In total, probably not but per capita?
206 karma · joined January 14, 2023
So you just need to pair DallE with an axidraw?
Sure, automation increased demand for food, but demand did not increase enough to not destroy 5/6th of farmers jobs.
Now this may not be a bad thing at all, that's not the point, but I am not sure "hey demand for art will increase but 5 out of 6 artist jobs will no longer exist!" is a super hopeful statement to artists.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-people-employed...
- will be more artwork be bought (probably)
- will the increase in the quantity of artwork being bought (assuming there is one) compensate the decrease in price for each piece of art?
Clearly for software, _so far_, the increase in productivity / decrease in price has led to such a big increase in demand for software that some programmers are better off - I say _some_ because many jobs within the software industry stopped existing.
Yet if we look at something like agriculture, there has been some increase in demand in food products(e.g. much more meat is being sold), but one can only eat so much - so most of the increase in productivity has led to way fewer people working as farmers, and not much increase in farmers income.
No "these are tools to replace farmers - these are tools farmers can use to do more and better work".
Basically people are making statements about the elasticity of demand with respect to prices for prices & quantities no one has ever observed. If making a piece of art is now 1/2 (random number) the cost thanks to AI, will people buy 50% more? 100% more? 1000% more? I have no idea and I am not sure why people think they do.
> for a wide class of probability distributions, no more than a certain fraction of values can be more than a certain distance from the mean. Specifically, no more than 1/k^2 of the distribution's values can be k or more standard deviations away from the mean.
IQ is (if I recall correctly) normally distributed with a standard deviation of 15. So for a distance of 1.3... standard deviation (i.e. a distance of 20), you can't have more than 1/1.3...^2 = 56.25% of the population so far from the mean (below 80 or above 120), or 28.125% _above_ 120.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution
[1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.h...
[0] https://sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/economics/sites/socialsc...
* some papers rely on McEvedy and Jones’ Atlas of World Population History data as the ground truth, when a lot of it is the best educated guess (sometimes the guess is based on basically almost nothing).
* the difference between the "guessed" population and the real population (which do not observe) is not random, which would lead not only to less precise results but also to bias.
Correlation is indeed misunderstood by the author.
> In the chart above, Series 1 and Series 2 are both increasing every day together in the same direction, yet they are perfectly negatively correlated.
"Perfectly negatively correlated" as in the correlation is ... 0.982306684.
- are the overall costs of plastics (namely pollution and its environmental and health effects) higher than the costs of banning plastics? Seems like a clear yes.
- what are the redistributive effects? Seems like: consumers are net winners (lower health effects, some or all financial costs of switching away from plastics are passed down to consumers through higher prices); some firms are losers (mainly those who produced plastics or used a lot of them) and some are winners (newcomers, producers of no plastics solutions, transporters).
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours#are-we-working-more...
It's comparing mainstream action movies with mainstream action movies. The fact that those mainstream action movies used to be r-rated and are not anymore is the whole point of the article.
> The authors of “Signalling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence”, which appeared in the Journal of Marketing in 2010, do so by dividing the rich into two groups: “parvenus”, who want to associate themselves with other rich people and distinguish themselves from have-nots, and “patricians”, who want to signal to each other but not to the masses. They theorise that more expensive luxury goods, aimed at patricians, will have less obvious branding than cheaper ones. Sure enough, they found that Gucci and Louis Vuitton charge more for quieter handbags and Mercedes slaps bigger emblems on its cheaper cars. People who cannot afford luxury but want to look as if they can (“poseurs”) go for big logos: counterfeiters usually copy louder goods.
There are two slightly different questions:
- how much weight is lost assuming perfect compliance
- how much weight is lost assuming the compliance of the average people
If I am interested in losing weight, I want to know what will work for me, a measly sack of meat with imperfect discipline, imperfect information and so on.
It’s like saying walking on a tight rope though a canyon is not dangerous - assuming you perfectly go through one edge to another. Sure, it’s trivially true. Not very informative though.
[0] https://github.com/orgs/InseeFrLab/repositories + https://github.com/orgs/InseeFr/repositories
[1] https://github.com/orgs/etalab/repositories + https://github.com/betagouv
- inflation is not informative about X
- X is what matters
- therefore we shall call X "inflation"
- this may be true in the long run, this does not mean people will magically adapt in one day. Luddites were skilled workers whose jobs were replaced by much less skilled jobs because of mechanisation.
- People work much, much less than in the past: working hours for those who work were almost cut in half in 150 years [0], and there are relatively way less people who work (much longer studies, much longer retirement than a century ago) - if you count time spent on domestic work.