I also think “less than a dozen” is a clear underestimation but I am also convinced (and concerned) that Economics of Transformative AI remains a niche topic.
And yes, Acemoglu’s paper is probably not a root cause of this lack of interest, but a symptom of it. From what I observe, economists’ inner world models typically just don’t allow the possibility of any major disruption, only slow and gradual effects.
Glad you agree. Your last sentence in my opinion is clearly slightly too general even when we talk about the agility of only the “typical” economist you invoke, but on the particular case of transformative AI, yes, there is that resistance, often, and it’s in large paet, in my opinion, related to the history I pointed out in my post I linked.
I also think “less than a dozen” is a clear underestimation but I am also convinced (and concerned) that Economics of Transformative AI remains a niche topic.
And yes, Acemoglu’s paper is probably not a root cause of this lack of interest, but a symptom of it. From what I observe, economists’ inner world models typically just don’t allow the possibility of any major disruption, only slow and gradual effects.
Glad you agree. Your last sentence in my opinion is clearly slightly too general even when we talk about the agility of only the “typical” economist you invoke, but on the particular case of transformative AI, yes, there is that resistance, often, and it’s in large paet, in my opinion, related to the history I pointed out in my post I linked.