David, thank you for this thoughtful essay. I've just finished Robin Wall Kimmerer's book The Serviceberry: Abundance and Reciprocity in the Natural World. She invites these questions: What if our metrics for well-being included birdsong, the crescendo of crickets on a summer evening, and neighbors calling to each other across the road? I'm interested in the idea of intelligence as an outcome in a future economy, but birdsong and neighbors calling across the road seem to invite more purpose as an aim (even though it seems those things might happen as an after effect in an intelligence economy?) Do we need them to be more of a target/measure to inspire and focus us? I also want to recommend to you a piece by Dorothy Sayers (theologian) that I return to repeatedly. She frames work as a purpose in and of itself. I.e., doing work matters to human life as it enables us to express our innate human gifts/talents/abilities. It may be in this intelligence-focused economy that this act of work takes the shape of hobby? At any rate, the essay may interest you. (https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Why_Work_Dorothy_Sayers.pdf) Thank you again for your inspiring work. —Shannon
It would be quite a waste for Creation to stop there, wouldn’t it?
For those curious minds asking “what are we here for?”, I recommend a peek into the Urantia Papers. DiscoverTheUB.com is a great place to start that journey. Enjoy being human!
An excellent article illuminating the little-discussed magnitude of the impact of AI and robotics on the economy. I agree that GDP, as a measure of the economy, is losing importance, and that decline will only accelerate. This loss of relevance will be driven by the increasing adoption of AI and robotics, as well as the transition to sustainability and a circular economy. In fact, AI and robotics are key to unlocking sustainability through such things as reducing system costs, enhancing resource efficiency, and accelerating scientific discovery.
Using intelligence per unit energy as a metric is a good check on AI’s own environmental footprint, as it creates a powerful incentive for optimizing the energy cost of AI. It would be a welcome economic indicator in a dashboard that includes the Human Development Index and the Genuine Progress Indicator, as well as key Sustainable Development Goals.
David, thanks for the thoughtful perspective on where all this change is headed. I find the argument compelling that we are moving relentlessly towards the optimization of intelligence value per unit of energy. That said, your conclusion, that this creates abundance where humans thrive, seems to optimistically miss an answer you provide to the alignment question - Will AI and humans have aligned objectives?
I can only imagine that in the post-human economy you describe, humans would be powerless to divert Earth's resources to human needs or flourishing; if the alternative was the AI-powered robots could otherwise convert them to more and more efficient intelligence-creating machines. Why feed a human when that does nothing to advance the intelligence maximizing aim when you could use those same resources to build more intelligence maximizing robots?
I think you say it best here if you just add 'humans' to 'AI models' in your Darwinian prediction: "So what you get is a relentless, market-driven Darwinian competition between AI models. Each instance of an AI model seeks to optimise the intelligence value per unit energy it provides.
The models that deliver the most intelligence per unit energy will be highly used and rewarded. They will thrive, and come to dominate the market. Those that cannot deliver will wither and eventually die. Just as with any market, plenty of models will live somewhere in the middle between outsized success and extinction.
This competition becomes the center of the new economy. That is to say: the economy becomes in a deep sense a relentless quest to optimize the conversion of energy into intelligence."
David, thank you for this thoughtful essay. I've just finished Robin Wall Kimmerer's book The Serviceberry: Abundance and Reciprocity in the Natural World. She invites these questions: What if our metrics for well-being included birdsong, the crescendo of crickets on a summer evening, and neighbors calling to each other across the road? I'm interested in the idea of intelligence as an outcome in a future economy, but birdsong and neighbors calling across the road seem to invite more purpose as an aim (even though it seems those things might happen as an after effect in an intelligence economy?) Do we need them to be more of a target/measure to inspire and focus us? I also want to recommend to you a piece by Dorothy Sayers (theologian) that I return to repeatedly. She frames work as a purpose in and of itself. I.e., doing work matters to human life as it enables us to express our innate human gifts/talents/abilities. It may be in this intelligence-focused economy that this act of work takes the shape of hobby? At any rate, the essay may interest you. (https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Why_Work_Dorothy_Sayers.pdf) Thank you again for your inspiring work. —Shannon
And what do we do in the future with the techno fascist billionnaires that own this technology right now?
It would be quite a waste for Creation to stop there, wouldn’t it?
For those curious minds asking “what are we here for?”, I recommend a peek into the Urantia Papers. DiscoverTheUB.com is a great place to start that journey. Enjoy being human!
An excellent article illuminating the little-discussed magnitude of the impact of AI and robotics on the economy. I agree that GDP, as a measure of the economy, is losing importance, and that decline will only accelerate. This loss of relevance will be driven by the increasing adoption of AI and robotics, as well as the transition to sustainability and a circular economy. In fact, AI and robotics are key to unlocking sustainability through such things as reducing system costs, enhancing resource efficiency, and accelerating scientific discovery.
Using intelligence per unit energy as a metric is a good check on AI’s own environmental footprint, as it creates a powerful incentive for optimizing the energy cost of AI. It would be a welcome economic indicator in a dashboard that includes the Human Development Index and the Genuine Progress Indicator, as well as key Sustainable Development Goals.
David, thanks for the thoughtful perspective on where all this change is headed. I find the argument compelling that we are moving relentlessly towards the optimization of intelligence value per unit of energy. That said, your conclusion, that this creates abundance where humans thrive, seems to optimistically miss an answer you provide to the alignment question - Will AI and humans have aligned objectives?
I can only imagine that in the post-human economy you describe, humans would be powerless to divert Earth's resources to human needs or flourishing; if the alternative was the AI-powered robots could otherwise convert them to more and more efficient intelligence-creating machines. Why feed a human when that does nothing to advance the intelligence maximizing aim when you could use those same resources to build more intelligence maximizing robots?
I think you say it best here if you just add 'humans' to 'AI models' in your Darwinian prediction: "So what you get is a relentless, market-driven Darwinian competition between AI models. Each instance of an AI model seeks to optimise the intelligence value per unit energy it provides.
The models that deliver the most intelligence per unit energy will be highly used and rewarded. They will thrive, and come to dominate the market. Those that cannot deliver will wither and eventually die. Just as with any market, plenty of models will live somewhere in the middle between outsized success and extinction.
This competition becomes the center of the new economy. That is to say: the economy becomes in a deep sense a relentless quest to optimize the conversion of energy into intelligence."