Counterpoint: All that shit expensive as fuck. Why rush math proofs with AI rather than doing it 100x cheaper by paying a young mathematician over a few years? This isn’t paying AI 100 million dollars to cure cancer, that might actually be worth it.
Even if some problems can be solved cost-efficiently, most of the proofs so far is showing off, ignoring costs.
The counties that pay human mathematicians will fall behind because the ones that do not give a fuck will use AI anyway and dominate the future of global economics because they can do it faster and not have human-centric morality like yours in the way.
Ok? How will they dominate it? My point was that the math problems AI has been solving don’t really have much of a use that typically gets you money or other resources. I believe I mentioned that medicinal uses, as well as statistical, programming etc. are welcome, but these ain’t it.
A better comparison may be that this is rushing all resources to organize a mission to Mars. Very cool, very powerful, might get some tech developed in the process. But if a country the size of a continent enters an economic crisis, why tho?
Here is an academic source showing how economics between USA and Europe are widening due to the slow acceptance or revulsion of AI/LLM tools in Europe.
Here is another talking about how economics between countries that were slow to adapt emerging tech, specifically AI, are falling behind at a logarithmic pace.
This is another source where it measured significant economic improvements where areas in China had marked improvements in quality of life due to rapid adoption of AI tools.
Another academic source covering the improvments of various African countries that accepted rapid adoption of AI tools and how their economies essentially exploded due to increased productivity.
I can provide more, but you sound like you had already made up your mind about AI, so I’m not gonna convince dipshits around the world about the reality and inevitability of this being a ubiquitous tool; there is no fucking bubble to pop, Pandora’s Box is open. You sound like a scared luddite, and I dont care to alleviate your fears.
That, or I have no reading comprehension and misunderstood your point-of-view, which ironically AI would have helped me understand if I used it in such a tedious way.
No, this article is just about the gap in AI adoption. The closest it says is
And they considered whether the AI adoption gap between the United States and Europe is affecting productivity. The worker surveys suggest perhaps it is. Aggregate time savings (including both AI users and non-users) were 2.3% of hours in the United States versus 1.4% in Europe
“perhaps” there is a gap of 0.9% according to worker surveys. Astonishing. Let’s throw trillions more at it, maybe we can save 3 whole percent of hours. Well, according to the extremely accurate measure of worker self-report.
how economics between countries that were slow to adapt emerging tech, specifically AI, are falling behind at a logarithmic pace.
This is based on data from 1970 to 2019. Another article cited is based on data from 2008 to 2017. ChatGPT was released in 2022.
The last study is pretty technical, and I don’t have an easy debunk of it, but it also stresses the importance of non-AI factors. It mostly seems to take the idea that the economy will be overtaken by AI as a given.
I apologise for not stating the obvious, but when most people are talking about AI (as was I) they’re referring to LLM’s and generative content that boomed around 2022-2023.
Your citations 2-4 are focused on AI pre-2023, using data over decades. We’ve been using machine learning for ages, those were fine, as are any AI models focused on one task. There might even be math oriented models, but as I understand, Anthropic and OpenAI have been trying to force these proofs via LLMs.
Your citation 1 talks about productivity going up, but at a cursory glance, it doesn’t seem to comment about OpenAI and others subsidizing a lot of the cost.
Counterpoint: All that shit expensive as fuck. Why rush math proofs with AI rather than doing it 100x cheaper by paying a young mathematician over a few years? This isn’t paying AI 100 million dollars to cure cancer, that might actually be worth it.
Even if some problems can be solved cost-efficiently, most of the proofs so far is showing off, ignoring costs.
The counties that pay human mathematicians will fall behind because the ones that do not give a fuck will use AI anyway and dominate the future of global economics because they can do it faster and not have human-centric morality like yours in the way.
Ok? How will they dominate it? My point was that the math problems AI has been solving don’t really have much of a use that typically gets you money or other resources. I believe I mentioned that medicinal uses, as well as statistical, programming etc. are welcome, but these ain’t it.
A better comparison may be that this is rushing all resources to organize a mission to Mars. Very cool, very powerful, might get some tech developed in the process. But if a country the size of a continent enters an economic crisis, why tho?
Here is an academic source showing how economics between USA and Europe are widening due to the slow acceptance or revulsion of AI/LLM tools in Europe.
Here is another talking about how economics between countries that were slow to adapt emerging tech, specifically AI, are falling behind at a logarithmic pace.
This is another source where it measured significant economic improvements where areas in China had marked improvements in quality of life due to rapid adoption of AI tools.
Another academic source covering the improvments of various African countries that accepted rapid adoption of AI tools and how their economies essentially exploded due to increased productivity.
I can provide more, but you sound like you had already made up your mind about AI, so I’m not gonna convince dipshits around the world about the reality and inevitability of this being a ubiquitous tool; there is no fucking bubble to pop, Pandora’s Box is open. You sound like a scared luddite, and I dont care to alleviate your fears.
That, or I have no reading comprehension and misunderstood your point-of-view, which ironically AI would have helped me understand if I used it in such a tedious way.
No, this article is just about the gap in AI adoption. The closest it says is
“perhaps” there is a gap of 0.9% according to worker surveys. Astonishing. Let’s throw trillions more at it, maybe we can save 3 whole percent of hours. Well, according to the extremely accurate measure of worker self-report.
This is based on data from 1970 to 2019. Another article cited is based on data from 2008 to 2017. ChatGPT was released in 2022.
The last study is pretty technical, and I don’t have an easy debunk of it, but it also stresses the importance of non-AI factors. It mostly seems to take the idea that the economy will be overtaken by AI as a given.
I apologise for not stating the obvious, but when most people are talking about AI (as was I) they’re referring to LLM’s and generative content that boomed around 2022-2023.
Your citations 2-4 are focused on AI pre-2023, using data over decades. We’ve been using machine learning for ages, those were fine, as are any AI models focused on one task. There might even be math oriented models, but as I understand, Anthropic and OpenAI have been trying to force these proofs via LLMs.
Your citation 1 talks about productivity going up, but at a cursory glance, it doesn’t seem to comment about OpenAI and others subsidizing a lot of the cost.