AI is unlikely to be as revolutionary as is presumed. It's definitely going to lead to increased productivity, and will probably render some jobs redundant, but it's unlikely to have a significant effect on wages/employment [1], and as of now there isn't one [2]. When it does effect workers (which is still uncommon), AI mostly leads to task reallocation.

Right now, AI's massive valuations seem more like a reflection of the typical speculation that accompanies major technological innovations (thinking IoT, railroads, automobiles) than of its real economic value [3].

The "dead economy" scenario would only be possible in the event of extraordinary, and extraordinarily-unlikely levels of AI-driven unemployment.

[1] https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/The%20...

[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w33509

[3] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2003-0...

You would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks the IDF is commiting war crimes in Gaza, let alone a genocide.

There is great skepticism towards international NGOs that make these accusations, especially the U.N., owing to past pro-Palestinian bias.

Really, it seems to me like this essay is more about turning up your nose that some people are not enjoying Japan the "right" way.

People are living and staying healthy for longer than they used to, while the overall population is aging disproportionally due to low birth rates. If they hadn't raised the retirement age, they would have to raise taxes very significantly.

People should remember that retirement is about making sure the people who are too old to work can still live respectably. It's not an end-of-life vacation.

Of course, it's still going to be massively unpopular. But the alternative is fiscal armageddon.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44070766

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Unless there's going to be a huge reduction in hallucinations, I absolutely don't see LLMs replacing doctors or lawyers.

This poorly-controlled, N=1 experiment tells you nothing, not even about the author.

There's absolutely no reason to consider these novice self-experiments when professional scientific experiments are available (unless you're hunting for a specific result).

Obviously, if you give more weight to housing, you're going to get different results. But it would distort the actual change in expenditure.

The person I responded to suggested that only the rich saw income growth, and that they were achieving this by taking from the poor, which is wrong.

This is just not true.

At least in the U.S., people of all income tiers have seen their incomes grow[0] while their working hours shrunk[1].

Inequality is a problem in itself, but equating unequal gains with "transferring money from the poor" seems like bad faith.

[0] - https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...

[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-working-hours-per-...

Levels of income have risen. Comforts and services available are not as simple to measure as income, but consumption (a decent proxy) is also trending upwards.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.TOTL.CD?location...

[0] - https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...

Given all that -- probably Norway, or Ireland.

I do think that Elon Musk and DOGE are attempting to create a "with us or against us" binary narrative that leaves no room for even-handed nuance (not unlike Trump), in an effort to push an agenda that maybe doesn't have much to do with government efficiency (for example, MTG's clampdown on allegedly-liberal media [0]).

[0] - https://www.axios.com/2025/02/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-hear...

Technically, of course, vapes aren't cigarettes. But It's a bit misleading to say that smoking is unpopular, when it's just been replaced by a doppelganger. Especially since vapes are also deeply detrimental to health [1].

[1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7348661/