I'm not sure exactly what the full mental model is based on that clip alone.
But, basically all AI VCs point to the past of technological history and show that although tech automates some jobs away, it creates more jobs in the end. And, without a doubt, this is true. Way more people are being emplo…
I'm not sure exactly what the full mental model is based on that clip alone.
But, basically all AI VCs point to the past of technological history and show that although tech automates some jobs away, it creates more jobs in the end. And, without a doubt, this is true. Way more people are being employed now than ever in jobs that couldn't have been predicted in advance.
But, I think the mistake they almost all make is putting AI in the bucket of technology and assuming it has all of the properties of past technologies. My counterargument is that if AI replaces ALL of the existing and possible knowledge work, because anything a human could do, an AI could do better, faster, and cheaper, then we should look at AI as being different than past technologies.
The truth is that no one knows for certain whether or not AI will get to the point of doing all possible knowledge work better than humans, but it is worth noting that the heads of the top AI labs (Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Dario Amodei, Demis Hassabbis) think that this will likely happen in the next 2-3 years (give or take a year or two). Granted, these individuals are biased as well, but they also are in the best place to predict the future of AI development.
Hey Isaac - Thanks for sharing the clip.
I'm not sure exactly what the full mental model is based on that clip alone.
But, basically all AI VCs point to the past of technological history and show that although tech automates some jobs away, it creates more jobs in the end. And, without a doubt, this is true. Way more people are being employed now than ever in jobs that couldn't have been predicted in advance.
But, I think the mistake they almost all make is putting AI in the bucket of technology and assuming it has all of the properties of past technologies. My counterargument is that if AI replaces ALL of the existing and possible knowledge work, because anything a human could do, an AI could do better, faster, and cheaper, then we should look at AI as being different than past technologies.
The truth is that no one knows for certain whether or not AI will get to the point of doing all possible knowledge work better than humans, but it is worth noting that the heads of the top AI labs (Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Dario Amodei, Demis Hassabbis) think that this will likely happen in the next 2-3 years (give or take a year or two). Granted, these individuals are biased as well, but they also are in the best place to predict the future of AI development.
What do you think about my logic?