Luke Drago: prediction

Transcript context

…Yeah, I guess one objection here that I hear from economists is just that if we look at previous technologies, we see that They basically increase wages and increase living standards unevenly and with setbacks, but over time we see increased wages and living standards. Why isn't the same just going to happen with advanced AI? I think this is a category distinction of what we're trying to do. The last thousand years of technology has been technologies that have been extremely adaptive for humans, that have helped humans do new things. And they haven't encroached upon our core fundamental advantage, which is our ability to think and then do things in the real world. Obviously, during the Industrial Revolution, there were lots of concerns that replacing and automating large parts of physical labor would result in a world in which people didn't matter. But I think the actual outcome was a bit different because, of course, There isn't a machine that was produced in the Industrial Revolution that completely automated human thinking and our ability that's kept us at the top of the food chain. And if you look at the goal of a whole lot of companies in the field, you'll find that they stake their claim, their reason for existence is to create technologies that can do everything that any human can do better, faster, and cheaper. And of course, the question then is, if it is the case, that this allows capital to convert directly into results without removing the need for other people in the middle, why wouldn't companies just invest more and more money into this? I don't think it's Machiavellian. I don't think it's an evil plot by them. What I think instead is that if you have the opportunity to save 50% on your wage bill while also getting better, faster, more reliable results, most people are going to take that option. And so my concern here is that as we continue to build technology that is designed to replace rather than to augment, that we moved closer and closer towards a world where people just don't matter. And then, of course, you're reliant on other forces, you're reliant on government to make sure that you still have a high quality of life when you can't produce it for yourself. I think it's a very precarious situation to be in. If we think about pensioners today, for example, they don't produce much for society. In fact, they are, in a sense, a draw on society's resources, but they're still protected. Why couldn't we imagine an expansion of that system? This is kind of the obvious solution that comes to mind for people. We will have universal basic income, and we will have protection of individual rights. And so we will maintain agency and relevance in an age of advanced AI.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.