Ege Erdil

I think there could be this trend where we indeed have this gradual process where AI is much more –

important in the world economy and actually deciding and determining what happens in the world.

But this could be beneficial for humans, where, you know, we're getting access to this, you know, much vast, much larger economy and much more advanced technological stock.

You should expect a bunch of change if you accelerate just human change as well.

Like you might expect different values to become much more dominant.

You might expect people that don't discount the future as much to be much more influential because they save more and they make good investments that gives them more control.

Higher risk tolerance, like because they're more willing to make kind of bets that maximize expected value and so get much more influence.

So

Just generically accelerating human change would also result in a lot of things being lost that you might care about.

I'm not sure.

Actually, if you look at just like – often the idea is because this is like digital, you can preserve the information better and copy it with higher fidelity and so on.

But actually, if you look –

even if you look at just like information on the internet, you have this thing called link rot, which happens very quickly.

And actually information that's digital isn't preserved for very long at all.

Cultural change, exactly.

So the technological maturity thing, I agree that results in this slowdown in change and growth and so on, and certain things might get more locked in relative to what preceded it.

But then what do we do today about that?

What could you do to have a kind of positive impact by our lights?

And so asking that question, I mean, Robin Hanson had this question of what could someone do in the 1500s to have a positive impact on the world today from their point of view, knowing all they knew back then.

I think this question is even worse than that because I think the amount of change that happens between today and