Phil Trammell

The point that if you automate like nine-tenths of a job, then people might kind of shift over to the last tenth, but there might be ten times more work demanded of them.

From the model of O-ring automation from Gans and Goldfarb recently, which was that if you can only automate nine-tenths of the job, but you can do it to a lower standard of quality than the human could do it, you might not want to automate even those nine-tenths.

And that's the thing that could totally port over to...

Like symmetrically, it could be a reason why we don't use a human for one part of the job anymore because a human just can't perform it to the level of quality that the AI can perform the other parts of the job or the level of speed or whatever.

And they end up pulling down the quality or speed of the finished product.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, all of these frictions on the political type decisions that we are accustomed to only trusting humans, you know, only having humans for like legislation and being a judge, being a jury or all the licensing that keeps certain professions human.

That all strikes me as transitional, right?

I mean,

what we expect to come from a human and how we organize our politics, that's changed so many times throughout history, right?

From little hunter-gatherer bands to empires to whatnot.

And yeah, once an AI-run political system is much more efficient than the alternatives, then those will probably tend to out-compete the others.

Yeah, I could kind of just say like there's two ways you could get the two kinds of people, one of whom prefers a human therapist and one of whom is fine interacting with the AI.

if they both satiate equally quickly in capital, right?

But the one who likes the human therapist just also likes having some human intrinsic services, then the marginal value, like how the marginal value of capital in the future compares to the marginal value of capital today for each of them, if they start out equally rich, should be basically the same.

I mean, there could be interactions and whatnot, but basically that should be the same.

If what's driving the difference is that one person just doesn't satiate in capital because they're engaged by the prospect of exploring the universe and turning their head into a galaxy brain or whatever, and the other one satiates, then the person who doesn't satiate in capital is going to have, if they're being rational, they're going to have a higher savings rate.

So in the long run, they're going to have most of the well, and the overall capital share will basically be the capital share of that person spending, which is going to be one.

And he managed to reproduce fast as well.