But presumably you could have built it before, just slower, which is the point. For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.
The biggest issue at most companies is making a lot of heat and noise while not actually delivering effectively, so I expect AI to
make this problem worse.
Usually, companies benefit more from slowing down and prioritizing, not ‘going faster’.
> For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.
It will still be a win: the rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy.
Just like other productivity improvements in the past, it will likely be shared amongst various stakeholders depending on a variety of factors. The workers will get the lion's share.
Labour share have GDP has held roughly constant throughout the ages, even as we saw massive productivity increases since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. These are two completely different things.
Image the labour share of GDP could be a constant 100%, but perhaps the top 1% of workers (eg CEOs) get all the rewards and the other 99% get nothing.
(That's not meant to be realistic, just to illustrate that you can have a very unequal distribution despite a high or even growing labour share of GDP. No opinion expressed on whether the statistics you cite are any good.)
That means that some (few) workers may be getting the lion's share (but note that "income" isn't limited to workers, so it may also be none), not workers in general. People are interested in the latter, not the former.
