> is that not measurable?

It was not on a level that nudges GDP growth for a long time. The irony is that maybe the productivity didn't increase until book publishing plummeted, since enabling a lack of physical books was a huge productivity win.

This isn't a debate about whether industries improved. When you look at GDP, do you see an uptick in GDP or not?

The original quote was often seen as a paradox. At least one major interpretation of the original quote is that "the computer revolution is so obviously helping the economy, that if it doesn't show up in GDP, is it even a meaningful measurement, and how can we fix that?"

But it is very fitting to discuss that quote - the original article discusses multifactor productivity, the same relevant measurement, and earnings of the S&P 493. There are two ways to interpret it - is AI not increasing productivity, or are we not measuring productivity, and is there "dark matter" somewhere in the economy that is not being properly measured?