The implicit argument here seems to be that, even if you think typical investment returns are too low to justify saving over donating, you should still consider investing in AI because it has higher growth potential.
I totally might be misunderstanding your point, but here’s the contradiction as I see it. If you believe (A) the S&P500 doesn’t give high enough returns to justify investing instead of donations, and (B) AI research companies are not currently undervalued (i.e., they have roughly the same net expected future returns as any other company), then you cannot believe that (C) AI stock is a better investment opportunity than any other.
I completely agree that many slow-takeoff scenarios would make tech stocks skyrocket. But unless you’re hoping to predict the future of AI better than the market, I’d say the expected value of AI is already reflected in tech stock prices.
To invest in AI companies but not the S&P500 for altruistic reasons, I think you have to believe AI companies are currently undervalued.
(A) the S&P500 doesn’t give high enough returns to justify investing instead of donations, and (B) AI research companies are not currently undervalued..., then you cannot believe that (C) AI stock is a better investment opportunity than any other.
I’m engaging the question of whether to make substantial donations now or whether to save for later. I don’t have a strong view on what investments are the best savings vehicle, though I do have an intuition that the market is undervaluing the growth potential of AI-intensive companies.
So I suppose I disagree with both (A) and (B). I think the S&P 500 probably will generate high enough returns to justify investing instead of donations, and I think AI companies are somewhat undervalued.
To invest in AI companies but not the S&P500 for altruistic reasons, I think you have to believe AI companies are currently undervalued
We may be using different definitions of undervalued (see this comment). In the sense that I think AI companies are worth investing in because I think their stock price will be higher in future, I agree they’re “undervalued.”
But I don’t think they’re undervalued in the sense that the market is mis-valuing their current assets, etc. If their stock price is higher in the future, I’d expect this to be because they’ve made real productivity gains.
The implicit argument here seems to be that, even if you think typical investment returns are too low to justify saving over donating, you should still consider investing in AI because it has higher growth potential.
I totally might be misunderstanding your point, but here’s the contradiction as I see it. If you believe (A) the S&P500 doesn’t give high enough returns to justify investing instead of donations, and (B) AI research companies are not currently undervalued (i.e., they have roughly the same net expected future returns as any other company), then you cannot believe that (C) AI stock is a better investment opportunity than any other.
I completely agree that many slow-takeoff scenarios would make tech stocks skyrocket. But unless you’re hoping to predict the future of AI better than the market, I’d say the expected value of AI is already reflected in tech stock prices.
To invest in AI companies but not the S&P500 for altruistic reasons, I think you have to believe AI companies are currently undervalued.
I’m engaging the question of whether to make substantial donations now or whether to save for later. I don’t have a strong view on what investments are the best savings vehicle, though I do have an intuition that the market is undervaluing the growth potential of AI-intensive companies.
So I suppose I disagree with both (A) and (B). I think the S&P 500 probably will generate high enough returns to justify investing instead of donations, and I think AI companies are somewhat undervalued.
We may be using different definitions of undervalued (see this comment). In the sense that I think AI companies are worth investing in because I think their stock price will be higher in future, I agree they’re “undervalued.”
But I don’t think they’re undervalued in the sense that the market is mis-valuing their current assets, etc. If their stock price is higher in the future, I’d expect this to be because they’ve made real productivity gains.