3 ms·

> The "value" of most knowledge workers -- based on what enterprises currently pay for them -- is $50 - 70 trillion annually. What do you mean? The sum of ALL

by zug_zug 17d ago

> The "value" of most knowledge workers -- based on what enterprises currently pay for them -- is $50 - 70 trillion annually. What do you mean? The sum of ALL US salaries is $13.4 Trillion per year. According to google $65T is the sum of ALL salaries Globally (not just knowledge workers). It's not reasonable to assume AI is a drop-in-replacement for any job yet (perhaps bottom tier customer support from oversees?). > So if their hypothetical revenues are double-digit trillions and valuations are some multiple of that So you're sort of premising here than more than 16% or 1/6 of all the world's jobs get replaced by AI. Hopefully you can understand that's both not the current AI capability and also would be a terrible (unprecedented?) economic shock.

farrellm23 17d ago
You are comparing company valuations to annualized revenue (as approximated by some fraction of total knowledge worker compensation). Valuations are (roughly) based on the sum of all discounted future cash flows, not just the current year’s revenue.
- zug_zug 17d ago
  That's what the 30x instead of 20x multiple is, for a "growth" tech company. There's no strong evidence that openAI or anthropic will have non-linear revenue growth, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Unless you think they'll fire all their engineers and replace them with agents or something crazy?
keeda 17d ago
It does not have to be 16% of all jobs, but 16% of any given job, i.e. AI stays in an augmentative role rather than a complete job automation. The simplistic analysis is if a tool makes you X% faster, that can be worth X% of your salary to your employer. Unfortunately, I do fear that AI adoption will go beyond augmentation to automation, and I do fear an economic shock. Just posted this down-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49722616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49722616
- zug_zug 17d ago
  You said 10s of trillions of dollars of revenue, which when the sum of all salaries is 65T, is minimum 15.3% of all salaries best case. It really feels like you're just pulling numbers out of nowhere here.
  - keeda 16d ago
    Yes, say the sum of all salaries paid be employers is $65T, and if AI accelerates workers by 15.4% -- studies and survey data actually suggest it's closer to 33% already e.g. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/nov/state-generative-ai-adoption-2025 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/nov/state-gen... -- that is worth 15.4% of 65T which is 10T, which is already "double-digit trillions" as I said. Assuming a 33% boost takes it to ~20T annually, which is technically "10s of trillions of dollars" in revenue. And these numbers are from before agentic tasks arrived on the scene, so the actual productivity boost and corresponding value to employers is likely even higher. I'm not sure where the disconnect is?
    - zug_zug 16d ago
      Did you read your link? It says that 33% of people adopt AI, not that AI makes all workers 33% more effective, that would be absolutely insane. For that to be true we'd expect to see either companies who use it have revenues all suddenly jumping 33% (which we have not seen) or laying off 33% of their staff (which we have not seen and would also be catastrophic in the short term at least). I'm not really going to belabor this point more, because it really sounds to me like you haven't even done the most cursory exploration into this and the people who have give an estimate of 7-10%[1] (and only a small fraction of that value would be captured by the AI provider). All the best. [1] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/generative-ai...
      - keeda 16d ago
        Yep, I read the link, their detailed paper (https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2024/2024-027.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2024/2024-02...) and I also played with their data tracker here: https://www.genaiadoptiontracker.com/#explore-data https://www.genaiadoptiontracker.com/#explore-data Toggle "Work hours using genAI" and "Time savings due to genAI" so see what I mean. You can also toggle between various industries, which is eye-opening because even industries like "Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting" are seeing productivity gains! And if you do not want to read the detailed paper, they have a follow-up article here: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/feb/impact-generative-ai-work-productivity https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/feb/impact-ge... Specific quote: > Using our data on generative AI use, this estimate implies that, on average, workers are 33% more productive in each hour that they use generative AI. This estimate is in line with the average estimated productivity gain from several randomized experiments on generative AI usage. What we HAVE seen is that the national labor productivity has gone up by 1.3% since ChatGPT was released, and it lines up very well with all the other data and studies they cover... AND your reference, which predicted a 1.5% growth back in 2023!

by zug_zug 17d ago

farrellm23 17d ago

You are comparing company valuations to annualized revenue (as approximated by some fraction of total knowledge worker compensation). Valuations are (roughly) based on the sum of all discounted future cash flows, not just the current year’s revenue.

zug_zug 17d ago
That's what the 30x instead of 20x multiple is, for a "growth" tech company. There's no strong evidence that openAI or anthropic will have non-linear revenue growth, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Unless you think they'll fire all their engineers and replace them with agents or something crazy?

keeda 17d ago

It does not have to be 16% of all jobs, but 16% of any given job, i.e. AI stays in an augmentative role rather than a complete job automation. The simplistic analysis is if a tool makes you X% faster, that can be worth X% of your salary to your employer. Unfortunately, I do fear that AI adoption will go beyond augmentation to automation, and I do fear an economic shock. Just posted this down-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49722616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49722616

zug_zug 17d ago
You said 10s of trillions of dollars of revenue, which when the sum of all salaries is 65T, is minimum 15.3% of all salaries best case. It really feels like you're just pulling numbers out of nowhere here.
- keeda 16d ago
  Yes, say the sum of all salaries paid be employers is $65T, and if AI accelerates workers by 15.4% -- studies and survey data actually suggest it's closer to 33% already e.g. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/nov/state-generative-ai-adoption-2025 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/nov/state-gen... -- that is worth 15.4% of 65T which is 10T, which is already "double-digit trillions" as I said. Assuming a 33% boost takes it to ~20T annually, which is technically "10s of trillions of dollars" in revenue. And these numbers are from before agentic tasks arrived on the scene, so the actual productivity boost and corresponding value to employers is likely even higher. I'm not sure where the disconnect is?
  - zug_zug 16d ago
    Did you read your link? It says that 33% of people adopt AI, not that AI makes all workers 33% more effective, that would be absolutely insane. For that to be true we'd expect to see either companies who use it have revenues all suddenly jumping 33% (which we have not seen) or laying off 33% of their staff (which we have not seen and would also be catastrophic in the short term at least). I'm not really going to belabor this point more, because it really sounds to me like you haven't even done the most cursory exploration into this and the people who have give an estimate of 7-10%[1] (and only a small fraction of that value would be captured by the AI provider). All the best. [1] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/generative-ai...
    - keeda 16d ago
      Yep, I read the link, their detailed paper (https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2024/2024-027.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/real.stlouisfed.org/wp/2024/2024-02...) and I also played with their data tracker here: https://www.genaiadoptiontracker.com/#explore-data https://www.genaiadoptiontracker.com/#explore-data Toggle "Work hours using genAI" and "Time savings due to genAI" so see what I mean. You can also toggle between various industries, which is eye-opening because even industries like "Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting" are seeing productivity gains! And if you do not want to read the detailed paper, they have a follow-up article here: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/feb/impact-generative-ai-work-productivity https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/feb/impact-ge... Specific quote: > Using our data on generative AI use, this estimate implies that, on average, workers are 33% more productive in each hour that they use generative AI. This estimate is in line with the average estimated productivity gain from several randomized experiments on generative AI usage. What we HAVE seen is that the national labor productivity has gone up by 1.3% since ChatGPT was released, and it lines up very well with all the other data and studies they cover... AND your reference, which predicted a 1.5% growth back in 2023!