Scott Alexander critiques Daron Acemoglu's Washington Post article on AI risks, highlighting flawed logic and unsupported claims about AI's current impacts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article by Daron Acemoglu in the Washington Post about AI risks. He identifies the main flaw as Acemoglu's argument that because AI is dangerous now, it can't be dangerous in the future. Scott argues this logic is flawed and that present and future AI risks are not mutually exclusive. He also criticizes Acemoglu's claims about AI's current negative impacts, particularly on employment, as not well-supported by evidence. Scott discusses the challenges of evaluating new technologies' impacts and argues that superintelligent AI poses unique risks different from narrow AI. He concludes by criticizing the tendency of respected figures to dismiss AI risk concerns without proper engagement with the arguments. Shorter summary

The post argues that automation and AI are unlikely to cause a sustained economic crisis, as new jobs will be created to replace those automated, though the benefits may primarily go to capital owners. Longer summary

This post discusses the potential economic impact of automation and AI, addressing concerns about job displacement and economic crisis. The authors argue that while automation will continue to change the job market, it is unlikely to lead to a sustained economic crisis in the foreseeable future. They examine historical trends in employment, current technological capabilities, and economic theories to support their argument. The post concludes that new jobs will continue to be created as old ones are automated, maintaining overall employment levels, though the benefits of automation may flow primarily to capital owners. Shorter summary

Scott summarizes and responds to comments on his technological unemployment article, covering various debates, critiques, and potential explanations for observed trends. Longer summary

This post summarizes comments on Scott's previous article about technological unemployment. It covers various perspectives on the topic, including debates about the pace of technological change, the impact of women entering the workforce, the role of disability benefits, issues with data interpretation, historical comparisons, and potential future scenarios. Scott also addresses some critiques of his original analysis and acknowledges areas where further research is needed. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines evidence for technological unemployment, finding little current impact but signs of 'technological underemployment' pushing workers to lower-skill jobs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines the arguments for and against technological unemployment, analyzing labor force participation rates, manufacturing job losses, and economic data to determine if automation is currently causing significant job displacement. He concludes that while there's little evidence of technological unemployment happening right now, there are signs of 'technological underemployment' where automation is pushing workers from middle-skill to lower-skill jobs. The long-term impacts remain uncertain, with economists divided on whether this is a temporary adjustment or a new normal. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares his experiences and insights from the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI, covering various aspects of AI development, risks, and ethical considerations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander recounts his experience at the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI. The conference brought together diverse experts to discuss AI risks, from technological unemployment to superintelligence. Key points include: the normalization of AI safety research, economists' views on technological unemployment, proposed solutions like retraining workers, advances in AI goal alignment research, improvements in AlphaGo and its implications, issues with AI transparency, political considerations in AI development, and debates on ethical AI principles. Scott notes the star-studded attendance and the surreal experience of discussing crucial AI topics with leading experts in the field. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques three articles on poverty, proposing a framework to categorize poverty approaches, and reluctantly advocates for basic income as the best available solution despite its flaws. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews three articles on poverty and explains why he disagrees with all of them. He categorizes different approaches to poverty using a grid with axes of 'competitive vs cooperative' and 'tractable vs intractable'. Scott positions himself in the 'cooperative' but 'intractable' quadrant, expressing skepticism about both the exploitation narrative and the effectiveness of most anti-poverty programs. He argues that poverty is largely due to genetics and deep cultural factors that are difficult to change. Despite reservations, he reluctantly supports a basic income guarantee as the least bad solution. The post also touches on global poverty, economic growth, and open borders. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques a plan to cure youth unemployment by abolishing minimum wage, arguing that unemployment might be preferable to miserable employment at extremely low wages. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses Federico's plan to cure youth unemployment through policies like abolishing minimum wage and reducing labor regulations. He explores the potential consequences, comparing unemployment to underemployment at very low wages. The post delves into historical communist strategies, technological unemployment, and the challenges of adapting to a changing job market. Scott argues that unemployment might be preferable to miserable employment at extremely low wages, as it could lead to solutions like a Basic Income Guarantee. He concludes that minimum wage and labor regulations might serve to turn miserably-employed people into unemployed welfare recipients, creating a problem society is more likely to address. Shorter summary