As described above, I think with AI coding, our role shifts from "programmer" to "project manager", but even as a project manager, you can still choose to delegate some tasks to yourself. Whether if you want to do the hard stuff yourself, or the easy stuff, or the stuff that happens on Thursdays. It's not about what AI is capable of doing, but rather, what you choose to have it do.
I guess some people enjoy the process, but you can still do that.
It's like with machinists and 3D printers, you can always spend 10 hours on the lathe to make something but most of the time it's more practical to just get the part so one can get on with what actually needs doing.
that's a good analogy, maybe change 3d printers to CNC. I think there's a group of people that derive joy and satisfaction from using the part they designed and there's another that gets satisfaction from producing the part as designed. Same for software, some people are thrilled because they can get the software they imagine while others dread not producing the software people imagine.
Hiring is incredibly complicated when done well. If 'limited fuzzy Boolean windows' over 'complex interpersonal dynamics' is vibes, then we will need to accept vibes.
They aren't explicitly, but, if you ever find yourself in a position where you're part of the hiring decision, it's best to categorize vibes as protected for anything written or otherwise recorded.
SCOTUS has found non-protected categories can still be protected because they are "proxies" for protected categories. One of the classic examples of this are zip codes[0], which was found to be a proxy for race, because it has a "disparate impact" on people of particular races.
For some people, the 'wrong vibes' are often proxies for cultural things - all kinds of body language contribute to vibes and it's easy to accidentally (or on purpose...) discriminate against a whole categories based on vibes. If you tell a candidate "Hey we just didn't like your vibes as much as this other guy", it could affect your exposure to claims that you discriminated against them based on their race.
Do "vibes" really matter all that much when you're going to be working 100% remotely? Maybe we should be moving to fully blind auditions for such jobs, where the interview might still be proctored in some way to prevent outright cheating, but the people who make the hiring decision aren't even put in a position where they might "vibe" with the candidate.
> SCOTUS has found non-protected categories can still be protected because they are "proxies" for protected categories. One of the classic examples of this are zip codes[0], which was found to be a proxy for race, because it has a "disparate impact" on people of particular races.
This was probably wrong, both in terms of interpreting the existing law and as a statement of what the law should be. Sometimes bad facts correlate with race; that should not be a reason to deny using the measure for e.g. hiring or lending.
> SCOTUS has found non-protected categories can still be protected because they are "proxies" for protected categories. One of the classic examples of this are zip codes[0], which was found to be a proxy for race, because it has a "disparate impact" on people of particular races.
I realise it may be somewhat beside your point, but that was a Kennedy+liberals vs conservatives ruling in 2015 - so the current SCOTUS would likely have ruled the other way, and decent odds they overrule it sooner or later. Scalia’s dissent was objecting to the entire idea of disparate impact analysis under the Fair Housing Act, so more likely that gets overruled than this specific application of that idea.
This was a statutory interpretation case though, so if SCOTUS overturns the decision, Congress could reverse that with ordinary legislation, no constitutional amendment required. But who knows whether that will turn out to be politically feasible.
Generally the cities where housing is expensive are exactly the ones where the government is telling people they can't build (or making it very expensive to get approval). Do you have a specific example of a city such as you claim?
Total US GDP is ~31 trillion, so that's only like 5%. I think it's conceivable that AI could result in ~5% of GDP in additional revenue. Not saying it's guaranteed, but it's hardly an implausible figure. And of course it's even less considering global GDP.
Yup. If you follow the links to the original JP Morgan quote, it's not crazy:
> Big picture, to drive a 10% return on our modeled AI investments through 2030 would require ~$650 billion of annual revenue into perpetuity, which is an astonishingly large number. But for context, that equates to 58bp of global GDP, or $34.72/month from every current iPhone user...
But think about it this way: something simple like Slack charges $9/month/person and companies already pay that on many behalf. How hard would it be to imagine all those same companies (and lots more) would pay $30/month/employee for something something AI? Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra.
$35/head is possible but it has to provide tangible value to the user (beyond coding) which many pro-AI people will fail to recognize. People pay a lot for other stuff (ie: like their phone plan). Being digital or physical is not the issue here but the value perceived by the user.
The world IS responsible for handling the people. Thats the whole fucking reason we made society to take care of children. Nothing is inevitable. It serves the interests of the few.
I think they meant “society.” Society does, in fact, owe the people something, especially if we, the people, are expected to live by the rules, social norms, and expectations imposed by society.
Parent was talking about children (npi) — they don’t get out of society what they put into it. Society owes them care for bringing them into it, and if society defaults on this debt then society ends.
What your describing is a low trust society. If you disregard the social contract like that, then people wont owe the "the world" anythign either. Collaboration and civics goes out the window. If you want to look at what kind of a shithole that libertarian nonsense leads to, then try taking a stroll in SF at night
This is an important framing - we talk so much of "rights" but if you have a right to something, that means someone or someones have a duty to provide it.
No, no it does not. If we say everyone has a right to clean air and water, no one else has a duty to provide it. Those are given to us for free by the planet. The issue is that rich assholes (and poor assholes who only think of getting rich) take that away from everyone else by polluting what is common to everyone.
> I don't consider that to be saying that society "owes" me something. I regard it mutually beneficial, not some kind of debt/debtor relationship.
You know, in phrases like "you owe it to your spouse/sibling/friend/self to...", people aren't talking about formal debt. Please try to keep that kind of meaning in mind when people say that society owes its people.
humans collectively are responsible for the end results of innovations and achievements , otherwise who are you doing all this for. Wars are a extreme form of disagreements amongst a large body of opposing opinions or perspective IMHO. Earth (world!) simply exists, with or without you. You as Byorganism/Byproduct of this planet you have an obligation to this planet in good deeds. Have you not watched Star-Wars?
> * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today
If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today. Which specific workers are winning in that scenario may vary tremendously, of course, but I don't think anyone is seriously claiming AI will make everyone less productive.
The value of labor i.e. wages depend on labor demand (the marginal product of labor) and bargaining power, not output per worker. If AI is a substitute for many tasks, the marginal value of an additional worker, and what a company is willing to pay for their work can fall even if each remaining worker is more productive.
What you're forecasting is a scenario where total output has substantially increased but no one's hiring or able to start their own business. Instant massive recession is by no means a "sure bet" with technological improvements, especially those that make more kinds of work possible than before.
I'm not forecasting that, and it's a virtual strawman in the face of my much narrower claim: that wages depend on marginal labor demand and bargaining power, not average output per worker. If AI substitutes for labor, the marginal value of adding another worker in many roles can fall. That can mean fewer hires or lower wages in some categories, not 'no hiring' or an instant massive recession. I have no idea what the addressable market or demand for our more productive economy is, but for the record I do hope it's high to support new businesses and a bigger pie in general!
> My statement reflects that increased productivity means that fewer people are required to generate the same amount of economic output.
People have been singing that since the industrial revolution started.
What makes you think it's different this time? Other times increased productivity yielded fewer people doing what a machine suddenly can do. But never fewer people employed or smaller overall economy.
You can argue that our populations are older than ever before. There aren't enough kids, and consumers are saturated with consumption opportunities.
That's maybe never happened before during the industrial revolution. But it's orthogonal to AI.
Most people in the economy do not use Slack. That tool may be most beneficial to those people who stand to lose jobs to AI displacement. Maybe after everyone is pink-slipped for an LLM or AI chatbot tool the total cost to the employer is reduced enough that they are willing to spend part of the money they saved eliminating warm bodies on AI tools and willing to pay a higher per employee price.
I think with a smaller employee pool though it is unlikely that it all evens out without the AI providers holding the users hostage for quarterly profits' sake.
That AI will have to be significantly preferable to the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms.
> the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms.
It’s not a challenge at all.
To win, all you need is to starve your competitors of RAM.
RAM is the lifeblood of AI, without RAM, AI doesn’t work.
HBF is NAND and integrated in-package like HBM. 3D XPoint or Optane would be extremely valuable today as part of the overall system architecture, but they were power-intensive enough that this particular use probably wouldn't be feasible.
(Though maybe it ends up being better if you're doing lots of random tiny 4k reads. It's hard to tell because the technology is discontinued as GP said, whereas NAND has kept progressing.)
They will pay it but lay off the number of employees needed to balance it out, and just expect the remaining ones to make up for it with their new AI subscriptions.
This is true though I think even if the employer provides all this on a per employee basis, the number of eligible employees, after everyone who stands to lose a job because of a shift to AI tools, will be low enough that each employee will need to add a lot of value for this to be worth it to an employer so the stated number is probably way too low. Ordinary people may just migrate from Apple products to something that is more affordable or, in the extreme case, walk away from the whole surveillance economy. Those people would not buy into any of this.
This is true but unfortunately for Apple I don't buy anything from the app store except for a minimal iCloud subscription for temporary photo storage. I am in the process of unwinding that subscription in favor of local storage and periodic sync. I haven't been diligent about syncing things in the past so I did buy a subscription for photo storage to avoid losing photos. I know that lots of people buy apps for all kinds of things. I'm not one of those people though.
That's far larger than the population of the USA (unclear to me if that 650bb number is global or USA only) but by sheer scale this is assuming that these companies can collect that fee from a global customer base - including users in developing economies, EU, China, etc. and after the middleman fees are accounted for.
The comments in this thread seem to be thinking within the context of 'the poorest in their nation'. This calculation assumes collecting this fee from among 'the poorest in the world'.
Sure, 1.56bb users could also be interpreted as 'the wealthiest 20% of the world'. But the tail is especially long on this curve given how wealth is concentrated in a small percentage of the global population (1% of users have 50% of wealth).
Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, etc have been able to collect large amounts of revenue from a global customer base so I don't think the assumption was that unreasonable.
Obviously, China will protect its homegrown AI industry. Current geopolitics trending towards US decoupling in Europe might slow it. But under the old status quo, US AI would have been rapidly adopted in the EU (and it still might. It depends greatly on how much of the Trump Doctrine outlasts the current administration).
Developing countries eventually adopt new technologies. First they adopted personal computers and became customers of Microsoft, then they adopted the Internet and became customers of Google, they adopted smartphones and became customers of Apple. Eventually they will adopt AI and become customers of someone. The question is whether it will be US tech or Chinese tech.
Personally I would be astonished if LLMs percolating through the global economy doesn’t give a 50bp bump from here on out.
Even if scaling hit a wall, commoditizing what we have now would do it. We have so much scaffolding and organizational overhang with the current models, it’s crazy.
Agreed. Applying the intelligence we already have more broadly will have a huge impact. That's been true for a while now, and it keeps getting more true as models keep getting better.
It's conceivable to us working in white collar knowledge jobs where our input and output is language. Will it also make 5% more homes built by a carpenter?
It might provide cover to lay off more than 5% of us (the LLM can create a work-like text product that, as far as upper management can tell, is indistinguishable from the real thing!), then we will have to go find jobs swinging hammers to build houses. Well, somebody’s got to do it.
The idea that companies need "cover" to perform layoffs (particularly in the US) doesn't make sense to me. Tech companies, all companies lay people off regularly. (To a first order approximation) if a worker is a net positive to a company then the company will want to keep them, and if they are not then the company will want to get rid of them. AI or no AI.
I’ve seen many essential people being laid off for stupid reasons, the gp reason above being part of the story for some. Finance runs the world not tech. Tech is only welcome when it helps finance else it is marginalized.
Seems like the cover might be for investors. If a company is shrinking but you don't want investors to know it's shrinking, you can say you're improving productivity with AI.
That seems pretty reasonable, yes. That is like asking if putting a low-cost Ops Research specialist in every company could make a 5% difference in operations - yes it could. Making resource-efficient decisions is not something that comes naturally to humans and having a system that consistently makes high quality game-theoretic recommendations would be huge.
Bunch of tiny companies would love to hire a mathematician to optimise what they are doing to get a 5-10% improvement. Unfortunately a 5-10% improvement in a small business can't justify the cost of hiring another person, and good mathematicians with business sense and empathy are a rare commodity.
Lots of jobs like daycare, teachers, cleaning, the material costs are near zero and your ability to increase productivity using technology is very low.
You can reduce quality of cleaning. But it's very hard to clean faster and better at the same time.
These industries are not going to be optimized by an AI. The only optimization is lower overhead or lower salaries.
Sure, we could have robots in daycare, but I don't think lack of AI is why my wife would have concerns :)
Of course there's jobs that don't have a productivity boost from AI. The question is whether across the entire economy there will be a 5% GDP boost.
Teachers, cleaners, and daycare workers may see 0% gains, but don't be surprised if that is made up for by 10% gains the productivity of tech, law, marketing, advertising, manufacturing, government, etc. (okay maybe not government).
How can advertising and marketing become more profitable from this? It's a genuine question, but I don't see how making advertising and marketing easier for everybody and hence flooding the already flooded market would result in increased productivity.
By significantly reducing the cost of creating the advertisements. Want to air a commercial? You no longer have to have actors, sets, designers, costumes, etc. just ask AI to make you a commercial and describe what you want it to look like.
Consider all the labor and capital spent across all the advertising real estate in the world. Commercial, online ads, billboards, labeling. The inputs to make all these things are now greatly reduced. To increase productivity, it doesn't matter that the market is flooded, just that it's much easier to make these things.
If that seems reasonable to you then you don't know anything about residential construction. The problems that homebuilders face aren't amenable to mathematical solutions. They have to deal with permitting issues, corrupt / incompetent government officials, supplier delays, bad weather, flakey workers, etc. The notion of a 5% improvement from LLM is ludicrously naive.
The first 2 are very LLM amenable, the last 3 are very mathematical-solution amenable (optimising around issues like that is basically what Ops Research does). I don't see what your argument is here.
The list of people claiming that maths won't work who then get bulldozed by mathematicians is long.
Because they make it much easier to audit what decisions are being made and how reasonable they were. Corruption relies on not being too well known - once people can start pointing to specific decisions rather than a general "we know there is corruption here somewhere" it is hard to sustain.
It's not like people don't know who they are though? It's not some secret formula of who is corrupt. It's everyone that's been in position for any length of time. If you don't yield to the corruption you won't be in your job long. The degree of corruption is variable and perhaps the LLM could find the most efficient wheel to grease and person to lean on but then you just have the next company doing more of the same.
Given how much of the spending is hard goods and simply not AI-able (rent, most of housing new construction, most of other goods, most health care, much of other services), the replacement theory would require a massive displacement.
It cannot be sustained with just one-time growth. Capital always has to grow, or it will decrease. If this bubble actually manages to deliver interest, this will lead to the bubble growing even larger, driving even more interest.
The chart you listed is for the years before the CCP won the civil war in 1949. But agreed that many of the problems overcome were also problems that were created after the war.
Japan controlled much more of China than the communists did before 1945. And having half your country occupied is bad for GDP. You made a mistake and believed some propaganda here.
Chinese GDP was higher during WWII than over the next several years, the actual minimum 1959 to 1961 was well into communist rule. Literally CCP rule was worse than the anarchy of civically war, it’s right up there with the insanity of Pol Pot.
This so historically stupid claim, it's not even wrong tier.
There was no GDP data under KMT - it wasn't even formally calculated.
CCP started GDP calculations, but using soviet MPS GDP accounting system that basically omitted services and lowballed production prices.
The only GDP data we have that is pseudo normalized are via estimates like Maddison project. Even they don't bother to recompose China/KMT data during WW2. The TLDR is prewar peak 1939 data (right before JP invasion) around 288B, PRC took over in 1949, GDP was 245B in 1950, grew to 306B by 1952. GLF tanked GDP from 460b to 350B... i.e. the worst case scenario of GLF floor was still 40% larger than 1950.
E: Note wiki data links to ourworldindata that pulls from Maddison and in table form KMT/WW2 data is not available and only pulling from closest data point 1938/1950 and naively extrapolating per capita. Because KMT data doesn't exist.
GDP isn’t just some arbitrary abstraction it’s the amount of goods and services produced by an economy.
At the low end of economic output starvation or the lack thereof is a strong indication of GDP. You do need to adjust for exports and imports but you don’t need to have a particularly deep insight into the economy beyond that.
Of course GDP is an arbitrary abstraction, it's literally derived from arbitrary systems of measurement, i.e. why soviet had mps system and west had sna, and each get to decide what to value and how much... arbitrarily... and even when they calculate, a lot of it is guestimate because no one has perfect or even good data, especially 80 years ago in developing countries.
> starvation or the lack thereof is a strong indication of GDP
No that's just an indicator that some cohort starved due to distribution failure. And to be blunt... that cohort was rural / peasants doing mostly subsistence agriculture tier production that do not count much towards GDP. An urban worker in industry can generate 10x GDP surplus than farmers in a commune.
Hence starvation (mostly in rural) has disproportionately less GDP weight vs urban worker productivity. An economy losing millions of peasants while still modernizing/industrializing can easily maintain higher total GDP than peaceful agrarian society. AKA CCP speed running first 5 year plan post WW2 raised the GDP floor so much that they can unalive 10s of millions of peasants and still have higher GDP vs pre/post war which, was incidentally also not peaceful agrarian society, but even messier interregnum shitshow with significantly shit state capacity than relatively unified postwar PRC under CCP. Republican Era KMT (during anarchy/civil war) simply couldn't organize fragmented China to be as productive as PRC under CCP, who can lose millions of peasants with marginal productivity of labour near zero and still do massively better in gdp/economic terms.
Between 1954 and 1959, China supplied 160,000 tons of tungsten ore, 110,000 tons of copper, 30,000 tons of antimony, and 90,000 tons of rubber to the Soviet Union. That’s how they repaid a loan not through industrial production because their economy wasn’t producing significant high value output from raw materials, they couldn’t even smelt ore efficiently.
Re-education camps don’t generate value. They didn’t have a surplus of urban workers instead Mow just destroyed the economy. Killing off the educated doctors etc isn’t a free action, it has negative consequences.
China literally had net migration out of cities, so no this wasn’t over investment in industry or a distribution issue this was just abject failure and total economic collapse. Total Anarchy would have been better for the economy than Mao.
Both the Soviet and Chinese first few five year plans accomplished the following:
1. Mass starvation at a few points due to central planning errors
2. Horrifying purges and paranoia that cannot be excused as "errors"
3. Achieving mass literacy and a partially industrial economy in a single generation, from a medeival starting point.
Most good Americans who paid attention in civics class learned 1 and 2 very well without truly appreciating 3.
You have to understand that they were coming from a peasant economy where nobody could even read. It's an accomplishment despite Mao's shortcomings and awful deeds. And look at the scoreboard today. Highest GDP by purchasing power parity in the world. Xiaomi cars are nicer than Teslas, only non-American tech industry, high speed rail, etc etc.
There’s a long list of countries that industrialized more quickly without suffering such internal economic issues. The USSR and China suffered because of poor governance not industrialization.
Second, Mass literacy occurs via teaching kids. It has little to do with what the wider economy as seen by both modern and historic literacy rates.
It’s been 65 years since the Chinese famine, what actually fixed the country was economic reforms. MAO’s death helped but the system simply didn’t work so they tried something else.
Not only would total anarchy been worse for economy than Mao, you would struggle to find another developmental model that did as well as Mao. Especially the only comparable size peer, India who objectively did worse, under most developmental metrics.
Between 1954/ 1959 PRC exchanged material for capita goods and Soviet training speed run industrialization. AKA they were turning surplus rocks they couldn't process into machines so they can process non export into capita stock. You know, developing. This economic/history 101.
Mao even including GLF engineered one of the greatest most condensed human uplift effort. World Bank summary of CCP progress from postwar to 70s, i.e. under Mao noted how PRC, relative to developing pears was significantly more industrialized, like 40% vs low income avg 25% share of economy. With matching proxy indicators like 3x energy consumption per capita vs India, 2x literacy, 1/3 infant mortality rate. aka Mao speedrun PRC to middle income industrial levels - GLF one step back, 5 step forward success. State provided services were also assessed to be far more effective in meeting basic needs vs low income peers. Life expectancy 65yrs vs 50yrs (India) for low income... "outstandingly high" in WB remark. WB concludes CCP efforts by late 70s... again Mao's doing left "low-income groups far better off in terms of basic needs than their counterparts in most other poor countries"... "most remarkable achievement during the past three decades".
All the subsequent snowballing from Deng, not possible without Mao building a captive, mobile, diciplined rural workforce with high industrial experience, reeducating masses to be fungible workers for migrant economy.
In retrospect, GLF in fact, close to free action. Post WW2 PRC was so devoid of talent that Mao could depopulate cities and slap doctors around with trivial long term penalty option. Starting proper industrialization, mass mobilizing low end barefoot doctors alone out state capacities GLF/CR missteps and saved more lives than it bled. i.e. even in terms of mortality vs death averted, Mao comes out massively ahead. That +15 years above baseline life expectancy x 1000 billion new births is about ~200m lives worth. This not accounting averted deaths of countries who started similarly but did not poverty / malnutrition alleviate early enough, i.e. India generating GLF deaths every few years over decades. That averted another 200m deaths. Most of this attributed to Mao speedrunning nation building did actually solve famine after GLF via all the infra built. Something that historically every Chinese polity had to worry about.
Any leader who improved HDI for as much people in as short of a time as Mao would have been given a Nobel Economics Prize and Nobel Peace Prize. Fixating on spike of deaths at PRC scale is boring libtard innumeracy, i.e. ~4% which plenty of leaders of matched/exceeded. Not nice but completely valid to treat human resources as resource and trade for long term gains. Mao increased PRC industrial output by like 30x, from macro economic utilitarian, HDI trend line goes up, PRC brrrting growth, dead peasants and sad elites simply doesn't fucking matter, it's minor shock to overall system capacity which Mao built so much in so fast that it raised aggregate Chinese HDI above most peers even if it also broke a few millions of eggs.
> Between 1954/ 1959 PRC exchanged material for capita goods and Soviet training speed run industrialization.
This wasn’t an exchange of good this was a subsidy. Loan repayments at extremely generous 1% interest rates. The use of raw materials shows just how poorly their efforts where despite the aid.
You can try and repaint history into a history of pulling themselves up, but the reality is they had a high literacy rate and for the time period a well functioning economy before the communists took over. Afterwards 50 million people starved to death that’s not progress that’s horrifying inefficiency writ large.
The CCP still has a hate boner for Taiwan because it shows they are objectively doing a bad job as that fragment of the same country still has a higher standard of living and better technology despite the massive disadvantages of vastly smaller economies of scale.
Last reply to more ahistoric cope, the exchange of raw materials was because postwar PRC had nothing else to barter, you know because incumbent KMT fucked it up.
Chinese literacy rates was fucking pre CCP, it was agrarian nation that CCP uplifted. If you want to cope with repainting history, go accuse world bank... in the 80s, by every metric except human lives, CCP was horrifyingly efficient, precisely because they value human lives less.
What techstack does TW have that PRC doesn't? TSMC based off foreign tech stack. Let's not forget ROC is also outcome of subsidy / finance program by US. The difference between PRC and ROC is PRC sugar daddy was poor USSR, TW was rich US, and population scale means US could injected more to smaller pop to bring up development. All while US+co sanctioning PRC btw, hence PRC succeeded where TW has not, and did so on hard mode.
Smaller economies of scale is precisely why TW/ROC is unimpressive, TW should be much richer for how small it is and how lavishly it was rewarded. There's reason TW has to literally ban TWners from working in PRC high end industries... because PRC tier1 opportunities has vastly exceeded TW.
Even in a society of 1 person that person would prefer to live in a mud hut than outside getting rained on. Ignoring imputed rent ignores that value and therefore is objectively wrong.
Did China really do it though? We can clearly see that China has achieved huge economic growth since Deng Xiaoping took control. But the specific numbers can't be attempted to be believed. Communist Party officials at every level heavily manipulate the official economic data to meet their annual goals and no independent auditing is allowed.
By pulling ten million people a year from farms into factories and ploughing 40% of GDP into infrastructure and education. Sounds like a sound analogy to me.
They're for those within the population that are willing to submit themselves to the whim of the state and whose prosperity in some way directly benefits the oligarchs that run the state.
Certainly, as just a few examples, they are not for the well-being of the Uyghar population or pro-democracy activists or journalists investigating human rights violation or supporters of Tibetan independence.
It is not a hardly implausible figure given the wide range of human economic activity, that's a common flaw in economic thinking when small percentages of huge numbers seem realistic ("my business plan is modest and will achieve a tiny 0.01% of the global market to become one of the biggest companies in the world, very plausible")
Tech companies never last. Apple will miss a disruptive innovation or make a key strategic error causing them to lose their dominant spot. Look at the top tech companies 50 years ago: how are they doing today?
Is like the transition from monarchies to nation states.
By the 19th century, the rise of nation-states accelerated due to the spread of nationalism, the decline of feudal structures, and the unification of countries like Germany (1871) and Italy (1861). Centralized governments, uniform laws, national education systems, and a sense of collective identity became defining features. The French Revolution (1789) played a pivotal role by promoting citizenship, legal equality, and national sovereignty over dynastic rule
Maybe in 2300 they'll say something similar about nationalism
I’m sorry, but 5% of GDP is an absurd figure. You’re saying $1 out of every $20 that does anything in our economy should be on AI? That seems insane to me.
If you are referring to the current administration, SCOTUS has barely "rubber stamped" any of his actions, and has rejected several already (though we will see with tariffs... but Polymarket has it only 31% in favor of the president so at least the odds are in our favor).
You mean like he is now able to fire government workers, impound funds, fire people who were supposed to be independent of the executive branch, and basically saying he could commit crimes and send the national guard to states?
#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_development_in_China_1913_to_1950.svg){kind=link}
reply