Hi, I’m Azeem Azhar. As a global expert on exponential technologies, I advise governments, some of the world’s largest firms, and investors on how to make sense of our exponential future. This Sunday newsletter is a weekly brief for you and 80,000+ readers.
As always an insightful issue of EV (and the videos throughout the week). Thanks! An anecdotal view but sharing here as it seems to align to what Azeem posted above on Krugman's analysis: In my conversations with people on whether AI will have a real impact on productivity (and others) there seems to have a been a shift over the last 2-3 weeks towards a "it's just hype like crypto", particularly in my French-speaking circles (for some reason). A few days ago I was having the same conversation with a rather well-versed friend who has been working on innovation for many years and I was surprised to get the same "it's just hype" reply. I insisted that the triad ease-of-availability, real-concrete-value, ease-of-usability by virtually anybody made it different, to which I didn't get much of a rebuttal. In any case, my current sense (really and truly "gut feel") is very similar to what I felt in early 90s with WWW and circa 2007 with Cloud / iPhone: it's a significant shift.
If we were having this conversation three years ago, I might agree with Krugman's assessment. But we aren't in a iPhone 2007 situation where the potential is yet to be realised. AIs will get better, of course - and who knows where we are on the S-curve - but they are already incredibly useful. But who is going to look at their graduate level workers and think "Nah, I think I'll pass on a potential 40% increase in their productivity and wait to see what happens"?
What is the definition of productivity in the case of utilizing LLM/Ai to do x,y,z? Are we talking about intellectual productivity for processes of sorting through data needed for decision mechanics and actualization of processes outside the containment parameters of the physical “computer” in support of continuous-growth capitalism?
Humans have thrived through the socialization of cooperation and coordination of learning to achieve physical productivity that takes us beyond the puny abilities of each individual.
Do we have a limit in amassing our coordination to levels that would effectively turn certain networks of individuals and Ai into the next level of human evolution? Archaic types of human organization will remain, but tree-like structures of human organization might flourish for some period of time where the organizational structure is immobile; but some of the individual parts (a person) can move about in expanded space to carry out purpose.
What would that purpose be? In a capitalist set-up of continuous growth a superpower of Ai and human forest would rapidly find the limits of carbon-based energy consumption. Would the forest be aware enough to see the dead ends of unlimited growth and change its philosophical reason for being? Or, would the Forest seek to alter the competition for power sources while simultaneously trying to develop alternative power sources and efficiencies of use?
It seems to me that we are altering the human species as we envelop ourselves within a new forest of roots, tendrils, interconnections, and reliance on immobile structures of computer networks and supporting infrastructure even as we perceive our bodies as moving about in 3D space to eat, sleep, work, and procreate.
We will be complex and perhaps brilliant during a nanosecond of cosmic time; but how will we draw energy to sustain our tree? All of this is happening during a time when our planet’s biosphere is being severely challenged. And it is a challenge that is pushing the modern human enterprise of complex systems toward collapse (or at least towards involuntary simplification of organizing principles) which will be highly unfavorable for continuous-growth capitalism in any form that is powered by fossil fuels.
As always an insightful issue of EV (and the videos throughout the week). Thanks! An anecdotal view but sharing here as it seems to align to what Azeem posted above on Krugman's analysis: In my conversations with people on whether AI will have a real impact on productivity (and others) there seems to have a been a shift over the last 2-3 weeks towards a "it's just hype like crypto", particularly in my French-speaking circles (for some reason). A few days ago I was having the same conversation with a rather well-versed friend who has been working on innovation for many years and I was surprised to get the same "it's just hype" reply. I insisted that the triad ease-of-availability, real-concrete-value, ease-of-usability by virtually anybody made it different, to which I didn't get much of a rebuttal. In any case, my current sense (really and truly "gut feel") is very similar to what I felt in early 90s with WWW and circa 2007 with Cloud / iPhone: it's a significant shift.
If we were having this conversation three years ago, I might agree with Krugman's assessment. But we aren't in a iPhone 2007 situation where the potential is yet to be realised. AIs will get better, of course - and who knows where we are on the S-curve - but they are already incredibly useful. But who is going to look at their graduate level workers and think "Nah, I think I'll pass on a potential 40% increase in their productivity and wait to see what happens"?
What is the definition of productivity in the case of utilizing LLM/Ai to do x,y,z? Are we talking about intellectual productivity for processes of sorting through data needed for decision mechanics and actualization of processes outside the containment parameters of the physical “computer” in support of continuous-growth capitalism?
Humans have thrived through the socialization of cooperation and coordination of learning to achieve physical productivity that takes us beyond the puny abilities of each individual.
Do we have a limit in amassing our coordination to levels that would effectively turn certain networks of individuals and Ai into the next level of human evolution? Archaic types of human organization will remain, but tree-like structures of human organization might flourish for some period of time where the organizational structure is immobile; but some of the individual parts (a person) can move about in expanded space to carry out purpose.
What would that purpose be? In a capitalist set-up of continuous growth a superpower of Ai and human forest would rapidly find the limits of carbon-based energy consumption. Would the forest be aware enough to see the dead ends of unlimited growth and change its philosophical reason for being? Or, would the Forest seek to alter the competition for power sources while simultaneously trying to develop alternative power sources and efficiencies of use?
It seems to me that we are altering the human species as we envelop ourselves within a new forest of roots, tendrils, interconnections, and reliance on immobile structures of computer networks and supporting infrastructure even as we perceive our bodies as moving about in 3D space to eat, sleep, work, and procreate.
We will be complex and perhaps brilliant during a nanosecond of cosmic time; but how will we draw energy to sustain our tree? All of this is happening during a time when our planet’s biosphere is being severely challenged. And it is a challenge that is pushing the modern human enterprise of complex systems toward collapse (or at least towards involuntary simplification of organizing principles) which will be highly unfavorable for continuous-growth capitalism in any form that is powered by fossil fuels.