Jasmine Sun

But I think that the belief that AI will exceed the abilities of basically every human, and this will cause mass job disruption in the near to medium term is pretty common among folks who I talked to in the AI industry as well.

Yeah, I do think so.

Yeah, I mean, that was a lot.

I can, I don't know if you're, do you want me to just say what I believe or do you want me to make the steel man for Dario's case?

Because those are not the same because I don't agree with Dario either.

So yeah, like you mentioned, I think the most common critique of jobs doomers, which Marc Andreessen and other folks have made, is the lump of labor fallacy and Jevons paradox, right?

Or Jevons paradox, I don't know how to pronounce it.

They basically say that if something is cheaper, then actually demand can go up.

And so if software is really cheap, more people will want software.

If therapy is really cheap, even more people can access therapy and demand for therapy will go up.

And there will always be new forms of work to do.

People's desires are

infinite.

They're not limited.

It's not like once you satisfy one desire, they won't want a new thing.

And we see this where, you know, there are now yoga studios and maybe a hundred years ago, we weren't spending our money on yoga studios or something like this.

And I think in general, historically, this has been a really good argument and it has held true through history.

The thing that I think Daria would say as to, like, why would AI be different is that both of those arguments, Jevon's paradox and lump of labor, assume that more labor equals more humans.

So what they're saying is that demand is unlimited and that the amount of labor to do in the economy will always go up.

But they also assume that there is an inherent link between productivity and labor and humans, right?