Yes, and??? How is that relevant? We were talking about money, explicitly. Not the resources. When the economy still has room, i.e. people are available to do more, then any missing resources can be obtained by sooner or later by employing people.
This is not about the body or the land, but about the blood or the water flowing through them.
Because it describes exactly the point which GGP tried to make (source: that was me). The assumption is that AI growth is great because without it, look at how low the non-AI growth is! But that argument is flawed because the resources (manpower, materials, manufacturing, energy, ...) absent the AI hypr would not vanish but be used for something else, so the growth in those other areas would be bigger. Granted, perhaps not as big (marginal gains and all that), but the painted picture is still skewed.
That money will still flow elsewhere.
Your house is in flames? Don't worry that energy will flow elsewhere
Money circulates but resources do not. A human hour spent constructing a data center can’t then be used to build an apartment building.
Yes, and??? How is that relevant? We were talking about money, explicitly. Not the resources. When the economy still has room, i.e. people are available to do more, then any missing resources can be obtained by sooner or later by employing people.
This is not about the body or the land, but about the blood or the water flowing through them.
> Yes, and??? How is that relevant
Because it describes exactly the point which GGP tried to make (source: that was me). The assumption is that AI growth is great because without it, look at how low the non-AI growth is! But that argument is flawed because the resources (manpower, materials, manufacturing, energy, ...) absent the AI hypr would not vanish but be used for something else, so the growth in those other areas would be bigger. Granted, perhaps not as big (marginal gains and all that), but the painted picture is still skewed.
I even quoted it! I respond3ed to what I quoted exactly. Again:
> since investor money is spent exactly once
In addition, I even pointed out that I was not posting about the main argument!
Quoting myself, again:
> So I'm nitpicking here