Scenarios for the Transition to AGI

By Anton Korinek and Donghyun Suh, in a new NBER working paper:

We analyze how output and wages behave under different scenarios for technological progress that may culminate in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), defined as the ability of AI systems to perform all tasks that humans can perform. We assume that human work can be decomposed into atomistic tasks that differ in their complexity. Advances in technology make ever more complex tasks amenable to automation. The effects on wages depend on a race between automation and capital accumulation. If automation proceeds sufficiently slowly, then there is always enough work for humans, and wages may rise forever. By contrast, if the complexity of tasks that humans can perform is bounded and full automation is reached, then wages collapse. But declines may occur even before if large-scale automation outpaces capital accumulation and makes labor too abundant. Automating productivity growth may lead to broad-based gains in the returns to all factors. By contrast, bottlenecks to growth from irreproducible scarce factors may exacerbate the decline in wages.

The best paper on these topics so far?  And here is a recent Noah Smith piece on employment as AI proceeds.  And a recent Belle Lin WSJ piece, via Frank Gullo, “Tech Job Seekers Without AI Skills Face a New Reality: Lower Salaries and Fewer Roles.”  And here is a proposal for free journalism school for everybody (NYT, okie-dokie!).

My interview with Sam Matey

He is a podcaster who mainly does transcripts.  Our discussion was largely but by no means entirely about climate change, here is one excerpt:

Sam: And India also is building huge amounts of new renewable and other electricity generating capacity. They’re building electric rail networks. They seem to be hitting their stride in a way that China was in about 2000 or 2005. I’m feeling optimistic about the rise of a new broadly-speaking-democratic powerful country in global markets and geopolitics.

Tyler: I would add the cautionary note that hardly anyone in India cares about climate change. Now, you may think they care about correlates to climate change, such as high temperatures in Delhi in the difficult months. But it’s very far from a national priority with any party that I’m aware of or any segment of the electorate. Air pollution is a major issue. But if there’s a way to fix air pollution, say through natural gas, that doesn’t, to a comparable degree, fix climate change, it could prove very popular in India.

So truly green energy has to be very cheap with the intermittency problem truly solved for India to make the transition, because there is not ideological momentum there at all.

And:

Sam: I agree that there’s not going to be a huge ideological drive to solve climate change in China or India, but I suspect that they will be doing a lot of the stuff that would have been considered a really ambitious climate change solving program 10 years ago, nonetheless, just for other reasons. Does that make sense?

Tyler: It makes sense, but keep in mind there’s also going to be technological progress for fossil fuels. And there has been; fracking was a big, big increase in productivity. It could spread to more parts of the world quite easily. The energy demands of the world, over some period of time, they could go up by 3x or 4x. And to think green energy will absorb all of that and cut into the current flows, I think it’s a bigger requirement than is often imagined.

Again, I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic, but I’m not optimistic either. I’m genuinely uncertain.

And this:

Tyler: Maybe, but there’s two sources of quite green energy that have been declining. Nuclear we’ve already mentioned, but also hydroelectric. So some things are leaving the scene. And I would just say in general, looking at history, I’m very cautious about extrapolating either positive or negative trends. There’s so many efforts to do so. So in the 70s, there’s this great fear of overpopulation. Right now, there’s this great fear of a fertility crisis and underpopulation.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t think about either one of those, but it could well be neither comes to pass. Extrapolating current trends can rather rapidly lead us astray because of the power of the exponent. But maybe the world is just messy and not all that exponential.

In the latter part of the dialogue we talk about Morocco, Kenya, Mexico, Ethiopia, and the productivity crisis in Canada, among other issues.  Will Buddhism rise or fall in influence?  And what does it mean to suggest that books are overrated?

New results on intergenerational progress

The full paper title is “Has Intergenerational Progress Stalled? Income Growth Over Five Generations of Americans,” by Kevin Corrinth and Jeff Lattimore.  Here is the abstract:

We find that each of the past four generations of Americans was better off than the previous one, using a post-tax, post-transfer income measure constructed annually from 1963-2022 based on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement. At age 36–40, Millennials had a real median household income that was 18 percent higher than that of the previous generation at the same age. This rate of intergenerational progress was slower than that experienced by the Silent Generation (34 percent) and Baby Boomers (27 percent), but similar to that experienced by Generation X (16 percent). Slower progress for Generation X and Millennials is due to their stalled growth in work hours—holding work hours constant, they experienced a greater intergenerational increase in real market income than Baby Boomers. Intergenerational progress for Millennials under age 30 has remained robust as well, although their income growth largely results from higher reliance on their parents. We also find that the higher educational costs incurred by younger generations is far outweighed by their lifetime income gains.

The emphasis added is from me, not from the authors.  Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

What is wrong with movies these days?

Here is one bit from a longer and very interesting essay by Vicky Osterweil:

This kind of audience-condescending premise-forward literalism is not just in the narrative and scripting, it’s in the acting. The actors of Dune 2 almost all speak in that tedious whisper-growl that stands in for profundity, a vocal-style also popularized by Nolan, in Christian Bale’s portrayal of the caped crusader in 2005’s Batman Begins. I believe that if a movie features a bunch of good actors and all the performances are flat and dull, as is the case in Dune Part Two, where even Florence Pugh, Lea Seydoux and Josh Brolin lack all charisma, it is ultimately a reflection on the director (and the script), not the actors.

Worth reading the whole thing, though I think it is quite wrong about Russian constructivism in the visual arts, which is a far more diverse tradition than the author lets on.

Who are currently the most influential thinkers/intellectuals on the Left?

I was discussing this question with some others, and I don’t find it so easy to answer.  Claude 3 had a reasonable list, but with no clear winner:

  1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC): A member of the U.S. House of Representatives, AOC has quickly become a prominent face of the progressive movement within the Democratic Party. Known for her active social media presence and bold policy proposals like the Green New Deal, she has garnered significant attention and influence, particularly among younger left-leaning Americans.
  2. Kimberlé Crenshaw: A law professor at UCLA and Columbia University, Crenshaw is a leading scholar of critical race theory and intersectionality. Her work has been influential in shaping contemporary discussions around race, gender, and social justice.
  3. Ibram X. Kendi: A historian and author, Kendi’s works, such as “How to Be an Antiracist” and “Stamped from the Beginning,” have become key texts in the current discourse on race and anti-racism in America.
  4. Robin DiAngelo: An author and academic, DiAngelo’s 2018 book “White Fragility” has become a popular and influential text in discussions about race, privilege, and racism, particularly in the context of whiteness and white allyship.
  5. Mariame Kaba: An activist and organizer, Kaba is a leading voice in the prison abolition movement. Her work focuses on transformative justice, community organizing, and dismantling the prison-industrial complex.
  6. Bhaskar Sunkara: Founder and editor of Jacobin, a leading socialist magazine in the United States, Sunkara has played a significant role in popularizing democratic socialist ideas and policies, particularly among millennials and Gen Z.

Matt and Ezra should be on the list too.  Lina Khan?  Chomsky has a long-running form of influence.  Judith Butler?  Note that AOC seems to have evolved into “another Democratic Party politician.”  EA is no longer in ascendancy, and isn’t strictly “on the Left” either.  Who else?  Those who have pushed for drug legalization and decriminalization?  What do you think?  And the question is about now, not ten years ago.

Haiti vs. the Dominican Republic

I am setting aside most of the cultural and “macro” issues, and just considering policy, in my latest Bloomberg column.  Excerpt:

Consider agriculture. If you fly over Hispaniola, you can see a notable difference between the Haitian and Dominican sides of the border. The Dominican side has plenty of trees, whereas the Haitian side is denuded. Much of that can be explained by Haiti’s history of weaker property rights. A “tragedy of the commons” has led to systematic exploitation of Haitian land.

The deforestation of Haiti dates from at least 1730, when French colonial policies, timber exports and the clearing of the land for coffee production all did damage. That hurt the prospects for Haitian agriculture, but much of the tree-clearing took place in the middle of the 20th century. Haitians have long used charcoal as an energy source, which led to unchecked deforestation, soil erosion and desertification. Thus, despite its beautiful natural setting, most of Haiti does not appear green and sparkling.

In the Dominican Republic, deforestation is also a problem — but not nearly on the scale of Haiti. Forests still cover about 40% of the country’s land (estimates for Haiti have ranged as low as 2%). The Dominican Republic has some national parks and reforestation programs, and developed alternative energy sources to reduce the demand for charcoal. Forest cover, and the quality of the soil, made a comeback. The country is also working toward selling its reforestation for carbon credits, giving it further economic incentive to protect its land.

To the extent that the Dominican Republic still experiences deforestation, it often comes from livestock cultivation, a far more economically productive activity than gathering wood for charcoal.

To citizens of wealthy countries, these differences may not sound enormous. But agriculture is an important driver of early economic development. Surpluses from agriculture enable the accumulation of savings, which finances broader commercial investment and helps people start small businesses. The economy obtains a base for diversifying into manufacturing, as happened in East Asia. Ethiopia’s double-digit growth spurt, before the recent tragic civil wars, also was rooted in agricultural productivity gains.

Today the Dominican Republic is essentially self-sufficient in food, including rice. According to the US government, Haiti now relies on imports for “a significant portion of the agricultural products it consumes,” including 80% of its rice. In 1981, by contrast, food imports were only 18% of the Haitian diet.

There are further arguments at the link.

Sunday assorted links

1. A YIMBY victory in Wellington, New Zealand.  And boarding houses are underrated.

2. Eric Lombardi on an abundance agenda for Canada.

3. Christopher Beam and Catarina Saraiva at Bloomberg cover EJMR.

4. Luis Garicano thoughts on the Levitt podcast with Hartley.

5. John Nye on the political economy of Dune.

6. Against a TikTok ban.

7. William Nordhaus on whether we are approaching a singularity.

8. Frans de Waal, RIP, and more here.

Austin Vernon on drones and defense (from my email)

I think they still favor the defensive. On the front line they make movement, hence offense, very difficult.

In the strategic sense we’ve already seen Ukraine adjust to the propeller drone/cruise missile attacks. The first few months were terrible for them but then they organized a defense system with the mobile anti drone teams. The interception percentage for drones traveling a fair distance over Ukraine is extremely high, 98% type numbers. Most of the Russian focus in now on more “front line” targets like Odessa because the Ukrainians don’t have as much time and space to make the interception. They are downing maybe 60%-70% of those drones.

The Russians are slow to adapt, but they eventually do. There is no reason to believe they won’t get better at intercepting these slow drones. Expensive cruise missiles with high success rates can end up being a better deal when strategic drones have 98% loss rates. The slow drones are better suited for near front line attacks. It also wouldn’t surprise me if they adapted to be more expensive to add features like quiet engines, thermal signature obfuscation, and lower radar cross sections.

I also think it’s worth pointing out that the Houthis have tried unmanned surface vehicles and they’ve all been quickly destroyed. Same with their slower drones. The hardest weapons to defend against have been conventional anti ship missiles and the newer ballistic anti ship missiles. You can argue about the intercepting missiles being too expensive, but the US is moving towards using more APKWS guided rockets against these strategic drone targets. These only cost $30,000 each and we already procure tens of thousands of them each year. The adaptation game is ongoing but the short range FPV drones seem quite durable while the strategic slow speed drone impact looks less sustainable.

Here is my original post.

My podcast with Thomas Burnett

Thomas is at the Templeton Foundation, here is the link (with transcript), here is one bit:

Tyler: Well, when I was very small, my favorite books were about animals and dinosaurs. A bit later, I liked books about codes and ciphers. I loved baseball books. I loved Jerry Kramer’s Instant Replay. Chess books, of course, when I was a chess player. Maybe when I was 11, I started reading science fiction. So, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, a little later, Robert Heinlein. Those were many of the first things I read.

And this:

Thomas: …if I’m very well informed about something? Why shouldn’t I go marching to Capitol Hill and shout from the top of my lungs that things must be this way to have a better future?

Tyler: Well, I’m not sure how much being well informed predicts you being right. That’s an interesting question, Now, clearly, society relies on the fact that many people will go out and march for things, even when they’re not well informed. So, I don’t want to talk everyone out of that. But it still seems to me the wisest people, or people who are trying to be the wisest people, should be much more careful, and do more to listen, and set an example toward humility. While recognizing you need a lot of dogmatists fighting for a bunch of things to keep society sustainable.

Many further topics are discussed, interesting throughout.

Do current trends in drone technology favor offense or defense?

At first people thought that drones favored defense, since Ukraine, in its war against Russia, was defending successfully with drones.  But now Ukraine is using drones to attack Russia, and Russian oil refinery assets and warships.  It is less obvious that drones are defensive assets on net.  Furthermore, Russia is now using more electronic jamming, and more weapons that are drone-avoiding or drone-resistant, thereby limiting the defensive value of drones.

Overall, current drones seem to increase the vulnerability of fixed assets such as tanks or troop formations, or for that matter oil refineries or Moscow or Ukraine fixed landmarks.  A very large and sophisticated U.S. aircraft carrier might be able to repel the drones (albeit at high dollar cost), but a bunch of tanks in an open field will not have comparable protection.

In the abstract, “mid-valued assets become more vulnerable” could favor either offense or defense.

The more obvious trend is that it favors nations willing and able to lose lots of mid-sized assets.  That is either because a) the nation doesn’t care, because it is evil, or b) because the nation can replace them quickly, for instance by building more tanks or by drafting more soldiers.

So could it be that in the long run steady state (albeit not today) drones favor the more evil nations?  Factor a) is clearly a marker of evil, whereas factor b) might be modestly correlated with evil.  I consider this an unconfirmed hypothesis, but it reflects my thinking at the moment.

Some triumphs of 19th century liberalism

Here is an outline of part of my lecture.  I presented “free trade” (NB: it wasn’t totally free), the classical gold standard, and some modicum of free immigration (not everywhere) as three successful and mostly stable pillars of 19th century classical liberal achievement.  Of course that was for limited parts of Western Europe and North America only, and with major exceptions for women, blacks, and more.  Nonetheless, something in that formula worked, at least when it was actually appplied.  Here is the outline:

Extreme trade protectionism after Napoleonic Wars

Later sliding scale for tariffs, maybe 50% rate of effective protection?

Complete free trade for Corn [wheat] during the 1840s, Cobden and Bright and Anti-Corn Law League

Terms of trade arguments: Robert Torrens, J.S. Mill

Protectionism does best when inelastic demand for your exports, elastic demand for your imports (two-country model)

The tariff in essence helps your buyers collude as one

That can outweigh the efficiency losses from the tariff

Removing labor from the corn sector also can boost British manufactures

What were terms of trade for GB then?

Jeffrey Williamson paper 1990 – Repeal helped the working class, hurt the landlords

Doug Irwin (EJ, 2021) – Efficiency-neutral but broadly egalitarian

American farmers were big winners

Greatest liberal triumph of the 19th century?

The other great triumph – the classical gold standard – dating from 1815-1914

Price-specie flow mechanism

Overvalued exchange rate – 1815, 1920s for Britain

Nassau Senior, Four Lectures on the Transmission of Precious Metals, 1827

Henry Thornton, An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain, 1802 – prices, interest rates, exchange rates

Steve Levitt on the future of economics

It’s really, right now, I think the profession is very inward-looking. It’s rewarding people who do things that are seen as hard. It’s really blurring the lines between theory and empirics was structural in a way that it is an experiment that I personally don’t think has worked out very well. And so, I think that it’s not that, I mean, the great ideas you’re talking about like Black-Scholes are few and far between anyway. But the rewards are not there for people who have practical insights are not rewarded greatly in the profession. The rewards come to people who make innovations, theoretical innovations, right? Who come up with new techniques, who do hard stuff that other people can’t do. So, I think in that sense, economics is going to become, my prediction is that economics is going to become less and less relevant, more and more inwardly focused. And honestly, I wouldn’t be that surprised if economics ends up going the way of anthropology or sociology, which works prominent and thought to be very promising and important disciplines, but have fallen dramatically in their stature because they ended up being more arcane and more focused inwardly. So, I have a really bad feeling about the future of economics, and I don’t see an easy way to change it.”

That is from Jon Hartley’s podcast with him, transcript included.