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.
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.