I think that market growth isn’t well defined. I don’t believe market capitalization is particularly meaningful. Suppose we look at the sum value of all transactions made in crypto and we compare that to the sum values of transactions made in other currencies. For arguments sake lets say this is currently 1:10,000 and a two order magnitude change will bring this to 1:100 . So what will happen? Probably nothing. I would think for this to happen the successful cryptocurrencies will need to end up looking a lot more like todays payment methods. If somehow something akin to bitcoin becomes the ‘official’ world currency, I imagine those who do the labor would find alternative means to trade amongst themselves.
If crypto (or else) turns hugely profitable over night I’d expect resources and talent to leave AGI in favor of crypto. However I would also expect a similar reduction in resources within safety research; for every year you buy safety research, they’d take another year to get the same work done.
Thanks! I can’t argue for the importance of market capitalization, but I don’t think transactions are a good proxy either. For something to actually be used as currency, its value would have to be somewhat predictable, so I think that role will fall toward cryptocurrencies like the stablecoins that we have. The deflationary cryptocurrencies are more likely to be used as “stores of value,” just bought and held by most owners, and traded only by traders on markets where you don’t actually exchange the underlying coin (like most centralized crypto exchanges today).
Hmhmm, yeah maybe… I suppose it should be the default assumption that sectors behave the same unless there are differences between them. But I can think of some differences. Crypto finance may be highly automated, so there may be few jobs there. The energy and hardware sectors may grow, but perhaps also not to the point where they can absorb all labor. So people will either fall into the category of (1) desperately looking for employment or (2) not in need of employment. The assumption is that AGI development will slow because companies are not incentivized to invest in it – compute or staff. Just as an observation, AI safety people will enter this period with capital. Also they’re not motivated primarily by profit but by saving the world. So they’ll be motivated and able to pay the people in group 1 and retain the people in group 2, who may not even ask for a salary. That could still lead to a differential speed-up.
Why do you think that transactions are a poor proxy? I don’t fully buy into the “store or value” idea. My uneducated opinion is something can only store value if it has an underlying use. Facilitating black markets is certainly an economically valid use.
I’m confused by your second paragraph. Perhaps some of it is intended as a response to my answer to your first question? The primary argument which I can identify is that AI safety is not motivated by profit, but by saving the world. Saving the world requires money. Many people working on AGI probably think it will have an enormous positive impact on the world, so I can equally claim that they might not even ask for salary.
I don’t find you’re argument convincing. It requires a lot of conditionals and appears to contain much room for error/oversight. You might be right but it doesn’t serve me to speculate deeply into this topic, I’m content with not knowing.
There is the existence proof of gold, silver, platinum, etc. But people have mostly convinced me already that 2 OOM are not going to be enough to have much of an effect.
I think you understand my argument correctly. :-) You argued that AI safety will not differentially speed up compared to AI capabilities because it will slow down at the same rate. Maybe not literally the same rate but the same rate in expectation. But that still seems unlikely to me since I can think of reasons why it would slow down less but can’t think of reasons why it would slow down more.
Yes, precious metals are used as stores of value, however they are also used in electronics and in jewelry (which functions as a way to signal wealth). So I don’t consider them counterexamples.
It’s fair for you to believe that, but you’re probably using a lot of weak evidence so it’s hard to communicate that evidence to me. I’m just saying that what you did share wasn’t sufficient to shift my opinion.
I think that market growth isn’t well defined. I don’t believe market capitalization is particularly meaningful. Suppose we look at the sum value of all transactions made in crypto and we compare that to the sum values of transactions made in other currencies. For arguments sake lets say this is currently 1:10,000 and a two order magnitude change will bring this to 1:100 . So what will happen? Probably nothing. I would think for this to happen the successful cryptocurrencies will need to end up looking a lot more like todays payment methods. If somehow something akin to bitcoin becomes the ‘official’ world currency, I imagine those who do the labor would find alternative means to trade amongst themselves.
If crypto (or else) turns hugely profitable over night I’d expect resources and talent to leave AGI in favor of crypto. However I would also expect a similar reduction in resources within safety research; for every year you buy safety research, they’d take another year to get the same work done.
Thanks! I can’t argue for the importance of market capitalization, but I don’t think transactions are a good proxy either. For something to actually be used as currency, its value would have to be somewhat predictable, so I think that role will fall toward cryptocurrencies like the stablecoins that we have. The deflationary cryptocurrencies are more likely to be used as “stores of value,” just bought and held by most owners, and traded only by traders on markets where you don’t actually exchange the underlying coin (like most centralized crypto exchanges today).
Hmhmm, yeah maybe… I suppose it should be the default assumption that sectors behave the same unless there are differences between them. But I can think of some differences. Crypto finance may be highly automated, so there may be few jobs there. The energy and hardware sectors may grow, but perhaps also not to the point where they can absorb all labor. So people will either fall into the category of (1) desperately looking for employment or (2) not in need of employment. The assumption is that AGI development will slow because companies are not incentivized to invest in it – compute or staff. Just as an observation, AI safety people will enter this period with capital. Also they’re not motivated primarily by profit but by saving the world. So they’ll be motivated and able to pay the people in group 1 and retain the people in group 2, who may not even ask for a salary. That could still lead to a differential speed-up.
Why do you think that transactions are a poor proxy? I don’t fully buy into the “store or value” idea. My uneducated opinion is something can only store value if it has an underlying use. Facilitating black markets is certainly an economically valid use.
I’m confused by your second paragraph. Perhaps some of it is intended as a response to my answer to your first question? The primary argument which I can identify is that AI safety is not motivated by profit, but by saving the world. Saving the world requires money. Many people working on AGI probably think it will have an enormous positive impact on the world, so I can equally claim that they might not even ask for salary.
I don’t find you’re argument convincing. It requires a lot of conditionals and appears to contain much room for error/oversight. You might be right but it doesn’t serve me to speculate deeply into this topic, I’m content with not knowing.
Oh sorry, I didn’t see your comment.
There is the existence proof of gold, silver, platinum, etc. But people have mostly convinced me already that 2 OOM are not going to be enough to have much of an effect.
I think you understand my argument correctly. :-) You argued that AI safety will not differentially speed up compared to AI capabilities because it will slow down at the same rate. Maybe not literally the same rate but the same rate in expectation. But that still seems unlikely to me since I can think of reasons why it would slow down less but can’t think of reasons why it would slow down more.
Yes, precious metals are used as stores of value, however they are also used in electronics and in jewelry (which functions as a way to signal wealth). So I don’t consider them counterexamples.
It’s fair for you to believe that, but you’re probably using a lot of weak evidence so it’s hard to communicate that evidence to me. I’m just saying that what you did share wasn’t sufficient to shift my opinion.