Thousand of companies to be replaced by leaner counterparts that learned to use AI towards greater employment and productivity
Where are my LLM-crafted Google and Instagram?
Not part if the thousands
AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
781–783 of 783 posts
Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#782Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox
#783Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I am very sure. And it isn't that difficult to understand, it is skill input graphed against effectiveness output. A higher floor just means that with 1 skill, you are guaranteed at least X (say, 20) effectiveness output. https://imgur.com/tOHltkx The confusion comes from people using "skill floor" for "learning curve" instead of "effectiveness". But this is a thing where definitions have shifted over time. Like…
If the skill floor is high and therefore "effectiveness" is the same for a wide range of skill levels, isn't that the same as having a high barrier to entry? It seems that any activity or game where it takes a lot of skill before you can differentiate yourself from other players would be described that way.
No, a high skill floor is the opposite. It means that anyone can pick up the thing and immediately do decently.
To put it simply, think assault rifle vs sniper rifle. Anyone can use the AR and spray and pray and do pretty okay. You can't do that with the sniper rifle. So the AR has a high skill floor (minimum effectiveness) whereas the sniper rifle has a low skill floor (low minimum effectiveness). But the AR has a low skill ceiling too a point where you can put in endless amounts of skill and see no improvement in effectiveness. The sniper being an infinite range OHKO can scale to the end given aim skill and map knowledge.
Another example would be Reinhardt in Overwatch. You can tell a noob to "look in that direction and deploy shield" and they will contribute to the team. You can't put a noob on Widowmaker and have them contribute (as) significantly.