a Ferrari can be 3D printed in the backyard with stuff lying around on the ground then everyone can have one (OK - you can't call it a Ferrari due to trademark issues - everyone can have a "RRRRari"). If we do ever reach "AI/robo summer" I certainly hope we appreciate it. If we don't, we deserve AI winter.