Tyler Cowen

I'd agree with those points.

But I don't think the differences are that large.

There are a lot of different issues in what you raise.

The previous trend, it depends on whether you count Mark Zuckerberg as labor or capital.

If you count it as labor, but just a very well-paid laborer, there hasn't been much of a change.

But I would say it's not clear that AI will concentrate more wealth in the hands of capital.

The AI could easily become commodified.

We have a lot of open source.

There's potential competition from China.

Those companies right now are not making money.

There's a number of papers that show those who benefit from the AI service itself are often lower achievers.

who now can write a good essay or write a good letter.

I'm not sure that's how it will remain as time passes.

I'm not sure it goes in the other direction.

Sometimes I think the real winners are people who have bought high-quality land, because AI may substitute for capital and or labor, but it really cannot take the place of land.

But I would just have a high degree of uncertainty as to where the incidents will fall.

We should worry about this, but I would say not leap to conclusions.

I agree with that too, but that does not negate the fact that poorer people, they now have free, excellent medical advice, free, excellent legal advice, free, excellent therapy.

So I suspect, and again, this is a guess, but people at the bottom of the earnings ladder and education ladder, and then the superstars at the top, they will be the ones that benefit.

And on net, it's probably egalitarian, but with both effects.