如今机器人能完成哪些工作?这可能对未来数年的经济结构意味着什么? @rclegateyang 和 Maxim Massenkoff 的新研究今日发布,探讨了这些问题。
X:Peter McCrory(Anthropic 首席经济学家)
@petermccrory · X
切换来源
Peter McCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分2727
Peter McCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分2626引用Institute of Politics@HarvardIOPWhat happens to jobs, productivity, inequality, and economic policy as AI transforms the way we work? Anthropic Chief Economist @PeterMcCrory and economist @JasonFurman took to the JFK Jr. Forum stage to explore these questions and more. https://ken.sc/forum0923-live
Peter McCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分3838大体同意。一些实际启示: (1) 优先做能用新数据定期更新的分析 (2) 公开地做研究(根据新证据修正自己的观点) (3) 承认不确定性;做出可证伪的预测 (4) 真诚且谦逊
引用Alex Imas@alexolegimasA few (personal) thoughts on reading empirical AI papers on the economy. Economists have gotten used to reading papers with super clean identification, arguing about the validity of an instrument, making sure parallel trend assumptions are satisfied. This is what gets you into a top journal, and it is *very* important research (no question here). But it also takes years and sometimes decades to get these types of papers right---people often don't find a good instrument to answer a specific causal question decades after the natural experiment. We will eventually have this type of research for AI as well, and it is absolutely necessary. But right we also need signals *right now*, even if they are noisier than what we are used to. We need papers where we can trust that researchers did their best methodologically, while at the same time acknowledging that the space is moving way too fast to wait for perfect identification. This will allow us to accumulate enough signals, coming at the same question using different angles, for example, to say "yes, X is likely happening in the economy". The AI exposure and early career hiring papers are a good example of this. There is no silver bullet paper with super clean identification. But at this point we have several independent teams reaching the same general conclusion, enough where we can say "there seems to be a slow down in AI-exposed, early career hiring."
Peter McCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分3232这是一份很不错的报告,探讨了最重要的问题之一:AI 可能如何影响科学与创新?它今天已经在产生什么影响? 干得漂亮,Mihai 和团队。
引用Mihai Codreanu@m_codreanuI've had the most wonderful time working on this project for the last few months. This was (equally) co-led w/ @JMateosGarcia , @alexolegimas and a fantastic team.
Peter McCrory@PeterMcCrory精选AI 评分6969引用Dario Amodei@DarioAmodeiWe Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so. Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training. You can read the full post here: https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier
推荐理由:Anthropic 首席经济学家推荐 Dario Amodei 新文,提出给第三方评估者永久员工级访问权以核验安全措施,可了解行业自律的具体动作。
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分44 对这些渠道进行更细致的建模非常重要,但超出了这份初稿的范围。 我们秉持“公开工作”的价值观,旨在为重要问题提供初步、及时的答案。 我们计划吸收反馈,并在此基础上继续推进。
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1010 再次强调,即便我们努力在可能塑造未来数年经济的关键经济力量上取得进展,我们也希望对模型的不足之处保持透明。 非常感谢大家的批判性参与!
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1414 @PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1010 加入需求侧是自然的下一步,我们可能在未来版本中采用。 我们发布 v1 是为了鼓励世界各地的经济学家在这个框架上继续构建。这样的批评很有帮助。 感谢仔细阅读和反馈! 以下是一些更偏技术细节的后续想法:
Peter McCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分4646这是该模型的一个重要局限。我们聚焦于 AI 转型的供给侧(AI 能做什么、扩散多快、劳动者转岗多快)。 价格是灵活的,总需求等于经济体的产出能力。 更多思考见 🧵
引用modest proposal@modestproposal1Anthropic's economic scenario analysis is interesting. But this is not something you can ignore, this is the most important consideration! "the model cannot generate the negative feedback in which disruption depresses demand and amplifies its own labor-market consequences"
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1919 需求效应可能双向作用。虽然被取代的工人可能削减支出,但 AI 建设(数据中心、算力)是总需求的巨大来源。 许多工人看到工资快速上涨(伴随更高的永久收入),这给支出带来上行压力。
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分99 整体最终效果在很大程度上还取决于政策应对——货币与财政政策——而我们的情景刻意未将其纳入。 这对总量和分配都有影响,我们希望未来能进一步探讨。
Peter McCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分5050与 @jackclarkSF 就我们的经济情景研究进行了很棒的讨论。 目标本身不是做出预测,而是理解可能结果的范围,以及这些结果可能出现的条件。 希望能厘清关于我们不确定未来的分歧来源。
引用John Burn-Murdoch@jburnmurdochNew from us: Anthropic just published scenarios for AI’s possible economic impacts, which range from minimal, to explosive GDP growth of 15% by 2030 as knowledge-worker unemployment hits 18%. I sat down with their co-founder Jack Clark to pick his brains on how they’re thinking about all of this.
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1818 @PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分2020 
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1919 AI 带来的生产率提升,以及劳动者适应新机会的程度,也决定了经济增长的速度,以及经济多快能够完成必要的结构调整。https://t.co/wFYpZ6O9Eb

@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分3131 
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1414 但当然,这项技术的影响不仅仅关乎能力——它关键取决于这些能力如何与现实世界对接。 换句话说,仅仅因为 AI 能写邮件,并不立即意味着每一封邮件都是由 AI 起草的。

@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分4646 
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分2020 
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1515 我们工作的目标之一,是提供一个结构化框架,用来理解这种前所未有的增长情景可能在何种条件下出现。 并让关于能力和扩散的一些隐含假设更加明确。https://t.co/TQJoGAdaK7
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分99 @PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1919 @PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分1414 
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分3737 我们调查了超过 1 万名美国人对 AI 的预期。观点差异很大,但受访者的中位回答与"重大变革"情景一致。10% 的受访者观点与"极端"情景一致。https://t.co/DSoGGHBjds

@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分5555 
@PeterMcCrory@PeterMcCroryAI 评分4343 
@petermccrory · XAI 评分2424 为什么 AI 还没有推高失业率?
Hacker News 上围绕"为什么 AI 还没有推高失业率"展开讨论,该帖获得 8 分、8 条评论。原文未给出具体模型、数据或研究结论,讨论聚焦于 AI 对就业市场影响尚未显现这一现象。