If your institute would like to contribute to this discussion, I would advise you to publish your work in a leading economics journal and to present your work at reputable economics departments and conferences.
I’m aware of various people considering trying to argue with economists about explosive growth (e.g. about the conclusions of this report).
In particular, the probability of explosive growth if you condition on human level machine intelligence. More precisely, something like human level machine intelligence and human level robotic bodies where the machine intelligence requires 10^14 FLOP / human equivalent second (e.g. 1⁄10 of an H100), can run 5x faster than humans using current hardware, and the robotic bodies cost $20,000 (on today’s manufactoring base).
From my understanding they didn’t ever end up trying to do this.
Personally, I argued against this being a good use of time:
It seems unlikely to me that the economists actually take these ideas seriously and their actual crux is most like “this is crazy, so I reject the premise”.
It doesn’t seem likely that the economists perspective is very enlightening for us (e.g. I don’t expect they would have many useful contributions).
I don’t think it seems that useful to persuade arbitrary economists from a credibility/influence perspective.
So, I think the main question here is a question of whether this is a good use of time.
I think it’s probably better to start by trying to talk with economists rather than trying to write a paper.
I’m aware of various people considering trying to argue with economists about explosive growth (e.g. about the conclusions of this report).
In particular, the probability of explosive growth if you condition on human level machine intelligence. More precisely, something like human level machine intelligence and human level robotic bodies where the machine intelligence requires 10^14 FLOP / human equivalent second (e.g. 1⁄10 of an H100), can run 5x faster than humans using current hardware, and the robotic bodies cost $20,000 (on today’s manufactoring base).
From my understanding they didn’t ever end up trying to do this.
Personally, I argued against this being a good use of time:
It seems unlikely to me that the economists actually take these ideas seriously and their actual crux is most like “this is crazy, so I reject the premise”.
It doesn’t seem likely that the economists perspective is very enlightening for us (e.g. I don’t expect they would have many useful contributions).
I don’t think it seems that useful to persuade arbitrary economists from a credibility/influence perspective.
So, I think the main question here is a question of whether this is a good use of time.
I think it’s probably better to start by trying to talk with economists rather than trying to write a paper.