Anthropic CEO Says Government Should Help Ensure AI's Economic Upside Is Shared (msn.com) 49
An anonymous reader shares a report: Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei predicted a future in which AI will spur significant economic growth -- but could lead to widespread unemployment and inequality. Amodei is both "excited and worried" about the impact of AI, he said in an interview at Davos Tuesday. "I don't think there's an awareness at all of what is coming here and the magnitude of it."
Anthropic is the developer of the popular chatbot Claude. Amodei said the government will need to play a role in navigating the massive displacement in jobs that could result from advances in AI. He said there could be a future with 5% to 10% GDP growth and 10% unemployment. "That's not a combination we've almost ever seen before," he said. "There's gonna need to be some role for government in the displacement that's this macroeconomically large."
Amodei painted a potential "nightmare" scenario that AI could bring to society if not properly checked, laying out a future in which 10 million people -- 7 million in Silicon Valley and the rest scattered elsewhere -- could "decouple" from the rest of society, enjoying as much as 50% GPD growth while others were left behind. "I think this is probably a time to worry less about disincentivizing growth and worry more about making sure that everyone gets a part of that growth," Amodei said. He noted that was "the opposite of the prevailing sentiment now," but the reality of technological change will force those ideas to change.
Anthropic is the developer of the popular chatbot Claude. Amodei said the government will need to play a role in navigating the massive displacement in jobs that could result from advances in AI. He said there could be a future with 5% to 10% GDP growth and 10% unemployment. "That's not a combination we've almost ever seen before," he said. "There's gonna need to be some role for government in the displacement that's this macroeconomically large."
Amodei painted a potential "nightmare" scenario that AI could bring to society if not properly checked, laying out a future in which 10 million people -- 7 million in Silicon Valley and the rest scattered elsewhere -- could "decouple" from the rest of society, enjoying as much as 50% GPD growth while others were left behind. "I think this is probably a time to worry less about disincentivizing growth and worry more about making sure that everyone gets a part of that growth," Amodei said. He noted that was "the opposite of the prevailing sentiment now," but the reality of technological change will force those ideas to change.
A Force So Powerful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
make AI great again by sucking on government tit
Gotta feed the clipping service (Score:2)
The only goal government have (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The hype and gloom serve the same purpose: convince the people who believe they will be on the winning side of the battle to GIVE ME MONEY NOW (me being Amodei, Altman, etc), because they need it to feed their money incinerator.
There is limited awareness of what's coming (Score:3)
...and even less actual knowledge.
The future is becoming increasingly unpredictable.
Things will change, but nobody knows exactly how.
Re:There is limited awareness of what's coming (Score:4, Insightful)
There's going to be war. The world is rearming and sabre rattling at an increasing pace. This usually leads to war within 5-10 years. Always look at where the money is being spent. All the major and minor players are getting ready (within their means).
He May Be Right (Score:4, Insightful)
He may be right. The time may come, sooner than we think, that government intervention(wellfare) will be needed. Perhaps Anthropic should start contributing a a fund to help cover the damage that they are clearly planning to cause and profit from?
Re: (Score:2)
appropriate "donations" are already made.
AI and slums (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AI companies make trillions while people still live in slums. AI companies should be required to use AI to mass manufacture houses to finally solve the global housing crisis.
My thinking or more on the line: solving energy, water and food, then housing problems, so basic stuff is available to everyone
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think any member of the proletariat has a 3D printer big enough to print a house just waiting for the software to run it autonomously? And presumably unmanned trucks and construction vehicles to go along with it? How many do you even think have a computer that could run a powerful LLM decently?
The only way we get a Star Trek economy is if workers band together and fight ownership-class interests tooth and nail to make it happen. Otherwise, we get an Elysium economy (Amodei's latter scenario).
Re: (Score:2)
How many people chose to switch to Linux versus paying Microsoft for Windows in the last 20 years?
You are imagining market forces will stabilize AI monopolies where no sufficient market forces may exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:AI and slums (Score:4, Informative)
Quick fact check - which AI company is making trillions?
None of them. They're borrowing trillions in a triangular scheme of circular lending; the computing platform company invests trillions in the AI company which invests trillions in the energy company which invests trillions in the original computing company, increasing their overall valuation until they're all Too Big To Fail before the bubble pops.
Re: (Score:1)
How about sharing like it's 1979? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we change the top marginal Federal income tax rate back to what it was in 1979? At the same time, we need to put an end to the Buy, Borrow, Die by taxing any loan at the marginal income tax rate calculated based upon the total value of all assets. Or something similar that someone who knows a lot more about tax law than me. Something needs to be done about the wholesale tax avoidance these morbidly rich frakkers have been engaged in for 40+ years.
Eat the frakking rich, starting with Leon!
Re:How about sharing like it's 1979? (Score:4, Informative)
Here here. Never forget that $80B that Biden had allocated to the IRS for tax enforcement was on track to like 6X it's cost in returns by closing the $600B tax gap before Republicans stripped it away yet again.
And that is not any changing of the rates or laws that would have been billions a year more revenue of just money that is owed under the current system. We literally just let tax cheats get away with it.
Re: How about sharing like it's 1979? (Score:2)
Sadly, it's what enough people have been told that they want, and they believe it. To me it's a generational failure of public education to have a population that is so easily sold against their own direct interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How about sharing like it's 1979? (Score:2)
No, the loan taxing or some similar action that a more tax law/law adept person could come up with would be targeted at the morbidly rich to put an end to the loophole that is allowing these individuals to use their income without ever paying any taxes.
So, expropriate? (Score:2)
If a new development is going to leave large numbers of people unemployed, it would make sense for the government to seize it so that the wealth created by it can be invested in supporting those who lost their jobs because of it.
However, for some reason I suspect Anthropic's CEO may be hoping for the opposite result, having the government subsidizing the private company with whatever excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Informative, you
Re: (Score:3)
This was actually one of the scenarios that Marx was kind of looking at when he was writing Das Kapital. He envisioned a scenario where the steam powered technology of the day would lead to so much automation that the majority of workers where surplus to needs, then asked what the result would be. If workers where not needed, he figured, then they would have no money. And if the majority of people had no money, then the people who owned the machines would have very few to sell too, and this would mean they'
It will be taxed not seized (Score:2)
When most people aren't working due to most jobs being eliminated due to AI the government will use a significant portion of their tax base.
Where is the money going to come from? Additional taxes on AI implementations is my guess.
40 hours (Score:3)
Re:40 hours (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:40 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The only reason we don't have a 24 hour workweek with no loss in annual pay right now is because we allowed inequality to worsen for half a century.
And anecdotally, it seems that we're backsliding from the 40 hour workweek too. It's seems to be becoming the norm to see jobs that require long hours, weekend and holiday work.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the problem is that "I work 100 hours per week!!!!1111" is conservative virtue signaling. Personally, I shamelessly HATE long hours. I worked 80+ hour weeks while in college and working a job, but I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. It did let me graduate early, get good grades, and pay my bills. But overall, it was just a miserable experience, and I think anyone who has needed to push those hours probably feels the same. I think it's important to be willing to work long hours when the need arise
Re: (Score:3)
Re: 40 hours (Score:2)
Missing from Amodei's "analysis" (Score:2)
I think this is probably a time to worry less about disincentivizing growth and worry more about making sure that everyone gets a part of that growth
Disclaimer - it's possible that what I'm hearing here may merely be a result of my prejudice and paranoia. That said, it sounds to me as though Amodei is in a charitable mood - and if so, fuck that noise. Everyone needs to recognize that AI is built on the backs of all of us.
First, we contributed in various ways to keeping society together and functional while the broligarchs were cooking this stuff up.
Second, it was our taxes that paid for the infrastructure which supports - and is being overburdened by -
Re: (Score:2)
Astounding. I can't believe you managed to tie that back around to AGW. Bravo for commitment.
(This is the most unhinged rant I've seen since I last looked at reddit.)
It ALWAYS goes nightmare or it goes bust (Score:1)
"Amodei painted a potential "nightmare" scenario that AI could bring to society if not properly checked, laying out a future in which 10 million people -- 7 million in Silicon Valley and the rest scattered elsewhere -- could "decouple" from the rest of society, enjoying as much as 50% GPD growth while others were left behind."
Everything tech has two potential outcomes in the United States - nightmare or bubble burst. There's not a happy in-between unless your name is Torvalds.
If you look at ANYTHING that h
Re: (Score:2)
Everything tech has two potential outcomes in the United States - nightmare or bubble burst.
Not at all. This is an assertion the evidence for which is anecdotes, and the anecdotes consist of: software packages you don't like.
What we need is a huge test (Score:2)
**C**ommunity
**U**nity,
**B**alanced
**A**bundance
what country wants to volunteer?
Translation (Score:2)
Give us money! Tons of it!
He is right (Score:2)
I don't understand all the vitriol aimed at Dario Amodei here. He is correct. The impending AI tech wave is going to be very valuable and the people who own and control it are likely to be in a realm completely unlike the rest of us. I applaud Mr. Amodei for speaking out about this. I realize people have a natural animosity for AI and many think it is a bubble, but as a frequent user of it I have to disagree.
The article states '10 million people—7 million in Silicon Valley and the rest scattered elsew
Sounds like... money (Score:2)
Sounds a lot to me like they're looking for governmental subsidy. They see the end of the runway on what is effectively an unprofitable business model (or at least one they, and OpenAI, have not been able to capitalize on in a meaningful way), and they're looking for a way to "democratize" their costs.
Rebellion predicted: From robots or humans (Score:2)
Nominative Determinism? (Score:2)
The head of an AI company called "Amodel".
That doesn't sound like the right approach. (Score:2)
Let people find opportunities, then have government fill some gaps. The worst possible approach is to pre-determine a respo
already is, same as it ever was! (Score:2)
The Great Mistake (Score:2)
Government does not belong in the AI management business. Government intrusion does not improve the market, it distorts and damages it.
Leave it alone. AI will or will not do things. The US Federal government has not been serving the citizens best interest for some time now, and will take time to be corrected. Not in time to do any good in the AI revolution in progress.
Leave it alone. Government rarely can be trusted to do anything good. The best work of government is usually so obvious it would have been do
Possible taxation models to distribute AI wealth (Score:2)
So instead, probably an increased value-added tax (VAT) is the way to go, but where companies are given VAT credit for their human labor force size measured in both wages and number of people, and excluding senior executives.
So higher VAT rate is charged.to low or zero human-workforce companies that to companies that h
Re: (Score:2)
Hey slashdot, I know you probably can't afford innovation, but 5 minutes of editing power on a post would be amazing.