Thanks Vasco, I hadnât seen that. Do you know if anyone has addressed Nathanâs âComparative advantage means Iâm guaranteed work but not that that work will provide enough for me to eatâ point? (Apart from Maxwell, who I guess concedes the point?)
I think MaxWell conceded Nathanâs 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.
Thanks Vasco, I hadnât seen that. Do you know if anyone has addressed Nathanâs âComparative advantage means Iâm guaranteed work but not that that work will provide enough for me to eatâ point? (Apart from Maxwell, who I guess concedes the point?)
I think MaxWell conceded Nathanâs 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 letâs not gloss over this, right. His concession is a knockdown argument to the overall thesis.
If AI means I canât 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.