I think MaxWell conceded Nathan’s point, and I do not know about anyone disputing it in a mathematical sense (for all possible parameters of economic models). However, in practice, what matters is how automation will plausibly affect wages, and human welfare more broadly.
I think MaxWell conceded Nathan’s point, and I do not know about anyone disputing it in a mathematical sense (for all possible parameters of economic models). However, in practice, what matters is how automation will plausibly affect wages, and human welfare more broadly.
And let’s not gloss over this, right. His concession is a knockdown argument to the overall thesis.
If AI means I can’t eat, but can still work, I cannot eat. Game over is much more likely.
I do not think the concession matters much. I ultimately care about expected changes in welfare, not whether something is possible.