Mosty I do agree, but FWIW "wages grow during the initial period but then collapse" is the standard trajectory in econ models of the situation (eg Korinek and Suh (2024). Scenarios for the Transition to AGI) and is also what we mention in Gradual Disempowerment. In this sense the "two competing perspectives" "AI Snake Oil" vs. "Intelligence Curse" seems like a more nuanced existing understanding was partially replaced by oversimplified "x vs. y" takes.
Thanks. I do agree that a lot of the scholarly work on this, and some of the more sophisticated scenario-building, does well to reflect that nuance. I think policy advocacy and political communication around this is not at that level yet, which is mostly what I'm referring to - but I'll make sure to clarify that!
Thanks for this! The two phase framing is logical and clarifying.
Absent redistributive policy, it seems like the human welfare implications of phase 2 are sensitive to how rich society is. At some threshold, if there is enough wealth being generated, the ultra-rich might donate enough money to support displaced human workers. In that case, the loss of market income might not severely reduce living standards. For example, Bill Gates would willingly sacrifice a lot of his consumption to take care of the rest of humanity.
That might seem absurdly optimistic and maybe it is. But by phase 2, I would think we would have far greater wealth/income than we currently do and far more concentration that we currently do, such that it's hard to think about without a model. In that scenario, welfare depends on:
Mosty I do agree, but FWIW "wages grow during the initial period but then collapse" is the standard trajectory in econ models of the situation (eg Korinek and Suh (2024). Scenarios for the Transition to AGI) and is also what we mention in Gradual Disempowerment. In this sense the "two competing perspectives" "AI Snake Oil" vs. "Intelligence Curse" seems like a more nuanced existing understanding was partially replaced by oversimplified "x vs. y" takes.
Thanks. I do agree that a lot of the scholarly work on this, and some of the more sophisticated scenario-building, does well to reflect that nuance. I think policy advocacy and political communication around this is not at that level yet, which is mostly what I'm referring to - but I'll make sure to clarify that!
Thanks for this! The two phase framing is logical and clarifying.
Absent redistributive policy, it seems like the human welfare implications of phase 2 are sensitive to how rich society is. At some threshold, if there is enough wealth being generated, the ultra-rich might donate enough money to support displaced human workers. In that case, the loss of market income might not severely reduce living standards. For example, Bill Gates would willingly sacrifice a lot of his consumption to take care of the rest of humanity.
That might seem absurdly optimistic and maybe it is. But by phase 2, I would think we would have far greater wealth/income than we currently do and far more concentration that we currently do, such that it's hard to think about without a model. In that scenario, welfare depends on:
1. The amount of redistribution (more is better)
2. The amount of resources (more is better)
3. The amount of concentration (ambiguous?)
4. The generousity of the rich (more is better)