pull down to refresh

107 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 6 May \ on: No, AI Won’t Make Money Obsolete AI econ

Thinking a bit about this one...

I think Earle is missing the point here a bit.

Time is another irreducible constraint. Human attention, especially in its highest-value forms, cannot and will not scale infinitely. The time of askilled surgeon, an experienced trial lawyer, or a sought-after performer remains finite, tentative, and rivalrous. Even if AI were to augment their capabilities, it does not eliminate the fact that their attention must be allocated among competing uses. The same applies to live experiences: concerts, events, one-on-one advisory relationships, and so on, where presence itself is scarce. In such contexts, prices are not a relic — they are a reflection of incontrovertible limitations.

Those are all true, but missing the point: There’s no generation, there, no production… it’s all allocation, redistributed among those with preferential access…

It means only the skilled surgeon/experienced lawyer/performer can access the finite, valuable things.

It’s all well and good to say that the expert surgeon will be fine, even more valuable because of AI-enhanced output… but who’s going to pay for it? And the other half (likely, other nine-tenth) of the population who are not expert, top-of-the-line lawyers or surgeons, or rocket-ship inventors… how do they compete for access to the only rivalrous, finite, valuable things left?

write
compose
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6 May
It’s all well and good to say that the expert surgeon will be fine, even more valuable because of AI-enhanced output

This is only true if there's a good answer to "but who’s going to pay for it?" and "how do they compete for access to the only rivalrous, finite, valuable things left?"

It's not like robots need human surgeons. If people can't afford surgeons, then there's no demand for them.

reply