Vasco Grilo🔸 comments on AGI Will Not Make Labor Worthless

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Hi Nathan and Ben.

• If comparative advantage is a panacea, why are there fewer horses?

I liked Maxwell’s follow-up post What About The Horses?.

The following framework explains why horses suffered complete replacement by more advanced technology and why humans are unlikely to face the same fate due to artificial intelligence.

• Humans and AIs Aren’t Perfect Substitutes but Horses and Engines Were

• Technological Growth and Capital Accumulation Will Raise Human Labor Productivity; Horses Can’t Use Technology or Capital

• Humans Own AIs and Will Spend the Productivity Gains on Goods and Services that Humans Can Produce

---

• Comparative advantage means I’m guaranteed work but not that that work will provide enough for me to eat

I agree. The last section of the post above briefly discusses this.

The argument is plausible and supported by history but it’s not a mathematical deduction. The key elements are relative productivity differences, technological improvements that increase labor productivity, and increased income generating demand for goods and services produced by humans.

[...]

Higher wages are not always and everywhere guaranteed, but humans are not likely to face the same fate as horses. We are far from perfect substitutes for AIs which means we can specialize and trade with them, raising our productivity as the AI labor force multiplies. We can take advantage of technological growth and capital accumulation to raise our productivity further. We’ll continue inventing new ways to profitably integrate with automated production processes as we have in the past. And we control the abundant wealth that AI automation will create and will funnel it into human pursuits.

Also on comparative advantage, I liked Noah Smith’s post Plentiful, high-paying jobs in the age of AI.

[Ben_West🔸]

Thanks Vasco, I hadn’t seen that. Do you know if anyone has addressed Nathan’s “Comparative advantage means I’m guaranteed work but not that that work will provide enough for me to eat” point? (Apart from Maxwell, who I guess concedes the point?)

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

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.

[Nathan Young]

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.

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

I do not think the concession matters much. I ultimately care about expected changes in welfare, not whether something is possible.