| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 3 hours ago |
| Total US GDP is ~31 trillion, so that's only like 5%. I think it's conceivable that AI could result in ~5% of GDP in additional revenue. Not saying it's guaranteed, but it's hardly an implausible figure. And of course it's even less considering global GDP. |
|
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yup. If you follow the links to the original JP Morgan quote, it's not crazy: > Big picture, to drive a 10% return on our modeled AI investments through 2030 would require ~$650 billion of annual revenue into perpetuity, which is an astonishingly large number. But for context, that equates to 58bp of global GDP, or $34.72/month from every current iPhone user... |
| |
| ▲ | doodlebugging 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > or $34.72/month from every current iPhone user... As a current iPhone user, I'm not signing up for that especially if it is on top of the monthly cell service fee. I do realize though that you were trying to provide useful context. | | |
| ▲ | manwe150 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But think about it this way: something simple like Slack charges $9/month/person and companies already pay that on many behalf. How hard would it be to imagine all those same companies (and lots more) would pay $30/month/employee for something something AI? Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra. | | |
| ▲ | johnvanommen an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra. I agree, and would add that it’s contributing to inflation in hard assets. Basically: * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today * if you have a billion to spend, and you agree, you will be inclined to put your wealth into hard assets, because AI depends on them In a really abstract way, the world is not responsible for feeding a new class of workers: robots. And robots consume electricity, water, space, and generate heat. Which is why those sectors are feeling the affects of supply and demand. | | |
| ▲ | whattheheckheck 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The world IS responsible for handling the people. Thats the whole fucking reason we made society to take care of children. Nothing is inevitable. It serves the interests of the few. |
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | doodlebugging an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most people in the economy do not use Slack. That tool may be most beneficial to those people who stand to lose jobs to AI displacement. Maybe after everyone is pink-slipped for an LLM or AI chatbot tool the total cost to the employer is reduced enough that they are willing to spend part of the money they saved eliminating warm bodies on AI tools and willing to pay a higher per employee price. I think with a smaller employee pool though it is unlikely that it all evens out without the AI providers holding the users hostage for quarterly profits' sake. | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That AI will have to be significantly preferable to the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms. | | |
| ▲ | johnvanommen an hour ago | parent [-] | | > the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms. It’s not a challenge at all. To win, all you need is to starve your competitors of RAM. RAM is the lifeblood of AI, without RAM, AI doesn’t work. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | creative_name3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of iPhone users will be given a subscription via their job. If they still have a job at that point. | | |
| ▲ | doodlebugging 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is true though I think even if the employer provides all this on a per employee basis, the number of eligible employees, after everyone who stands to lose a job because of a shift to AI tools, will be low enough that each employee will need to add a lot of value for this to be worth it to an employer so the stated number is probably way too low. Ordinary people may just migrate from Apple products to something that is more affordable or, in the extreme case, walk away from the whole surveillance economy. Those people would not buy into any of this. | |
| ▲ | watwut 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why are they not getting the iPhones paid by employers now? |
| |
| ▲ | DrProtic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why you even said you wouldn’t subscribe? It’s not relevant in the slightest. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's conceivable to us working in white collar knowledge jobs where our input and output is language. Will it also make 5% more homes built by a carpenter? |
| |
| ▲ | bee_rider an hour ago | parent [-] | | It might provide cover to lay off more than 5% of us (the LLM can create a work-like text product that, as far as upper management can tell, is indistinguishable from the real thing!), then we will have to go find jobs swinging hammers to build houses. Well, somebody’s got to do it. |
|
|
| ▲ | mykowebhn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Have you ever seen US GDP go up 5% yearly for several years? |
| |
| ▲ | matthewaveryusa 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s the bet! last time we had that growth was for a few years during the dotcom, followed by a lost decade of growth in tech stocks | |
| ▲ | geysersam 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Doesn't have to go up. It's also fine if they replace other parts of the economy. | | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The quote is about a one-time increase in growth of 5 percentage points. Not multiple years or forever. Or obviously it can be spread out, e.g. ~1% additional increase over 5 years. | | |
| ▲ | blks 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It cannot be sustained with just one-time growth. Capital always has to grow, or it will decrease. If this bubble actually manages to deliver interest, this will lead to the bubble growing even larger, driving even more interest. |
| |
| ▲ | dkasper 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China did it. It’s not inconceivable. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | China’s GDP per capita fell for the first 40 years of CCP rule, making it way easier to have constant growth after that period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_China_(191... Developed countries have slow growth because they need to invent the improvements not just copy what works from other countries. | | |
| ▲ | paulorlando 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The chart you listed is for the years before the CCP won the civil war in 1949. But agreed that many of the problems overcome were also problems that were created after the war. | | |
| |
| ▲ | fatherwavelet 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In 1979, median income in China was $100 USD a year. In 1979, median income in the US was $16,530 USD a year. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. | |
| ▲ | eatsyourtacos 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah but China actively works in the best interest of their entire population. | | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | brutalc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Huh? No they don’t. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 an hour ago | parent [-] | | In what way? Bring some substance instead of a vague rebuttal | | |
| ▲ | b00ty4breakfast an hour ago | parent [-] | | They're for those within the population that are willing to submit themselves to the whim of the state and whose prosperity in some way directly benefits the oligarchs that run the state. Certainly, as just a few examples, they are not for the well-being of the Uyghar population or pro-democracy activists or journalists investigating human rights violation or supporters of Tibetan independence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | blks 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So for that GDP gotta show growth of over 5% extra to other growth sources (so total yearly growth will be pretty high). I doubt this will materialise |
|
| ▲ | lowbloodsugar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You're saying that the entire increase in US GDP goes into the pockets of like 5 companies. |
| |
| ▲ | johnvanommen an hour ago | parent [-] | | Or we’re seeing a world where corporations dwarf countries. Apple will be around in a hundred years. Will the USA? | | |
| ▲ | whattheheckheck 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Is like the transition from monarchies to nation states. By the 19th century, the rise of nation-states accelerated due to the spread of nationalism, the decline of feudal structures, and the unification of countries like Germany (1871) and Italy (1861). Centralized governments, uniform laws, national education systems, and a sense of collective identity became defining features. The French Revolution (1789) played a pivotal role by promoting citizenship, legal equality, and national sovereignty over dynastic rule Maybe in 2300 they'll say something similar about nationalism |
|
|