←back to thread

63 points cjbarber | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
cjbarber ◴[] No.45305786[source]
This is written by Kevin Bryan from University of Toronto. He has good tweets on the economics of AI, too (https://x.com/Afinetheorem).

My recap of the PDF is something like:

1. There are good books about the near-term economics as AI.

2. There aren't many good books about "what if the AI researchers are right" (e.g. rapid scientific acceleration) and the economic and political impacts of those cases.

3. The Second Machine Age: Digital progress boosts the bounty and widens the spread, more relative inequality. Wrong on speed (e.g. self driving tech vs regulatory change).

4. Prediction Machines: AI = cheaper prediction. Which raises the value of human judgement, because that's a complement.

5. Power and Prediction: Value comes when the whole system is improved not just from smaller fixes. Electrification's benefits arrived when factories reorganized, not just when they added electricity to existing layouts. Diffusion is slow because things need to be rebuilt.

6. The Data Economy: Data is a nonrivalrous asset. As models get stronger and cheaper, unique private data grows in relative value.

7. The Skill Code: Apprenticeship pathways may disappear. E.g. survival robots prevent juniors getting practice reps.

8. Co-Intelligence: Diffusion is slowed by the jagged frontier (AI is spiky). Superhuman at one thing, subhuman at another.

9. Situational Awareness: By ~2027, $1T/yr AI capex spend, big power demand, and hundreds of millions of AI researchers getting a decade of algo progress in less than a year. (Author doesn't say he agrees, but says economists should analyze what happens if it does)

10. Questions: What if the AGI-pilled AI researchers are right, what will the economic and policy implications be?

replies(2): >>45306301 #>>45306889 #
tuatoru ◴[] No.45306301[source]
This all sounds like it has been covered in detail by the "AI as a Normal Technology"[1][2] guys (formerly AI Snake Oil - they decided they preferred to engage rather than just be snarky).

Invention vs innovation vs diffusion - this is all well-known stuff.

It's a completely different episteme than the one IABIED guys have ("If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies").

I don't think there can be any meaningful dialogue between the two camps.

1. Substack: https://www.normaltech.ai/ book: https://www.normaltech.ai/p/starting-reading-the-ai-snake-oi...

2. "Normal technology" like fire, metals, agriculture, writing, and electricity are normal technologies.

replies(1): >>45309857 #
1. dwohnitmok ◴[] No.45309857[source]
It feels kind of crazy to go from "AI is 'only' something like snake oil" to "AI is 'only' something like fire, metallurgy, agriculture, writing, or electricity" without some kind of mea culpa of what was wrong about their previous view. That's a huge leap to more or less imply "well AI is just going to be comparable to invention of fire. No biggie. Completely compatible with AI as snake oil."
replies(1): >>45311027 #
2. uoaei ◴[] No.45311027[source]
I think the point is more to posit that our civilization will come to normalize AI as a ubiquitous tool extremely quickly like the other ones mentioned, and to analyze it from that perspective. The breathless extremist takes on both sides are a bit tiresome.