I think you are mixin wealth with money. In the short run it is a near zero sum game: money should go from A (now obsolete) to B. For example, brick and mortar shops replaced by online shops. For example horse business going bankrupt while car business is booming. Wealth is created in the form of more convenient shopping or travelling, not as $$$. AI might help some businesses with their productivity (creating new wealth), but those business are expected to divert $6T from current expenses (wages, or non AI tooling) towards AI pockets, or steal $6T market share from non-AI business.

▲

Legend2440 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>For example horse business going bankrupt while car business is booming.

But also the car business is far larger than the horse business ever was. It is not zero-sum; every time Henry Ford's factory spit out a new model T, real wealth was being created.

Money is just a standin for wealth. If we suddenly doubled the amount of wealth in the world, we could just print more dollars to match - or the existing dollars would just become worth twice as much.

	▲	r3trohack3r 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This. Positive sum games are deflationary. Economic policy can, and has, offset the deflation of techno capital growth.

▲

ai-x 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you show productivity, banks have no problem lending you money (new freshly printed money)

	▲	someonebaggy 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed, although there are also pressures pushing banks to lend out money regardless of created wealth. This is why there's so much investment into stupid things like AI - they call it TINA or "There Is No Alternative" (to put your dollars into). The scale of AI is as big as it is because there were huge pools of money sloshing around looking for things to invest into, that's the underlying problem that caused the RAM crisis, not AI itself.