3 ms·

> You can apply whatever multiplier you want as long as the assumption that human labor will be replaced by AI labor holds true. Do you think we will be doing

> You can apply whatever multiplier you want as long as the assumption that human labor will be replaced by AI labor holds true. Do you think we will be doing in 5 or 10 years the same things we do today, but with AI? Every capability increase or cost reduction stimulates demand. AI is no different, it will stimulate both demand and competition. And since everyone has AI, and AIs are not much different between them, then the differentiating factor remain the humans. Even if we solve all our current problems with AI there is no reason to stop there, we could reduce poverty, pollution, fight global warming, conquer space. The application space is unbounded. Take electricity or internet for example and think how they expand the scope of work. Programming has been automating itself for 60 years, with each new language, library or open source project, and yet we have great jobs in the field. No matter how much we have, we want more. Our capability of desiring progress is faster than AI capability to provide it.

addicted 2y ago
Again, whether I think this or not is irrelevant to the question the paper is tackling. The question the paper is tackling is how human behavior today (limiting this to modeling interest rates) would change if people generally expected money to transfer from labor to AI. A future where this happens isn’t necessary for this paper to be valuable. Heck, even if people never believe this will actually happen makes this paperback less valuable. As an analogy, let’s say someone wrote a paper on how humanity could respond to a catastrophic hit by a large meteor. This paper would be valuable even if the earth is never hit by a meteor while humans are still here. Further, it would be additionally valuable because the insights gained here could then be applied to other, less catastrophic scenarios, such as a volcano eruption that destroys a single city.

addicted 2y ago

Again, whether I think this or not is irrelevant to the question the paper is tackling. The question the paper is tackling is how human behavior today (limiting this to modeling interest rates) would change if people generally expected money to transfer from labor to AI. A future where this happens isn’t necessary for this paper to be valuable. Heck, even if people never believe this will actually happen makes this paperback less valuable. As an analogy, let’s say someone wrote a paper on how humanity could respond to a catastrophic hit by a large meteor. This paper would be valuable even if the earth is never hit by a meteor while humans are still here. Further, it would be additionally valuable because the insights gained here could then be applied to other, less catastrophic scenarios, such as a volcano eruption that destroys a single city.