Does this argument imply that the marginal product of strictly-superhuman AI will equal exactly the copying cost, for all possible tasks? Assuming all tasks face diminishing returns.
Thanks, was using that term incorrectly. So in the long run in this model all AI use cases would have the same economic value (exactly equal to copying cost) per unit input?
"So human wages may face this upper bound from superhuman AIs, but that upper bound will be rising rapidly as technological progress accelerates beyond that pace at which the AI labor force can expand." I think this is an unlikely equilibrium; it's implausible to me that economic growth via technological progress will face slower diminishing returns than AI copying costs. However, you can still save good human wages in this strictly-superhuman AI world. In perfect competition, in the long run firms have zero economic profits. A world where labour and capital are perfect substitutes gets us a lot closer to perfect competition, but not all the way. There's still going to be IP, regulatory barriers, licensing, brand loyalty, economies of scale, private datasets, arguably first mover advantages. Many more that I'm not thinking of. So there will be persistent productivity differences between AI use cases, and that's all you need for human comparative advantage to sneak in.
I am glad you are optimistic about humanity’s economic future. Our economic future is filled by optimism. It is fuelled by vision, innovation, and the irrepressible belief that together, we can build prosperity grounded in trust and purpose. This optimism drives investment, creativity, and the bold action required to shape better outcomes in an ever-changing world
Does this argument imply that the marginal product of strictly-superhuman AI will equal exactly the copying cost, for all possible tasks? Assuming all tasks face diminishing returns.
Labor mobility across tasks leads to wages being equal across all tasks, but not marginal products. Wages are marginal products times price.
Thanks, was using that term incorrectly. So in the long run in this model all AI use cases would have the same economic value (exactly equal to copying cost) per unit input?
"So human wages may face this upper bound from superhuman AIs, but that upper bound will be rising rapidly as technological progress accelerates beyond that pace at which the AI labor force can expand." I think this is an unlikely equilibrium; it's implausible to me that economic growth via technological progress will face slower diminishing returns than AI copying costs. However, you can still save good human wages in this strictly-superhuman AI world. In perfect competition, in the long run firms have zero economic profits. A world where labour and capital are perfect substitutes gets us a lot closer to perfect competition, but not all the way. There's still going to be IP, regulatory barriers, licensing, brand loyalty, economies of scale, private datasets, arguably first mover advantages. Many more that I'm not thinking of. So there will be persistent productivity differences between AI use cases, and that's all you need for human comparative advantage to sneak in.
I am glad you are optimistic about humanity’s economic future. Our economic future is filled by optimism. It is fuelled by vision, innovation, and the irrepressible belief that together, we can build prosperity grounded in trust and purpose. This optimism drives investment, creativity, and the bold action required to shape better outcomes in an ever-changing world