3 ms·
I didn't read the article but headed straight to comments because I cannot trust a single word Anthropic says about economy. They have an incentive to play dum
by fg137 27d ago
I didn't read the article but headed straight to comments because I cannot trust a single word Anthropic says about economy.
They have an incentive to play dumb and talk as if AI is net positive for the world.
- dgellow 27d agoYep, I read it, that’s what this seems to be about
- sparklingmango 27d agoIt feels like propoganda.
- mekael 27d agoThat’s because it is. And not even well presented propaganda.
- OroPla 27d agoAs long as it is repeated often enough, everyone will accept it and most will also believe it. Even when corrected later, whatever was repeated more often will live on. This is why all the things you are supposed to believe are repeated and repeated and repeated some more.
- NickHirras 27d agoOne of the sections is: A profound economic transformation In the extreme scenario, AI is more productive than humans at the vast majority of knowledge-work tasks. It does nearly all of them autonomously, and it creates essentially no new knowledge tasks for people. This scenario would likely require recursively self-improving AI, adopted quickly for knowledge work. As AI diffuses, annual GDP growth rates reach 15% a year, leading the economy to double in size every 4.5 years. As a society, we’re far richer than we’ve ever been, but many fewer workers have jobs in knowledge work, and unemployment has risen beyond typical recessionary levels.
- fhejfnenjdcn 26d agoMass automation will be disastrous for GDP in service economies. Service economies exist to provide services to other people who also provide services. If the services themselves get automated, you don't need that massive inefficient system to support service-providing workers anymore. GDP goes to zero.
- Ekaros 26d agoI believe lot of "service" jobs are fundamentally make up work. Or not actually productive. Just there because it can be afforded. Or someone decided that it is "needed". Some amount of it produces net negative value. Some neutral and lot probably value we could even manage without it. Actual productive value is probably not that big part. Now replace all that and you still produce same overall. Not more actual physical stuff.
- fhejfnenjdcn 26d agoI agree, but as long as we're measuring GDP, it's catastrophic.