Comment by danans
4 months ago
Even in the unlikely event AI somehow delivers on its valuations and thereby doesn't disappoint, the implied negative externalities on the population (mass worker redundancy, inequality that makes even our current scenario look rosy, skyrocketing electricity costs) means that America's and the world's future looks like a rocky road.
I think part of the problem is the variance (economically) of AI delivering is so wide, that even that's hard to predict. e.g, is end stage AI:
- Where we have intelligent computers and robots that can take over most jobs
- A smarter LLM that can help with creative work but limited interaction with the physical world
- Something else we haven't imagined yet
Depending on where we end up, the current investment could provide a great ROI or a negative one.
I don't think many businesses are at the stage where they can actually measure whatever AI is delivering.
At one business I know they fired most senior developers and mandated junior developers to use AI. Stakeholders were happy as finally they could see their slides in action. But, at a cost of code base being unreadable and remaining senior employees leaving.
So on paper, everything is better than ever - cheap workers deliver work fast. But I suspect in few months' time it will all collapse.
Most likely they'll be looking to hire for complete rewrite or they'll go under.
In the light of this scenario, AI is false economy.
When standard of living increases significantly, inequality often also increases. The economy is not a zero sum game. Having both rising inequality and rising living standards is generally the thing to aim for.
Both parties seem to agree we should build more electric capacity, that does seem like an excellent thing to invest in, why aren't we?
As the cost of material goods decreases, they will become near free. IMO demand for human-produced goods and experiences will increase.
Yes, if AI proves to be a 10x productivity booster, it probably means most people will be unemployed
Electricity was a 10x productivity boost, just over a way longer timespan. We‘re just speedrunning this.
Also, what happens to those employed when they each have 10 people trying to take their job. It’s a downward spiral for employment as we know it.
The plow was a 10x productivity booster. Guess what happened next?
The main difference is that a plow cannot replace a human because a plow is a machine operated by a human.
The premise of AI is that it replaces humans.
Even if AI creates, say, 200 million new jobs - you would just fill those jobs with AI. Why would you fill them with humans? That's stupid.
5 replies →
10X population?
Not necessarily. If $x is enough to get you 10x more Software engineering effort, people may be willing to increase their spending on software engineering, rather than decrease it
"skyrocketing electricity costs"
You said it right here. No one is going to give up energy at such a cheap rate anymore. Those days are over. Darkness for the US is coming.
Solar is extremely cheap and battery costs are dropping quickly, IMO you may see US neighborhoods, especially rural disconnecting from the grid and rolling their own solutions.
This china rare earth thing may slow down the battery price drop somewhat but not for long because plenty of chemistries don't rely on rare earths, and there will soon be plenty of old EV packs that have some life left in them as part of grid storage.
cost for solar power and storage is decaying exponentially
scarcity isn't real anymore, it is enforced politically for the benefit of the owning class
> scarcity isn't real anymore, it is enforced politically for the benefit of the owning class
Whatever the reason, it nonetheless seems like higher electricity prices are inbound.
3 replies →
I personally hope AI doesn't quite deliver on its valuations, so we don't lose tons of jobs, but instead of a market crash, the money will rotate into quantum and crispr technologies (both soon to be trillion dollar+ industries). People who bet big on AI might lose out some but not be wiped out. That's best casing it though.
What would quantum technology actually deliver?
Other than collapsing the internet when every pre-quantum algorithm is broken (nice jobs for the engineers who need to scramble to fix everything, I guess) and even more uncrackable comms for the military. Drug and chemistry discovery could improve a lot?
And to be quite honest, the prospect of a massive biotech revolution is downright scary rather than exciting to me because AI might be able to convince a teenager to shoot up a school now and then, but, say, generally-available protein synthesis capability means nutters could print their own prions.
Better healthcare technology in particular would be nice, but rather like food, the problem is that we already can provide it at a high standard to most people and choose not to.
> And to be quite honest, the prospect of a massive biotech revolution is downright scary rather than exciting to me because AI might be able to convince a teenager to shoot up a school now and then, but, say, generally-available protein synthesis capability means nutters could print their own prions.
Yep this type of pandora's box is scary. Our culture demonstrably has no good mechanism for dealing with these kinds of existential risks.
Humans are fortunate that nuclear weapons turned out to be very difficult and expensive to build even with the theory widely known. If they were something anyone with an internet connection could create we would probably be extinct by now. There is absolutely no guarantee that future developments will have similar restrictions.
If bio-engineering gets accessible enough that any random motivated individual can create a new super bug we're pretty much doomed. Seems like something to worry about!
Healthcare costs are a real issue especially for gerontocracies like France, and driving them down would be a massive benefit to society
1 reply →
> What would quantum technology actually deliver?
We might be able to finally determine the factors of 21
Quantum had already peaked in the hype. It doesn't scale, like at all. It can't be used for abstract problems. We don't even know the optimal foundation base on which to start developing. It is now in the fusion territory. Fusion is also objectively useful with immense depth or research potential. It's just humans are too dumb for it, for now and so we will do it at scale centuries later.
Crispr would clash with the religious fundamentalists slowly coming back to power in all western countries. Potentially it will be even banned, like abortions.
I like this, because I hate the idea that we should either be rooting for AI to implode and cause a crash, or for it to succeed and cause a crash (or take us into some neo-feudal society).
seriously, LLMs are cool but if this level of investment was happening around crispr, longevity and other health tech I would be 1000X more excited.
"quantum" and "biotech" have been wishful thinking based promises for several years now, much like "artificial intelligence"
we need human development, not some shining new blackbox that will deliver us from all suffering
we need to stop seeking redemption and just work on the very real shortcomings of modern society... we don't even have scarcity anymore but the premise is still being upheld for the benefit of the 300 or so billionaire families...