41–50 of 55 posts
How will there be economic growth if humans will keep losing their jobs due to AI? You know we do need a customer base of actual human beings to sell things to. AI buying AI products AIn't gonna cut it.
Not sure why everyone is saying no, the answer is obviously yes. Having infinitely patient and accurate brains that can spin up in a dime will be the greatest economic boon we have ever seen.
so take me for example.. A single father. how will AI make Me more money?
With that being the case, there's efforts underway to stifle AI. It looks like big business hasn't been the quickest to adopt. It's been full steam ahead on things like self-driving cars, even though at times the level of safety has been exaggerated (at least in the early years).
P.S. This is probably a load of nonsense, as evidenced by the many people working on AI, and all the money going into it but it seems like business hasn't been the most enthusiastic. It's never because they truly care.
P.S.S I also don't know how that would work exactly, but I could see things looking different with everything working fine and "employees" now having free time. Not having money to give them, and time to think "hey, why does that guy get all the stuff while we starve, maybe we should find a way to fix".
There's also the reality that while proprietary AI models could be bad for workers, AI could also be bad for big business. Highly disruptive if this can't be controlled. It's not always material costs, sometimes the issue is just that you could never staff teams of engineers to work on problem. Or you have a staff of engineers and need artists... here it seems the artists could actually have the upper hand, which is nice to see :)
No. Undoubtedly No. There are some applications that will benefit directly from this technological improvement, but it is not a widely applicable as everyone is making it to be. In the areas what it is broadly applicable, it will improve efficiency and also a loss of a few jobs, which might make it mostly neutral from an economic point of view.
Ironically more production does not always lead to growth. A thought experiment: if you have everyone a machine to produce miniature bombs, would there be economic growth? There would be a huge increase in the number of bombs produced (creating GDP growth) but then a huge loss of productivity due to destruction and extra steps to protect things from the copious amount of bombs used. Overall, this would lead to a loss…
I have a (non-serious) conspiracy theory that the reality of AI is exactly counter to what we think. Once AI takes hold, we will no longer see such extremes of income inequality. With that being the case, there's efforts underway to stifle AI. It looks like big business hasn't been the quickest to adopt. It's been full steam ahead on things like self-driving cars, even though at times the level of safety has been exa…
That's a very optimistic view. From where I'm sitting, it seems like the rich people control all three of the important AI companies (OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic) and all one (Nvidia) of the important chipmakers, so they will likely get even richer and many comparatively poor people will lose their jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDP growth doesn't necessarily mean any one person will be better off. But regardless, if you, say, build something with the help of AI that you couldn't do before, it could make you money, depending on how much you sell.
The ease with which he can use AI is the same as for everyone else. Therefore he gains no relative benefit and can't "make money from AI". However, information-retrieval and "thinking assistance" helps everyone at the same time. Asking for summarization and clarification of any (legal or technical) document, finding the right references, and so on. It's like everyone gets instant access to a research department. This…
Not really, people are not equal in output. Some people can use their tools much better than others, like juniors versus master craftspeople. Even in startups we see some succeed while many fail, and while there may be macroeconomic conditions (or otherwise those outside of one's control) for such failure, some still rest on the founders themselves and their decisions.