[discodonkey]

This article, like Citrini research's scenario before it, misses much of the economics.

AI is unlikely to be as revolutionary as is presumed. It's definitely going to lead to increased productivity, and will probably render some jobs redundant, but it's unlikely to have a significant effect on wages/employment [1], and as of now there isn't one [2]. When it does effect workers (which is still uncommon), AI mostly leads to task reallocation.

Right now, AI's massive valuations seem more like a reflection of the typical speculation that accompanies major technological innovations (thinking IoT, railroads, automobiles) than of its real economic value [3].

The "dead economy" scenario would only be possible in the event of extraordinary, and extraordinarily-unlikely levels of AI-driven unemployment.

[1] https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20...

[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w33509

[3] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2003-0...

[movpasd]

I think the point is that even if AI returns don't materialise, there is a dangerous implicit political project among AI moguls to get to this state. Even if we get 10% the way there, there could be serious damage done to the system as part of that pursuit: the regulatory capture loop will tighten, inequality will rise [0], capital will be locked up in data centres. The economy is a big path-dependent system. We can hope, if AI is as middling as your sources suggest, that it collapses back to economic equilibrium. But plenty of past societies have had inefficient and politically captured economic systems. Movement towards equilibrium requires liberal institutions, the foundations of which might be under threat.

[0] Really as a continuation of existing trends rather than its own unique thing.

[ozim]

Sorry but AI is already revolutionary.

It is not AGI but current SOTA/Frontier models can do stuff that was never possible before. Even like 2 years ago AI was starting to disrupt whole industries.

I think you might have higher expectations to call something “revolutionary”. But for me revolution is already happening right here right now.

[disgruntledphd2]

Revolutionary in the Internet sense, not revolutionary in the Skynet sense.

[ozim]

Tell that to copywriters and translators, all those tech workers that were fired in thousands.

[discodonkey]

The current wave of tech layoffs is much like those that preceded it (e.g. after the pandemic), except this time AI is used as a scapegoat.

[emsign]

For over a decade there were talks of an academia bubble in the US and that choosing a trade job actually puts you in a financially better position compared to almost all college and univeristy degrees except finance and computer science.

People have to understand that they are merely cells in a bigger organism at work. As some types of cells can be more easily be replaced by AI agents than others, some earlier, some later.

People have been replaceable forever in capitalism. It's what makes it run, turning workers into a commodity or replaceable assets.

Now the big fantasy of the big AI companies is of course that almost everyone will be replaced by THEIR products. They are in the scaling business, large models, large compute, no optimization because scaling is faster, they are in a sprint, not in a marathon. The sprint will end eventually.

But AI will stay. The future will be decided between large scaling which means data centers, subscription models, centralized control, or decentralized, local, smarter more optimized lean models, with curated training. Tech has already anticipated that owning hardware that is capable of neuronal computing is the key to the future. The battle for hardware ownership has just begun and it's immensely important.

And a similar battle is happening inside corporations right now. Big tech wants to implant their subscription/cloud model into the economy, into as many businesses as possible. If they succeed we are in trouble. Because even though their fantasy will fail, forcing it unto us will do a lot of destructition to human society.

I can only encourage people to DIY, to learn a trade as a backup and be hands-on when it comes to computing. Don't aim for a high paying job and buy gimmicks that do things for you, that manage your life with "personal AI" or some bullshit. While actually you would have the skills to build the work or personal tools for yourself, share your designs or even start a company that does things differently. You all can shape things.

AI is so new, almost nobody has an idea of what it could do for them. There isn't a demand yet because people don't know what it could do. So big tech tries to create demands in all sorts of ways. This is what's happening right now, it's not set in stone.

[disgruntledphd2]

yeah, there'll be loads and loads of disruption, but it'll take a lot longer than many people expect (much like the internet disruption did).

[ozim]

I thought you meant „as internet” that it is superficial and not real world consequences. Clear now.

[disgruntledphd2]

Apologies, I see lots of similarities between the dotcom bubble and the current bubble. It'll be interesting to see if the same similarities are seen on the downswing (if and when that happens).