Alex Imas

And so within that model, isn't it intrinsic that like the human-only economy will become a smaller and smaller share?

It's probably worth the defining labor share and capital share real quick.

The whole economy, like the total sum of goods and services sold is either paid out to people in wages or it's paid out to capital, which is to say that there's like rents on buildings and then there's shareholders of companies that get paid out and...

For many hundreds of years in the economy, 60 something percent of the economy or all the things that are sold in a given year basically gets paid out to humans and wages.

And the other 30, 40 percent gets paid out to people who own machines and land and claims on companies and whatever.

And the question is, well, right now, 60 percent is going to wages.

Does that shrink as automation evolves?

Or as EIs get smarter and smarter and better and better.

But it's not that surprising, right?

I mean, if –

Phil, you made this point that if labor and capital are complements, you need both to do anything.

It kind of makes sense that you'd kind of need to pay both of them to get something done.

Although you had the post where you were pointing out that actually... Oh, yeah.

But I guess, isn't there another point, which is that there's a lot of fully automated goods that don't even exist yet.

And you can't collect any data right now about, say, how much people will want to keep buying more and more of some drug that makes you healthier.

Absolutely.

That's fully produced by the AIs.

Phil, I liked your analogy to some Mongolian economist sitting around 1400 thinking about what will be scarce and the limits of that kind of analysis.

I think you should talk to that.

Sure.