I just got gpt-3 to write a simple explanation of how efficiency increasing technologies lead to more use of technology:
Imagine that you have a favorite toy, and you want to make it last longer. You might think that the best way to do this is to use the toy less often, so it doesn't wear out as quickly. But what if using the toy less often actually makes you want to buy more toys, because you get bored with the toy you have? This is kind of like what happens with Jevon's Paradox.
Jevon's Paradox is an economic idea that says that when people find a way to use a resource more efficiently, they often end up using more of that resource, not less. For example, if cars become more fuel-efficient, people might end up driving more, because they can afford to drive farther on the same amount of gas.
So, even though we're using less gas per mile, we're actually using more gas overall because we're driving more. This means that making things more efficient doesn't always lead to less resource usage, and can sometimes have the opposite effect.
Nobody will disagree that machines being able to better index a body of information will lead to more efficient solutions to everything and the whole crux of this doomsaying is built upon the distorted view of evil people using it and the economically ignorant idea that jobs lost due to technology result in, as Jevon's paradox illustrates, more use of technology and an ever growing number of ways to make a living with a skill set than before the technology.
Megalomaniacs like Klaus think the text manglers will let him remote control the whole world. This guy is generating text content suitable as part of a campaign towards further restricting human access to information technology. Both evil groups are doomed to fail. A bunch of vietnamese farmers was able to hold the entire US army at bay for years. Imagine if those VCs had AIs to help them analyse their intelligence better!
reply
Good points about the dangers of AI.
Politicians will not miss this juicy opportunity for more regulation and spending.
reply