4 ms·
> One guy pays the AI to dig a hole, the other guy pays the AI to fill in the hole. Back and forth they go, raising the BNP but otherwise not accomplishing anyt
by latexr 2y ago
> One guy pays the AI to dig a hole, the other guy pays the AI to fill in the hole. Back and forth they go, raising the BNP but otherwise not accomplishing anything.
Not accomplishing anything would be better than what is actually happening. Like with the hole example, once you fill it back up there’s a good chance you can still tell a hole was dug in that place.
What does “BNP” stand for in this context?
- dxyms 2y agoMaybe GDP in german or dutch?
- ruune 2y agoIt's BIP, Bruttoinlandsprodukt, in german
- axlee 2y agoCould be a swede who meant "GDP" (BNP = BruttoNationalProdukten = Gross Domestic Product)
- globular-toast 2y agoMore plausible than "British National Party". Does it raise GDP, though? I would have thought a more accurate thing to say is it raises the global temperature.
- taylorius 2y ago>More plausible than "British National Party". Maybe they were using Grok :-)
- vidarh 2y agoTwo units of work have been carried out, so yes it raises GDP.
- globular-toast 2y agoGDP isn't about units of work, it's about the final product. So using two units of work instead of one to produce the same thing shouldn't affect GDP. But perhaps you are implying GDP is not correctly calculated?
- _heimdall 2y agoThat depends on how you're calculating GDP. If you are summing up all expenditures or incomes, the paid work done by each AI would be counted. If you're counting production, meaning the value added, it probably wouldn't count since digging a hole only to fill it back in created no value.
- vidarh 2y agoGDP calculates the market value delivered. In this case of the labour. If someone is paying for the labour, GDP will be affected by the value of that labour. If the net output in terms of a product at the end is zero, then that does not erase the labour. The only case where digging and filling a hole does not increase GDP is if the labour is not paid for. EDIT: Basically, the two methods you list are the income or expenditure ways of calculating GDP, but in both cases consumption by employers is a factor, and so the payment for the labour increases the GDP irrespective of whether they also increase the final output.
- _heimdall 2y agoI'm not so sure calculating GDP by production would capture this. It should, mind you, as all GDP calculations should get the same answer, but a silly/stupid example of two LLMs digging and filling in a hole may not fit in a production calculation. > the production approach estimates the total value of economic output and deducts the cost of intermediate goods that are consumed in the process (like those of materials and services)[1] This is a very rough definition of it, but role with it. There is no economic value since the hole was dug only to be filled back in. There was a service paid for on each end of the project, but those are services that could fall into the category of intermediate goods consumed that is actually deducted. The transaction could actually have a negative GDP when using the production calculation approach. [1] the production approach estimates the total value of economic output and deducts the cost of intermediate goods that are consumed in the process (like those of materials and services)
- wsintra2022 2y agoBusiness needs profit
- JohnKemeny 2y agoNorwegian, Danish, and Swedish all use BNP (Brutto National Product) for GDP. It could be German, although BIP is more common there (Brutto Inlands Product).