5 ms·
> One of the problems here is that things like this only count as "increased productivity" in the economic sense if it results in more income at the end of the
by jr3592 1mo ago
> One of the problems here is that things like this only count as "increased productivity" in the economic sense if it results in more income at the end of the funnel. Are you actually making more product faster in all your new-found free time?
This strikes me as a problem with how we define productivity in this context. If I can do my job in 1 hour, when it took me 8 before, am I not more productive in a rate-based sense? Sure, I might only work 5 hours in a week instead of 40, so my net production is the same, but my rate of productivity was certainly much higher.
- NateEag 1mo agoWealth created is still the same, and that's what an economist means by "productive" - you produced X amount of wealth (usually measured in dollar amounts). It's like "work" meaning one thing to a normal person, but something very specific and counterintuitive in Newtonian physics (if you carry a fifty-pound weight in a circle and stop at your starting point, you've done no work).
- jr3592 1mo agoI suppose I can understand that perspective, but disagree with it? We should measure time returned to individuals as wealth, maybe even the highest form of wealth.
- simiones 1mo agoIn the sense measured in economics, only if the product at the end of the day is sold for the same nominal amount of dollars as before. It doesn't matter how many features or lines of code or bugs or anything like this you produced - it matters how much revenue your work produced. So, if the product isn't selling any more expensive even though you're adding ~8 times more features, or if you're still getting paid for the full 40 hours even though you only really work 5, then economic productivity hasn't actually increased.
- jr3592 1mo agoYup, I understand. And through a very narrow definition of economics it makes sense. I just don't see the utility in viewing it this way. You've returned one of the most valuable resources (time) back to a human. In my mind there's simply nothing more valuable, and no sign of of efficiency more poignant than that.
- simiones 1mo agoIt is actually a very relevant real-world definition - even though I agree with you on the intangible value of time. The reason why it is very relevant is that, in the way we have unfortunately structured our economy, the amount of work you have to do to be able to eat and enjoy your time will always expand to grow to at least force you to maintain (if not increase) your economic productivity. That is, if AI enables engineers to deliver 10x more features in the same unit of time, then their employers will expect them to deliver 10x more features to continue earning their current pay. So, while the AI did, in principle, allow you to just reduce your work schedule while getting the same pay, as you're providing the same results in 1/10th of the time, the economic system does not - your previous work is instead simply worth less than it used to be. Assuming you're not happy to take a 90% pay cut, you'll have to continue spending 40+ hour weeks, just using AI as well now.
- adastra22 1mo agoThe economics definition is the real definition that real people use in the real world.
- jr3592 1mo agoEverything is ultimately a chosen definition, nothing is "real". I'd argue the definition is antiquated. In the modern world, free time being returned to individuals is perhaps one of the greatest examples of wealth.