4 ms·

But presumably you could have built it before, just slower, which is the point. For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually

But presumably you could have built it before, just slower, which is the point. For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.

ai-christianson 1y ago
Right, I'm just pointing out that if you're "never going to get there anyway," then going 4x faster isn't going to help.
- lazide 1y ago
  The biggest issue at most companies is making a lot of heat and noise while not actually delivering effectively, so I expect AI to make this problem worse. Usually, companies benefit more from slowing down and prioritizing, not ‘going faster’.
eru 1y ago
> For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations. It will still be a win: the rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy. Just like other productivity improvements in the past, it will likely be shared amongst various stakeholders depending on a variety of factors. The workers will get the lion's share.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy Unless it goes to me I'm not entirely sure why I should care I'll keep doing things the old way thanks, unless I personally get some benefit from it "You are more productive but compensated the same" just shows how many of you are suckers
  - eru 1y ago
    Compare and contrast https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/
- layer8 1y ago
  > The workers will get the lion's share. This doesn’t seem to be supported by history.
  - eru 1y ago
    Labour share have GDP has held roughly constant throughout the ages, even as we saw massive productivity increases since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
    - layer8 1y ago
      How does that equate to the workers receiving the lion's share of the massive productivity increases? Statistics like https://media.equality-trust.out.re/uploads/2024/07/incomedistributionovertimeuknew-1024x503.png https://media.equality-trust.out.re/uploads/2024/07/incomedi... suggest that since 1970 the top 10% have profited more in their income than the bottom 50%.
      - eru 1y ago
        You are comparing apples to oranges here. These are two completely different things. Image the labour share of GDP could be a constant 100%, but perhaps the top 1% of workers (eg CEOs) get all the rewards and the other 99% get nothing. (That's not meant to be realistic, just to illustrate that you can have a very unequal distribution despite a high or even growing labour share of GDP. No opinion expressed on whether the statistics you cite are any good.)
        layer8 1y ago
        That means that some (few) workers may be getting the lion's share (but note that "income" isn't limited to workers, so it may also be none), not workers in general. People are interested in the latter, not the former.

ai-christianson 1y ago

Right, I'm just pointing out that if you're "never going to get there anyway," then going 4x faster isn't going to help.

lazide 1y ago
The biggest issue at most companies is making a lot of heat and noise while not actually delivering effectively, so I expect AI to make this problem worse. Usually, companies benefit more from slowing down and prioritizing, not ‘going faster’.

eru 1y ago

> For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations. It will still be a win: the rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy. Just like other productivity improvements in the past, it will likely be shared amongst various stakeholders depending on a variety of factors. The workers will get the lion's share.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
> rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy Unless it goes to me I'm not entirely sure why I should care I'll keep doing things the old way thanks, unless I personally get some benefit from it "You are more productive but compensated the same" just shows how many of you are suckers
- eru 1y ago
  Compare and contrast https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/ https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/
layer8 1y ago
> The workers will get the lion's share. This doesn’t seem to be supported by history.
- eru 1y ago
  Labour share have GDP has held roughly constant throughout the ages, even as we saw massive productivity increases since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
  - layer8 1y ago
    How does that equate to the workers receiving the lion's share of the massive productivity increases? Statistics like https://media.equality-trust.out.re/uploads/2024/07/incomedistributionovertimeuknew-1024x503.png https://media.equality-trust.out.re/uploads/2024/07/incomedi... suggest that since 1970 the top 10% have profited more in their income than the bottom 50%.
    - eru 1y ago
      You are comparing apples to oranges here. These are two completely different things. Image the labour share of GDP could be a constant 100%, but perhaps the top 1% of workers (eg CEOs) get all the rewards and the other 99% get nothing. (That's not meant to be realistic, just to illustrate that you can have a very unequal distribution despite a high or even growing labour share of GDP. No opinion expressed on whether the statistics you cite are any good.)
      - layer8 1y ago
        That means that some (few) workers may be getting the lion's share (but note that "income" isn't limited to workers, so it may also be none), not workers in general. People are interested in the latter, not the former.