Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #PowerAndProgress
Most recents (7)
AI myths roundup. In conclusion, I want to summarize my main arguments and explain the overarching viewpoint. Briefly, I wrote these threads because I believe that there are almost “mystical” claims about AI, and especially generative AI (hence my language of myths).
I am convinced that generative AI is a very promising technology — but only if it is used in the correct way. I am also convinced that it is not currently being used in the correct way and the myths that I have argued against are partly responsible for this distorted path.
If we give up the idea that generative AI can create consciousness or human mind-like behaviors or the conceit that we are at the cusp of ultraintelligent machines, the AI discussion can be placed on a more productive grounding.
AI myth 3. Abundance myth. Building on AI myths 1 and 2, a third, and perhaps more pernicious one emerges: automation and human-like performance by AI will bring economic abundance, out of which all or most of society will benefit.
There are many versions of this, going back to IJ Good’s statement that “the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.”
Or futurist and Google technologist Ray Kurzweil’s periodic pronouncements that “singularity” is just around the corner, e.g., amazon.com/Singularity-Ne…. Or less fanciful versions where AI boosts productivity, so that most people can get by without work.
Motivated by what I see as misleading articles in coverage in the media, I will post a number of threads in the next several days on “AI myths” — ideas or claims about AI that should be questioned more. A couple of explanations would be useful to put these into context.
First, by “myths” I do not necessarily mean that the statements I will focus on are necessarily incorrect. I claim that they are accepted without sufficient evidence and they need to be questioned more, because they are having an oversized effect on public perceptions.
Second, I am not an AI researcher and some of the issues I raise will be in the hope of generating more questioning. Better ideas, correctives and further reactions are welcome.
Speaking at our event @DAcemogluMIT says history tells us that there is nothing automatic about technological progress leading to rising shared prosperity. Other forces are need to shape the change we want to see. resolutionfoundation.org/events/shaping… 
@DAcemogluMIT We (@DrDaronAcemoglu & @baselinescene ) don't have the answers to how we can shape the AI revolution (and don't believe anyone who says they do). But we do know that workers need a voice in shaping the revolution if its to deliver shared prosperity....
@DAcemogluMIT @DrDaronAcemoglu @baselinescene Speaking at our #PowerAndProgress event @DianeCoyle1859 says that are too many examples of where innovation is not serving society well - from food supply to pharmaceuticals. We're our 21st century equivalent of the refrigerator, she asks...
Here are my notes on #PowerAndProgress, the book by @DAcemogluMIT & @baselinescene
The story of the industrial revolution & post-WWII Welfare State in well known. So I focus on their general arguments & discussion of post-1980 trends (Chs. 8-11).🧵
The story of the industrial revolution & post-WWII Welfare State in well known. So I focus on their general arguments & discussion of post-1980 trends (Chs. 8-11).🧵
I found P&P engaging, stimulating & thought-provoking. Some of its points are not new, but are articulated in ways that are useful. It offers a balanced view, highlighting the potential of new technologies but documenting concerning trends. It combines analysis & prescription.
To set the baseline, it is useful to consider this figure (with US data). 👇
Something happened in 1980 (the prior social pact was broken) that delinked gains in economic productivity from wages earned by workers. This led to growing income inequality.
Something happened in 1980 (the prior social pact was broken) that delinked gains in economic productivity from wages earned by workers. This led to growing income inequality.
Aquí están mis notas sobre #PowerAndProgress, el libro de @DAcemogluMIT y @baselinescene
La historia de la revolución industrial y el Estado de Bienestar en Europa es conocida. Así q me concentro en argumentos generales y la discusión de las tendencias post-1980 (Cap. 8-11).🧵
La historia de la revolución industrial y el Estado de Bienestar en Europa es conocida. Así q me concentro en argumentos generales y la discusión de las tendencias post-1980 (Cap. 8-11).🧵
𝘗𝘺𝘗 es un libro interesante y estimulante. Algunos de sus puntos no son nuevos, pero están articulados de manera útil. Ofrece una visión equilibrada, destacando el potencial de las nuevas tecnologías pero documentando tendencias preocupantes. Combina análisis y prescripción.
Para establecer la línea de base, es útil considerar este gráfico (con datos de EEUU)👇
Algo pasó en 1980 (se rompió el pacto social anterior) y se desvincularon las ganancias de la productividad económica de los salarios de los obreros. Por ello creció la desigualdad económica.
Algo pasó en 1980 (se rompió el pacto social anterior) y se desvincularon las ganancias de la productividad económica de los salarios de los obreros. Por ello creció la desigualdad económica.
My book, co-authored with @baselinescene, Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over Technology and Prosperity is out today (shapingwork.mit.edu/power-and-prog…).
Here is a thread to explain why we wrote it (and why we are excited to share the ideas that are basis of the book).
Here is a thread to explain why we wrote it (and why we are excited to share the ideas that are basis of the book).
The book is a corrective against a particular brand of techno-optimism that is commonplace in US tech circles, journalism and academia.
We wrote it because we think this techno-optimism is not just wrong, but also dangerous.
We wrote it because we think this techno-optimism is not just wrong, but also dangerous.
The techno-optimism we have in mind is not unmoored enough to claim that technology is going to create singularity and make everybody fabulously wealthy, healthy and happy (though there are some who claim that).
