Why does a book about AI begin with economic growth?
I don’t think it’s really possible to make strong predictions about the impact of AI by looking at the history of economic growth.
This introduction sets the reader’s mind onto subjects of very large scope: the largest events over the entirety of human history. It reminds the reader that very large changes have already happened in history, so it would be a mistake to be very confident that there will never again be a very large change. And, frankly, it underlines the seriousness of the book by talking about what is uncontroversially a Serious Topic, so that they are less likely to think of machines taking over the world as a frivolous idea when it is raised.
I havnt read the book yet, but based on the summary here (and for what it is worth), I found the jump from 1-5 under economic growth above to 6 a little unconvincing.
I find the whole idea of predicting AI-driven economic growth based on analysis of all of human history as a single set of data really unconvincing. It is one thing to extrapolate up-take patterns of a particular technology based on similar technologies in the past. But “true AI” is so broad, and, at least on many accounts, so transformative, that making such macro-predictions seems a fool’s errand.
If you knew AI to be radically more transformative than other technologies, I agree that predictions based straightforwardly on history would be inaccurate. If you are unsure how transformative AI will be though, it seems to me to be helpful to look at how often other technologies have made a big difference, and how much of a difference they have made. I suspect many technologies would seem transformative ahead of time—e.g. writing, but seem to have made little difference to economic growth.
From the inside it looks like automating the process of automation could lead to explosive growth.
Many simple endogenous growth models, if taken seriously, tend to predict explosive growth at finite time. (Including the simplest ones.)
A straightforward extrapolation of historical growth suggests explosive growth in the 21st century (depending on whether you read the great stagnation as a permanent change or a temporary fluctuation).
You might object to any one of those lines of arguments on their own, but taken together the story seems compelling to me (at least if one wants to argue “We should take seriously the possibility of explosive growth.”)
Oh, I completely agree with the prediction of explosive growth (or at least its strong likelihood), I just think (1) or something like it is a much better argument than 2 or 3.
What is the relationship between economic growth and AI? (Why does a book about AI begin with economic growth?)
I don’t think it’s really possible to make strong predictions about the impact of AI by looking at the history of economic growth.
This introduction sets the reader’s mind onto subjects of very large scope: the largest events over the entirety of human history. It reminds the reader that very large changes have already happened in history, so it would be a mistake to be very confident that there will never again be a very large change. And, frankly, it underlines the seriousness of the book by talking about what is uncontroversially a Serious Topic, so that they are less likely to think of machines taking over the world as a frivolous idea when it is raised.
I havnt read the book yet, but based on the summary here (and for what it is worth), I found the jump from 1-5 under economic growth above to 6 a little unconvincing.
I find the whole idea of predicting AI-driven economic growth based on analysis of all of human history as a single set of data really unconvincing. It is one thing to extrapolate up-take patterns of a particular technology based on similar technologies in the past. But “true AI” is so broad, and, at least on many accounts, so transformative, that making such macro-predictions seems a fool’s errand.
If you knew AI to be radically more transformative than other technologies, I agree that predictions based straightforwardly on history would be inaccurate. If you are unsure how transformative AI will be though, it seems to me to be helpful to look at how often other technologies have made a big difference, and how much of a difference they have made. I suspect many technologies would seem transformative ahead of time—e.g. writing, but seem to have made little difference to economic growth.
Here is another way of looking at things:
From the inside it looks like automating the process of automation could lead to explosive growth.
Many simple endogenous growth models, if taken seriously, tend to predict explosive growth at finite time. (Including the simplest ones.)
A straightforward extrapolation of historical growth suggests explosive growth in the 21st century (depending on whether you read the great stagnation as a permanent change or a temporary fluctuation).
You might object to any one of those lines of arguments on their own, but taken together the story seems compelling to me (at least if one wants to argue “We should take seriously the possibility of explosive growth.”)
Oh, I completely agree with the prediction of explosive growth (or at least its strong likelihood), I just think (1) or something like it is a much better argument than 2 or 3.
Would you care to elaborate?
A good AI would cause explosive economic growth in a variety of areas. We lose alot of money to human error and so on.