Can we just backronym AI to Approximate Intelligence and carry on?
There are so many dangers and possibilities of AI that are fascinating, and none of them are even remotely as interesting as those of actual animal and human intelligence.
It's as if AI is held up as a mirror to our stupidity, and the Turing Test is how we measure ourselves against our models of computation. I'm really weirded out by the fear and exploitation being demonstrated.
There's more to reality, and intelligence, than mathematical models we currently use and pretend to understand.
“Why should I refuse a good dinner simply because I don’t understand the digestive processes involved?”
GDP is measured both as production and as consumption. The figures have to be the same, within a "statistical discrepancy". The consumption is final consumption: goods and services used by households.
You are asserting that households will each have 100 times the income that they do now (and be spending the same proportion of income as they do now).
Edit: I believe that if most companies, or even a significant minority of them, can make effective use of LLMs, the most likely short term effect is a prolonged recession (i.e. steadily declining GDP, not increasing) with high unemployment.
I'm saying that many things that cost $100 in 2020 will cost less than $1 for the exact same thing in 2028. It is already happening in 2023. How much would it cost in 2020 to get a 2000 word essay written at a 10th grade level? What is the cost of the same service today?
When a service costs goes down 99% that 99% goes directly into GDP growth.
> many things ... a 2000 word essay written at a 10th grade level
That is one thing, not many. And it's also a fairly specific thing. I don't know about the general population but personally my need to acquire such an essay is fairly low. I haven't had the need to buy one in the last fifty years, probably never.
There may well be the occasional service that drops 100x in price, but that would apply only to a small fraction of GDP. Most goods and services are already pretty well optimized. Amdahl's law applies and means that claims of rapid order of magnitude GDP growth are completely ridiculous.
Disruption is likely, yes, but we're talking about different orders of magnitude here.
And GP has a point. AI affects the supply side of the economy, but sustained development depends on the demand side. Given the overall political climate, the effect of AI on the demand side is far from clear.
Currently LLMs cannot construct factories, grow crops, or transport goods. Even if it leads to brilliant inventions that were otherwise impossible before, it takes a while for humans to physically make or do things.
How confident are you in your prediction? I’d be willing to make a wager with you that would pay off big if you’re right.
There are so many dangers and possibilities of AI that are fascinating, and none of them are even remotely as interesting as those of actual animal and human intelligence.
It's as if AI is held up as a mirror to our stupidity, and the Turing Test is how we measure ourselves against our models of computation. I'm really weirded out by the fear and exploitation being demonstrated.
There's more to reality, and intelligence, than mathematical models we currently use and pretend to understand.
“Why should I refuse a good dinner simply because I don’t understand the digestive processes involved?”
— Oliver Heaviside