Stanford prof rebutts David's idea[0] that it's difficult to extract productivity from the data https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25148/w25148.

Stanford prof rebutts David's idea[0] that it's difficult to extract productivity from the data https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25148/w25148.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25148/w251... I don't agree that real GDP measures what he thinks it measures, but he opines >Data released this week offers a striking corrective to the narrative that AI has yet to have an impact on the US economy as a whole. While initial reports suggested a year of steady labour expansion in the US, the new figures reveal that total payroll growth was revised downward by approximately 403,000 jobs. Crucially, this downward revision occurred while real GDP remained robust, including a 3.7 per cent growth rate in the fourth quarter. This decoupling — maintaining high output with significantly lower labour input — is the hallmark of productivity growth. https://www.ft.com/content/4b51d0b4-bbfe-4f05-b50a-1d485d419dc5 https://www.ft.com/content/4b51d0b4-bbfe-4f05-b50a-1d485d419... [0] on the basis that IT and AI are not general technologies in the mold of the dynamo, keyword "intangibles", see section 4 p21, A method to measure intangibles