#normaltechnology — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #normaltechnology, aggregated by home.social.
-
"In a recent essay, Derek Thompson engages with AI as Normal Technology (AINT). He agrees with our thesis about AI’s slow labor market impacts, relying on the fact that GDP growth has so far been average, unemployment is below five percent, and even jobs that seemed vulnerable to automation show rising employment and wages. He concludes that so far, the macroeconomic picture is consistent with what we would expect from a “normal” general-purpose technology.
But when it comes to AI risks, he is far more bearish. He points to examples of cyber- and bio-risks and expresses pessimism about AI quickly becoming dangerous across many new domains. (...) Thompson writes: "I can understand a plan to treat AI as a ‘normal’ technology and let Nvidia export powerful chips to China. And I can understand a plan to treat AI as an ‘abnormal’ technology that compels the government to create extraordinary regulations that prevent private companies from selling their products and services on the grounds that they’re too dangerous" [emphasis ours]. He goes on to conclude that AI is, in fact, abnormal, implying support for extraordinary government intervention. Our essay is a response to that conclusion.
In this essay, we lay out the downsides of extraordinary government intervention in response to new technology. We discuss proposals for improving resilience that do not require such intervention. We also discuss why governments have so far been reluctant to invest in resilience. In short, resilience requires us to get better at the *normal* process of policymaking. But sclerosis in the federal government and the ease of justifying interventions on AI companies rather than society at large make extraordinary intervention seem appealing, despite its limitations."
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/do-ai-risks-require-extraordinary-government-intervention
-
"In a recent essay, Derek Thompson engages with AI as Normal Technology (AINT). He agrees with our thesis about AI’s slow labor market impacts, relying on the fact that GDP growth has so far been average, unemployment is below five percent, and even jobs that seemed vulnerable to automation show rising employment and wages. He concludes that so far, the macroeconomic picture is consistent with what we would expect from a “normal” general-purpose technology.
But when it comes to AI risks, he is far more bearish. He points to examples of cyber- and bio-risks and expresses pessimism about AI quickly becoming dangerous across many new domains. (...) Thompson writes: "I can understand a plan to treat AI as a ‘normal’ technology and let Nvidia export powerful chips to China. And I can understand a plan to treat AI as an ‘abnormal’ technology that compels the government to create extraordinary regulations that prevent private companies from selling their products and services on the grounds that they’re too dangerous" [emphasis ours]. He goes on to conclude that AI is, in fact, abnormal, implying support for extraordinary government intervention. Our essay is a response to that conclusion.
In this essay, we lay out the downsides of extraordinary government intervention in response to new technology. We discuss proposals for improving resilience that do not require such intervention. We also discuss why governments have so far been reluctant to invest in resilience. In short, resilience requires us to get better at the *normal* process of policymaking. But sclerosis in the federal government and the ease of justifying interventions on AI companies rather than society at large make extraordinary intervention seem appealing, despite its limitations."
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/do-ai-risks-require-extraordinary-government-intervention
-
"In a recent essay, Derek Thompson engages with AI as Normal Technology (AINT). He agrees with our thesis about AI’s slow labor market impacts, relying on the fact that GDP growth has so far been average, unemployment is below five percent, and even jobs that seemed vulnerable to automation show rising employment and wages. He concludes that so far, the macroeconomic picture is consistent with what we would expect from a “normal” general-purpose technology.
But when it comes to AI risks, he is far more bearish. He points to examples of cyber- and bio-risks and expresses pessimism about AI quickly becoming dangerous across many new domains. (...) Thompson writes: "I can understand a plan to treat AI as a ‘normal’ technology and let Nvidia export powerful chips to China. And I can understand a plan to treat AI as an ‘abnormal’ technology that compels the government to create extraordinary regulations that prevent private companies from selling their products and services on the grounds that they’re too dangerous" [emphasis ours]. He goes on to conclude that AI is, in fact, abnormal, implying support for extraordinary government intervention. Our essay is a response to that conclusion.
In this essay, we lay out the downsides of extraordinary government intervention in response to new technology. We discuss proposals for improving resilience that do not require such intervention. We also discuss why governments have so far been reluctant to invest in resilience. In short, resilience requires us to get better at the *normal* process of policymaking. But sclerosis in the federal government and the ease of justifying interventions on AI companies rather than society at large make extraordinary intervention seem appealing, despite its limitations."
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/do-ai-risks-require-extraordinary-government-intervention
-
"In a recent essay, Derek Thompson engages with AI as Normal Technology (AINT). He agrees with our thesis about AI’s slow labor market impacts, relying on the fact that GDP growth has so far been average, unemployment is below five percent, and even jobs that seemed vulnerable to automation show rising employment and wages. He concludes that so far, the macroeconomic picture is consistent with what we would expect from a “normal” general-purpose technology.
But when it comes to AI risks, he is far more bearish. He points to examples of cyber- and bio-risks and expresses pessimism about AI quickly becoming dangerous across many new domains. (...) Thompson writes: "I can understand a plan to treat AI as a ‘normal’ technology and let Nvidia export powerful chips to China. And I can understand a plan to treat AI as an ‘abnormal’ technology that compels the government to create extraordinary regulations that prevent private companies from selling their products and services on the grounds that they’re too dangerous" [emphasis ours]. He goes on to conclude that AI is, in fact, abnormal, implying support for extraordinary government intervention. Our essay is a response to that conclusion.
In this essay, we lay out the downsides of extraordinary government intervention in response to new technology. We discuss proposals for improving resilience that do not require such intervention. We also discuss why governments have so far been reluctant to invest in resilience. In short, resilience requires us to get better at the *normal* process of policymaking. But sclerosis in the federal government and the ease of justifying interventions on AI companies rather than society at large make extraordinary intervention seem appealing, despite its limitations."
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/do-ai-risks-require-extraordinary-government-intervention
-
"In a recent essay, Derek Thompson engages with AI as Normal Technology (AINT). He agrees with our thesis about AI’s slow labor market impacts, relying on the fact that GDP growth has so far been average, unemployment is below five percent, and even jobs that seemed vulnerable to automation show rising employment and wages. He concludes that so far, the macroeconomic picture is consistent with what we would expect from a “normal” general-purpose technology.
But when it comes to AI risks, he is far more bearish. He points to examples of cyber- and bio-risks and expresses pessimism about AI quickly becoming dangerous across many new domains. (...) Thompson writes: "I can understand a plan to treat AI as a ‘normal’ technology and let Nvidia export powerful chips to China. And I can understand a plan to treat AI as an ‘abnormal’ technology that compels the government to create extraordinary regulations that prevent private companies from selling their products and services on the grounds that they’re too dangerous" [emphasis ours]. He goes on to conclude that AI is, in fact, abnormal, implying support for extraordinary government intervention. Our essay is a response to that conclusion.
In this essay, we lay out the downsides of extraordinary government intervention in response to new technology. We discuss proposals for improving resilience that do not require such intervention. We also discuss why governments have so far been reluctant to invest in resilience. In short, resilience requires us to get better at the *normal* process of policymaking. But sclerosis in the federal government and the ease of justifying interventions on AI companies rather than society at large make extraordinary intervention seem appealing, despite its limitations."
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/do-ai-risks-require-extraordinary-government-intervention
-
"AI 2027 and AI as Normal Technology were both published in April of this year. Both were read much more widely than we, their authors, expected.
Some of us (Eli, Thomas, Daniel, the authors of AI 2027) expect AI to radically transform the world within the next decade, up to and including such sci-fi-sounding possibilities as superintelligence, nanofactories, and Dyson swarms. Progress will be continuous, but it will accelerate rapidly around the time that AIs automate AI research.
Others (Sayash and Arvind, the authors of AI as Normal Technology) think that the effects of AI will be much more, well, normal. Yes, we can expect economic growth, but it will be the gradual, year-on-year improvement that accompanied technological innovations like electricity or the internet, not a radical break in the arc of human history.
These are substantial disagreements, which have been partially hashed out here and here.
Nevertheless, we’ve found that all of us have more in common than you might expect.
In this essay, we’ve come together to discuss the ways in which we agree with each other on how AI progress is likely to proceed (or fail to proceed) over the next few years."
https://asteriskmag.substack.com/p/common-ground-between-ai-2027-and
#AI #GenerativeAI #AI2027 #AGI #AIAsNormalTechnology #NormalTechnology