61–70 of 116 posts
Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? That would end the controversy about whether AI is "Physics."
Acemoglu has been a brilliant and prolific econ writer, and I enjoy his exposition. Many have commented on his "Why Nations Fail", and rightly so. More recently, he also wrote "Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity".
I'm more interested in his thoughts on tech and development (than on instituions and democracy), and he doesn't disappoint.
More topically for HN folks, he wrote on "The Simple Macroeconomics of AI" [1]. Unlike many contemporary researchers / writers (incl. Ethan Mollick) who are completely ga-ga over prospects of AI-driven economy over the next decade, Acemoglu is more reserved.
His top findings:
Modest Productivity Gains: Estimates suggest TFP growth from AI will be less than 0.55% to 0.71% over 10 years, limited by the complexity of tasks.
Hard vs. Easy Tasks: AI's impact on "hard-to-learn" tasks, which lack clear metrics and are context-sensitive, will likely produce smaller gains than on simpler tasks.
Wage Effects: AI's productivity benefits may not substantially raise wages, particularly for low-skill workers.
Inequality Impact: AI is unlikely to reduce labor income inequality significantly and may widen the gap between capital and labor incomes.
Task Complementarity: AI could enhance productivity by complementing human workers, though benefits may be limited if task prices fall.
Role of New Tasks: New AI-enabled tasks could boost productivity, but some may also create negative social value, such as manipulative content.
Automation Limitations: Extensive-margin automation may not lead to substantial wage increases if displacement effects outweigh productivity benefits.
Consumer Welfare: Increases in GDP may overstate consumer welfare improvements due to investment's impact on consumption.
Capital-Labor Dynamics: AI's use may increase the capital share of income, further shifting income away from labor.
Investment Response: AI-related productivity gains will likely trigger only modest capital stock increases.
I'm cautious -- neither too optimistic (although the engineer in me wants to believe in the AI-driven future) nor too pessimistic (but I'm also very, very realistic in broad adoption and benefits dissemination of AI).
His recent chat with FT [2] is also illuminating (Sep 2024).
---
[1] https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20... (Apr 2024)
[2] FT audio interview - https://www.ft.com/content/e865a777-501a-4417-839e-dffd4b520... (Sep 2024)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You don't read my mind well if you think that I am against China defending itself. Most nations have an army for that purpose. I am against China performing threatening exercises near Taiwan and against China claiming the majority of the South China Sea for themselves when hundreds of millions of other people live on its shores. Ever heard of "the Nine Dashes"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line That has zi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't read my mind well if you think that I am against China defending itself. Most nations have an army for that purpose. I am against China performing threatening exercises near Taiwan and against China claiming the majority of the South China Sea for themselves when hundreds of millions of other people live on its shores. Ever heard of "the Nine Dashes"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line That has zi…
[flagged]
So by this yardstick you're acknowledging that India has the right to control the entirety of the "Indian Ocean", correct?
And the same with the Sea of Japan, and that Inner Mongolia is really a part of Mongolia, not China?
:-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't read my mind well if you think that I am against China defending itself. Most nations have an army for that purpose. I am against China performing threatening exercises near Taiwan and against China claiming the majority of the South China Sea for themselves when hundreds of millions of other people live on its shores. Ever heard of "the Nine Dashes"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line That has zi…
[flagged]
I strongly recommend Acemoglu, Robinson classic book "Why Nations Fail" https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/d... It's very accessible, no economics background required. Along with Krugman and Kahneman, one of the few economics scholars that take the time to write a book for layman.
> Krugman Not sure I'd spend time on a Krugman book. He predicted in 1998 that the internet would cease having an economic impact by 2005 and that it would be no greater than fax machines. He's like the Neil deGrasse Tyson of economics.
The future is hard to predict. Using that as a reason to discount a Nobel-prize economist's economics-related work sounds like a gap in logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Krugman is controversial at times, but he is a serious economist. The quote is also taken out of two important contexts. 1. It was not a serious academic prediction but rather part of a fluff piece by the Times about future precitions. 2. The quote also exists in the context of a debate that was raging during the advent of the internet whether or not the internet would hyper charge productivity and economic growth. I…
The lack of visible productivity growth. In particular, it's not as visible as you expect in the GDP statistics . Take TV Guide, for instance. Now, if anybody watches broadcast television, they can use the internet to find out what's on when. Is that better or worse for users than having a paper TV guide? In many ways it's better. But it shows up in the GDP as a negative, because nobody's buying TV Guide any more. Or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Krugman is controversial at times, but he is a serious economist. The quote is also taken out of two important contexts. 1. It was not a serious academic prediction but rather part of a fluff piece by the Times about future precitions. 2. The quote also exists in the context of a debate that was raging during the advent of the internet whether or not the internet would hyper charge productivity and economic growth. I…
> Krugman is controversial at times Kind of like saying Lysenko was controversial at times. He's not "controversial," he's just a bloviator. His credentials as a serious economist expired long ago when he signed up with the leftist team and agreed to never challenge them again, on anything. When you have to spend many words on explaining the "context" in which someone's quotes should be viewed, you are losing.
You might be (unpleasantly) surprised by the emphasis of the current year's nobel economics prize winners on the importance of societal institutions and the need for inclusivity to advance the wealth of nations :-)
The "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original ones endowed by Alfred Nobel. As the name implies, it was created by a bank. Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? That would end the controversy about whether AI is "Physics."
The headline should read "Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson won Not a Nobel Prize in Economics."
We shouldn't validate the idea that one can earn a Nobel in economics. It's simply not possible because such a prize does not exist. Shame on economists for attempting to legitimize economics using the memory of Alfred Nobel. It is low, even for them.
The "Nobel Prize in Economics" was not one of the original ones endowed by Alfred Nobel. As the name implies, it was created by a bank. Is there any reason Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk can't endow a Prize in Computer Science? That would end the controversy about whether AI is "Physics."