Thanks Johan! Enjoyed this, and I actually agree with your disagreement: "If this money is to fund economists at all, it should fund the ones who study innovation, firms and science: the economics of how growth actually happens" - yes! My call for labs to hire development economists would have been better phrased as 'hire economists who understand development' - currently this is sorely lacking in the labs, and given how powerful these companies will be, I'd like there to be at least some economists internally researching AI & development questions with the amazing data they'd have access to.
At the speed AI is exponentially widening and deepening its knowledge base in the Multi-Agentic Landscape - and not only in the software space, but also in Robotics/Machine Learning Frameworks - one wonders to what extent Human Beings will have a role to play in the Research Field. If the equation is solved for its astronomical energy hunger - and AI will come up with the solution - this highly perceptive 'tree image' could possibly be highly accurate in another sense, that human beings would mostly become mere passive spectators in a future narrative outside their own story, unless some drastic precautionary measurement is adopted to bring sanity to an extremely power-hunger-tech-elitism. Or perhaps these mindsets are trapped within their own ‘Loop and harness engineering’, with no real difference between 'man' and 'beast' in its Context Structure at the Core, and the tree found to be a 'tree without roots' after all?
Let future be the Judge, and may I not be any party in that Judge’s Court when the ruling is made.
Johan, this is very thought-provoking. Firstly, I agree from practical experience as a successful development economist, that the idea of AI philanthropy is not a good one. You can imagine the extent of the philanthropy and "foreign aid" I was exposed to over a lifetime of practice. With very few exceptions, too many outcomes resulting from the philanthropy and foreign aid were disappointing.
I do think, however, that AI dividends can be of tremendous value on micro/grassroots level of economic development. I can just imagine the millions of budding entrepreneurs being empowered by training in the use of AI to come up with new business ideas, develop those ideas into business plans and run their businesses more efficiently.
On the macro level, billions should go into creating facilitating business environments with proper satellite internet, infrastructure like roads providing access to markets, etc., etc.
Also imagine the streamlined processes and procedures like licensing, bookkeeping, tax compliance, and the overcoming other bureaucratic hurdles which can be made far less time-consuming and cost-effective for the small entrepreneur...
There is still scope to fund libraries - at least in South Africa. It pains me to visit a high school and see that the extent of the school's library is a shelf of books behind the head teacher's desk.
Thanks Johan! Enjoyed this, and I actually agree with your disagreement: "If this money is to fund economists at all, it should fund the ones who study innovation, firms and science: the economics of how growth actually happens" - yes! My call for labs to hire development economists would have been better phrased as 'hire economists who understand development' - currently this is sorely lacking in the labs, and given how powerful these companies will be, I'd like there to be at least some economists internally researching AI & development questions with the amazing data they'd have access to.
Great article.
At the speed AI is exponentially widening and deepening its knowledge base in the Multi-Agentic Landscape - and not only in the software space, but also in Robotics/Machine Learning Frameworks - one wonders to what extent Human Beings will have a role to play in the Research Field. If the equation is solved for its astronomical energy hunger - and AI will come up with the solution - this highly perceptive 'tree image' could possibly be highly accurate in another sense, that human beings would mostly become mere passive spectators in a future narrative outside their own story, unless some drastic precautionary measurement is adopted to bring sanity to an extremely power-hunger-tech-elitism. Or perhaps these mindsets are trapped within their own ‘Loop and harness engineering’, with no real difference between 'man' and 'beast' in its Context Structure at the Core, and the tree found to be a 'tree without roots' after all?
Let future be the Judge, and may I not be any party in that Judge’s Court when the ruling is made.
Johan, this is very thought-provoking. Firstly, I agree from practical experience as a successful development economist, that the idea of AI philanthropy is not a good one. You can imagine the extent of the philanthropy and "foreign aid" I was exposed to over a lifetime of practice. With very few exceptions, too many outcomes resulting from the philanthropy and foreign aid were disappointing.
I do think, however, that AI dividends can be of tremendous value on micro/grassroots level of economic development. I can just imagine the millions of budding entrepreneurs being empowered by training in the use of AI to come up with new business ideas, develop those ideas into business plans and run their businesses more efficiently.
On the macro level, billions should go into creating facilitating business environments with proper satellite internet, infrastructure like roads providing access to markets, etc., etc.
Also imagine the streamlined processes and procedures like licensing, bookkeeping, tax compliance, and the overcoming other bureaucratic hurdles which can be made far less time-consuming and cost-effective for the small entrepreneur...
There is still scope to fund libraries - at least in South Africa. It pains me to visit a high school and see that the extent of the school's library is a shelf of books behind the head teacher's desk.