4,348 karma · joined May 11, 2020
On reflection it is not surprising that SEZs have not been tried. They would be too embarassing to Europe's political class.
People are not thinking about the trend in AI. How good were AIs three years ago? How good are they now? How good will they be in another three years?
Kelsey Piper's analogy is good. How much smarter is a teacher than a room full of kindergartners? Who gets whom to do their bidding?
Edit: the numbers in parentheses are repeats. PIC 9(9) means up to 9 digits in the printed representation of the value stored in the variable that has this PIC.
If corps ever stop needing that, MS will be in trouble. Until then, few worries. They can play at following fads (not that I think AI is a fad) and not worry about execution.
This study is far too soon. In 2030, if nothing changes meanwhile, we might know the effect of AI as we have it now in 2025 on employment.
Collapse? People need to know and understand Adam Smith's remark that "there is a lot of ruin in a nation".
Microphones, amplifiers, filters speaker crossovers and so on - all explained failry nicely. The site has two main areas, projects and articles.
The first is the difference between capability and capacity - the ability to do someinthing, versus how much of it you can do. The transition from one to the other always seems blurred in reports of this sort. That transition is beset with all sorts of phenomena that are subject to Amdahl's Law (generalised to social processes). This always makes timeframes for general availability look implausible to me.
There is a large and venerable literature in economics on the diffusion of innovations; it appears that it is being totally ignored and that the report writers are failing to distinguish between invention, innovation, diffusion, and mass deployment. (It's reasonable to ignore maturation and decay/replacement, in this case. Probably.) Diffusion and mass deployment are probably the most difficult phases (because they are intrinsically social and political), and the least discussed.
The other thing is the microeconomic focus on productivity. If the claim is made that the whole economy will be affected, then the whole economy is the unit of analysis, and the tools of macroeconomics, not those of microeconomics, are appropriate for analysis. Short run, medium run and long run phenomena are salient as well, but the reports I have seen talk as though we are instantly in the long run. I'm in my 60s and I'm still waiting to live in the long run.
Exactly.
Anyway, you are shooting the messenger by downvoting me. Thanks for showing us all how intelligent you are.
Invention vs innovation vs diffusion - this is all well-known stuff.
It's a completely different episteme than the one IABIED guys have ("If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies").
I don't think there can be any meaningful dialogue between the two camps.
1. Substack: https://www.normaltech.ai/ book: https://www.normaltech.ai/p/starting-reading-the-ai-snake-oi...
2. "Normal technology" like fire, metals, agriculture, writing, and electricity are normal technologies.
Ai may be more like electricity than just electric motors. It gave us Hollywood and air travel. (Before electricity, aluminum as as expensive as platinum.)
As economists they are wedded to the idea that human wants are infinite, so as they things we do now are taken over, we will find other things to do: maybe wardrobe consultant, or interior designer, or lifestyle coach - things which only th rich can afford now, and which require a human touch. Maybe.
Anyway, all the model runs said this was going to happen. Robust to parameter variation, this result.
If you think electric motors are banal, then you don't understand the world around you, or what is was like before.