For most of my life, I loved this whole idea. Now I'm not sure.
Personally, I would thrive living off a UBI. I would spend time on my hobbies, in nature, and so on. But I am close to several people who I know would just be high all the time. The main thing that keeps them moderately sober right now is the need to hold down a job.
I'm still very averse to the idea of government make work jobs, but I can see the argument in favor now.
But so far, there's no widespread evidence that AI is leading to a net loss of jobs. And where there is evidence, it's quite modest. Plus, many companies are using the current panic over AI as a convenient excuse to downsize after overhiring during the pandemic.
Is AI disruptive? Yes. But technology innovation always is. Long-term, AI is going to be highly dispersed and imbedded into everything, just like computers are now. More than 90% of jobs today require computer and digital skills. And just like machinery displaced textile workers in the 19th century, computers displaced a variety of workers in the 20th century. And perhaps AI will displace a certain number of workers in the 21st century.
However, I'm not sure this is an argument for adopting the Norwegian social welfare model. I can't see how a system that works in a tiny, homogenous country with the population of Atlanta would scale up to a highly diverse nation with more than 340 million people.
This was very interesting and well thought. I generally disagree somewhat with Matt as he is a bit further left economically than I am. And some of that still plays out in how to handle a world of hyper-profits from AI.
That said, I am glad to see someone else (I think Noah Smith is another key person I have seen say this) that there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume AI has a "moat" that would make it profitable in the way the last generation of software was rather than a commodity.
I was also interesting in something Matt says in the beginning about how feedback loops lead to capital being concentrated in fewer elite hands. While it's true that wealth inequality has grown over the last X number of years, it's also true that the percent of Amercians who own capital/participate in capital markets has nearly doubled in the last 40 years. So, more, not fewer, people are holding capital over time.
Nationalising the profits of a runaway frontier AI company that takes over the global economy is a great solution if you're the US or China. I don't know how every other country in the world is supposed to cope in this scenario.
For most of my life, I loved this whole idea. Now I'm not sure.
Personally, I would thrive living off a UBI. I would spend time on my hobbies, in nature, and so on. But I am close to several people who I know would just be high all the time. The main thing that keeps them moderately sober right now is the need to hold down a job.
I'm still very averse to the idea of government make work jobs, but I can see the argument in favor now.
But so far, there's no widespread evidence that AI is leading to a net loss of jobs. And where there is evidence, it's quite modest. Plus, many companies are using the current panic over AI as a convenient excuse to downsize after overhiring during the pandemic.
Is AI disruptive? Yes. But technology innovation always is. Long-term, AI is going to be highly dispersed and imbedded into everything, just like computers are now. More than 90% of jobs today require computer and digital skills. And just like machinery displaced textile workers in the 19th century, computers displaced a variety of workers in the 20th century. And perhaps AI will displace a certain number of workers in the 21st century.
However, I'm not sure this is an argument for adopting the Norwegian social welfare model. I can't see how a system that works in a tiny, homogenous country with the population of Atlanta would scale up to a highly diverse nation with more than 340 million people.
The economic problems are much easier to deal with than the cultural problems.
It's pretty easy to set up a tax and spend safety net
But much harder to deal with the fact that people need to have purpose. And especially men need to feel like they're providing for their family
History is full of examples of what happens when young men have too much free time.
Sitting around all day smoking weed and watching t v or gambling online is not heaven. It's hell
Why weird corporate tax schemes? I would rather a low corporate tax with a more progressive capital gains tax.
This was very interesting and well thought. I generally disagree somewhat with Matt as he is a bit further left economically than I am. And some of that still plays out in how to handle a world of hyper-profits from AI.
That said, I am glad to see someone else (I think Noah Smith is another key person I have seen say this) that there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume AI has a "moat" that would make it profitable in the way the last generation of software was rather than a commodity.
I was also interesting in something Matt says in the beginning about how feedback loops lead to capital being concentrated in fewer elite hands. While it's true that wealth inequality has grown over the last X number of years, it's also true that the percent of Amercians who own capital/participate in capital markets has nearly doubled in the last 40 years. So, more, not fewer, people are holding capital over time.
Nationalising the profits of a runaway frontier AI company that takes over the global economy is a great solution if you're the US or China. I don't know how every other country in the world is supposed to cope in this scenario.