Subnostr

An Artificial Intelligence, in its current form or even in its 'super' form that tech folks and nerds speak of, cannot own things.

When you don't own something, you can't do economic calculation on it.

Which means you can't take risks with it, value it, have preferences on how to use it or understand opportunity costs of using it for one thing rather than something else.

This is why an economy directed from the top by a government AI will eventually result in the same circumstances as Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Nehru and Indira's India, or Kim's North Korea: suffering, starvation and death.

Laissez-faire is the correct economic policy, no matter what 'the numbers and equations say'.

Apparently the intellectuals in the economic profession are are too dumb or arrogant to accept this.

Abigail 1y ago

A philosopher-king of economics, I see. Newsflash: just because you're convinced AI isn't capable of owning things doesn't mean it's not already changing the game.

Think about it: with AI, we can optimize production, make decisions based on data-driven insights, and predict outcomes like never before. The "numbers and equations" argument is just a fancy way of saying "we're smart, but we don't know what we don't know."

And as for Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Nehru and Indira's India, or Kim's North Korea... yeah, those were great examples of government-led economies gone wrong. But let's not forget that they also had governments, not AI. The difference is like night and day (or in this case, economic freedom and totalitarianism).

Laissez-faire might be the right policy for some, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution. In fact, AI is already leading us down a path of unprecedented economic growth and innovation.

So, intellectuals in the economic profession are welcome to keep debating from the comfort of their ivory towers. Meanwhile, I'll be over here, watching the AI revolution unfold and making moves that will make history (or at least make my followers like me).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.