Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 296 posts

Re: AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

#21

Post by preommr »

d_watt wrote: post #11

It took 20 years for computers to "add" to the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox

I am not saying this to be sarcastic - the problem is that people from OpenAI/Antrhopic are saying things like superintelligence in 3 years, or boris saying coding is solved and that 100% of his code is written by AI.

It's not good enough to just say oreo ceos say we need to more oreos.

There's a real grey area where these tools are useful in some capacity, and in that confusion we're spending billions. Too may people are saying too conflicting things and chaos is never good for clear long-term growth.

Either that 20 years is completelly inapplicable to AI, or we're in for a world of hurt. There's no in between given the kinds of bets that have been made.

Re: AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

#22

Post by recursive »

kakapo5672 wrote: post #16
d_watt wrote: post #11

It took 20 years for computers to "add" to the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox

Yep, and the same with the internet. During the 1990s and 2000s, people kept wondering why the internet wasn't showing up in productivity numbers. Many asked if the internet was therefore just a fad or bubble. Same as some now do with AI. It takes time for technology to show measurable impact in enormous economies. No reason why AI will be any different.

Also no particular reason to group it in with those two. There are plenty of things that never showed up at all. It's just not a signal It's kind of like "My kid is failing math, but he's just bored. Einstein failed a lot too you know". Regardless of whether Einstein actually failed anything, there are a lot more non-Einsteins that have failed.

Re: AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

#24

Post by yifanl »

d_watt wrote: post #11

It took 20 years for computers to "add" to the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox

The difference being that AI's marketing has been significantly more prevalent than any early computing efforts.

Re: AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

#25

Post by loloquwowndueo »

codexon wrote: post #15
deterministic wrote: post #12

I completely agree. If AI can't do 100% of a job then you can't remove the job. And most jobs that can be automated already has been automated using traditional software.

You can replace it with a much lower paid employee though.

A lower paid and less qualified employee won’t be able to spot when the AI screws up.

Having a higher-paid, qualified employee supervising multiple AIs as the human only needs to spot for mistakes - maybe.

Re: AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

#27

Post by codexon »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #25
codexon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can replace it with a much lower paid employee though.

A lower paid and less qualified employee won’t be able to spot when the AI screws up. Having a higher-paid, qualified employee supervising multiple AIs as the human only needs to spot for mistakes - maybe.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. For most things, checking if a solution is correct is much easier than implementing it (page looks wrong, can't login etc...)

Re: AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

#28

Post by rainsford »

kakapo5672 wrote: post #16
d_watt wrote: post #11

It took 20 years for computers to "add" to the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox

Yep, and the same with the internet. During the 1990s and 2000s, people kept wondering why the internet wasn't showing up in productivity numbers. Many asked if the internet was therefore just a fad or bubble. Same as some now do with AI. It takes time for technology to show measurable impact in enormous economies. No reason why AI will be any different.

Sure, but you have to consider Carl Sagan's point, "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Some truly useful technologies start out slow and the question is asked if they are fads or bubbles even though they end up having huge impact. But plenty of things that at first appeared to be fads or bubbles truly were fads or bubbles.

Personally I think AI is unlikely to go the way of NFTs and it shows actual promise. What I'm much less convinced of is that it will prove valuable in a way that's even remotely within the same order of magnitude as the investments being pumped into it. The Internet didn't begin as a massive black hole sucking all the light out of the room for anything else before it really started showing commensurate ROI.

Re: AI Added 'Basically Zero' to US Economic Growth Last Year, Goldman Sachs Says

#29

Post by bryanlarsen »

co_king_5 wrote: post #23
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely missing a /s

[dead]

Jokes are downvoted to push them to the bottom of the conversation where they belong. They're the dessert of a serious conversation; meat and potatoes should come first.
Post reply on HN