the Simon-Ehrlich wager is really one of those foundational god playing chess with the devil types of moments. itโs the abundance ideology competing with the scarcity ideology. itโs betting on life versus betting on death
Simon believed (correctly) that the rate limiting step in human welfare was the number of minds working on bright ideas โ that more people equals *cheaper commodities* because weโd become better at producing all things over time. he is verifiably correct
it is the neoliberal supply side bet over the demand side bet โ we are able to exponentially increase the production of all basic commodities at a much higher rate constant than the number of mouths to feed
artificial intelligence is the apotheosis and the logical conclusion of the Simon wager. if the rate limit is intelligent minds, we can usher in an age of profound abundance by spinning many brilliant virtuals out of the ether alone to produce vastly more innovation
when people think AI they think job loss. and itโs very fair โ in all cases capitalists are excited to frame new technologies through the lens of how many existing roles they can replace. execs like to do cost cutting presentations about replacing people with software
but i have a very strong faith that nothing catastrophic will happen, because I believe the Simon wager โ good ideas begets more good ideas. depending on how things go with inference costs I would wager many of us will be reallocated into more interesting and meaningful jobs than we do now
and even in worlds where our labor is too meager to be of relative value that would imply the price of everything we want will be so low that weโd live as kings relative to 2023 standards
regarding the impacts on culture, meaning, and relative status I canโt really say. other than that I see no reason to assume we are living in some global optimum of meaning today. it seems quite bad actually. the only way out is through
Loading suggestions...