3 ms·

> "Generative AI is not ..." But here's the thing - there is already plenty of documented proof of individuals losing their job to ChatGPT. This is an article

> "Generative AI is not ..." But here's the thing - there is already plenty of documented proof of individuals losing their job to ChatGPT. This is an article from 2 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/02/ai-taking-jobs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/02/ai-taki... Early on in a paradigm shift, when you have small moves, or people are still trying to figure out the tech, it's likely that individual moves are hard to distinguish from noise. So I'd argue that a broad-based, "just look at the averages" approach is simply the wrong approach to use at this point in the tech lifecycle. FWIW, I'd have to search for it, but there were economic analyses done that said it took decades for the PC to have a positive impact on productivity. IMO, this is just another article about "economists using tools they don't really understand". For decades they told us globalization would be good for all countries, they just kinda forgot about the massive political instability it could cause. > In contrast, this article, i.e., the paper it discusses, is based on what has happened so far. Not true. The article specifically calls into question whether the massive spending on AI is worth it. AI is obviously an investment, so determine whether it's "worth it", you need to consider future outcomes.

rightbyte 2y ago
> economic analyses done that said it took decades for the PC to have a positive impact on productivity I honestly think computers have a net negative productivity impact in many organizations. Maybe even "most".
- 7qW24A 2y ago
  It’s an interesting rabbit hole to go down. If you use the BLS’s definition of productivity, then computers seem to be a net drag on productivity: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and-how-has-it-changed-in-the-us-over-time/ https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and... Even more surprising for me is that productivity growth declined during the ZIRP era. How did we take all that free money and product less?
  - Arctic_fly 2y ago
    This is an excellent question. My very unscientific suspicion is that the decreases in average attention span and ability to concentrate zero out the theoretical possible increases in productivity that computers allow.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > Even more surprising for me is that productivity growth declined during the ZIRP era. How did we take all that free money and product less? This is not correct. Your link is only referring to manufacturing productivity, not overall productivity, which continued to rise. This Economist article has better information: https://archive.vn/6asPb https://archive.vn/6asPb. One hypothesis in the article that seems the most logical to me is that return on investment became so much better in other economic sectors that it siphoned talent from manufacturing.
exe34 2y ago
> globalization would be good for all countries, they just kinda forgot about the massive political instability it could cause Could you say a few more words on this please? Are you referring to the rise of China?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Some resources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/globalisation-the-rise-and-fall-of-an-idea-that-swept-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/globalisation-... https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/Joseph_Stiglitz/The%20Overselling%20of%20Globalization_0.pdf https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-u... But in my own words, while I think economists have always acknowledged there would be some "winners" and "losers" from globalization, I think there is widespread belief now that early globalization boosters misjudged how bad it would be for the "losers", they underestimated how much it would contribute to inequality, and they underestimated the destabilizing effect this would have on social and political systems. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the reality is for globalization's benefits if so many people are turned off by it that they want to "burn the whole thing down", as that's basically what's happening now.
  - exe34 2y ago
    Thank you, will read :-)

rightbyte 2y ago

> economic analyses done that said it took decades for the PC to have a positive impact on productivity I honestly think computers have a net negative productivity impact in many organizations. Maybe even "most".

7qW24A 2y ago
It’s an interesting rabbit hole to go down. If you use the BLS’s definition of productivity, then computers seem to be a net drag on productivity: https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and-how-has-it-changed-in-the-us-over-time/ https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-labor-productivity-and... Even more surprising for me is that productivity growth declined during the ZIRP era. How did we take all that free money and product less?
- Arctic_fly 2y ago
  This is an excellent question. My very unscientific suspicion is that the decreases in average attention span and ability to concentrate zero out the theoretical possible increases in productivity that computers allow.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > Even more surprising for me is that productivity growth declined during the ZIRP era. How did we take all that free money and product less? This is not correct. Your link is only referring to manufacturing productivity, not overall productivity, which continued to rise. This Economist article has better information: https://archive.vn/6asPb https://archive.vn/6asPb. One hypothesis in the article that seems the most logical to me is that return on investment became so much better in other economic sectors that it siphoned talent from manufacturing.

exe34 2y ago

> globalization would be good for all countries, they just kinda forgot about the massive political instability it could cause Could you say a few more words on this please? Are you referring to the rise of China?

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Some resources: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/globalisation-the-rise-and-fall-of-an-idea-that-swept-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/globalisation-... https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/Joseph_Stiglitz/The%20Overselling%20of%20Globalization_0.pdf https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-u... But in my own words, while I think economists have always acknowledged there would be some "winners" and "losers" from globalization, I think there is widespread belief now that early globalization boosters misjudged how bad it would be for the "losers", they underestimated how much it would contribute to inequality, and they underestimated the destabilizing effect this would have on social and political systems. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the reality is for globalization's benefits if so many people are turned off by it that they want to "burn the whole thing down", as that's basically what's happening now.
- exe34 2y ago
  Thank you, will read :-)