I agree that it is disappointing but not completely surprising to see no economic effect from access to knowledge via the democratization of LLMs.
Previously, there was the encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert, there was the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was Wikipedia, but those who consulted these sources were often people who already had a novice or established intellectual profile. I doubt that the typical entrepreneur, salesperson, craftsman, or farmer spent much time on average reading these works. It could be the same for the educational use of LLMs.
Furthermore, the idea that there is a causal link between a human capital of cognitive nature and income or wealth should not be overestimated. Researchers, professors, and teachers are among the most educated and cultured in the population, they are also generally intelligent, but their incomes are not necessarily among the highest, especially when they work in theoretical fields and/or in the public sector. This is even more true in Europe and notably in France where there exists a certain moral tradition, perfectly embodied by Marie Sklodowska Curie, according to which the researcher should be guided by the higher interest of knowledge, almost without consideration for money. This tendency is not specific to scientists but quite widespread among intellectuals. Who has never met middle school teachers or even schoolteachers, of modest means, but of exceptional erudition. Great intellectuals as humble as they are anonymous. One only needs to visit a few museums to meet many people with this profile. Obviously, this relative frugality is not found in all fields. I imagine that a professor of economics can earn a good living, as can an AI researcher or a professor of medicine.
But the fact remains that a poorly educated YouTuber of ordinary intelligence has the opportunity, with a bit of luck, to earn much, much more money than a professor of medieval English, regardless of their difference in erudition. The same goes for entrepreneurs, salespeople, or merchants; their level of education and even IQ are probably not among the first criteria for their success. Having a good appearance, glib talk, good social skills, a sense of buzz, the ability to align with fashions and trends, an undemanding morality, lots of ambition, and especially a great appetite for money, all these characteristics matter more in my opinion than knowledge when it comes to make money.
Moreover, what do we mean by educated ? A corporate executive or a salesperson with a master’s degree is, on paper, as qualified as a teacher with a master’s degree. They could fall in the same category in a study measuring a correlation between education and incomes. But now if, instead of taking into account diplomas, we measured education by actual tests of knowledge and reasonning in all fields, the results could be quite different. Studies based on IQ are more straightforward, but the subject here is more about knowledge than intelligence, because at the moment LLMs provide superhuman knowledge, but not yet superhuman AGI.
I agree that it is disappointing but not completely surprising to see no economic effect from access to knowledge via the democratization of LLMs.
Previously, there was the encyclopedia of Diderot and d’Alembert, there was the Encyclopedia Britannica, there was Wikipedia, but those who consulted these sources were often people who already had a novice or established intellectual profile. I doubt that the typical entrepreneur, salesperson, craftsman, or farmer spent much time on average reading these works. It could be the same for the educational use of LLMs.
Furthermore, the idea that there is a causal link between a human capital of cognitive nature and income or wealth should not be overestimated. Researchers, professors, and teachers are among the most educated and cultured in the population, they are also generally intelligent, but their incomes are not necessarily among the highest, especially when they work in theoretical fields and/or in the public sector. This is even more true in Europe and notably in France where there exists a certain moral tradition, perfectly embodied by Marie Sklodowska Curie, according to which the researcher should be guided by the higher interest of knowledge, almost without consideration for money. This tendency is not specific to scientists but quite widespread among intellectuals. Who has never met middle school teachers or even schoolteachers, of modest means, but of exceptional erudition. Great intellectuals as humble as they are anonymous. One only needs to visit a few museums to meet many people with this profile. Obviously, this relative frugality is not found in all fields. I imagine that a professor of economics can earn a good living, as can an AI researcher or a professor of medicine.
But the fact remains that a poorly educated YouTuber of ordinary intelligence has the opportunity, with a bit of luck, to earn much, much more money than a professor of medieval English, regardless of their difference in erudition. The same goes for entrepreneurs, salespeople, or merchants; their level of education and even IQ are probably not among the first criteria for their success. Having a good appearance, glib talk, good social skills, a sense of buzz, the ability to align with fashions and trends, an undemanding morality, lots of ambition, and especially a great appetite for money, all these characteristics matter more in my opinion than knowledge when it comes to make money.
Moreover, what do we mean by educated ? A corporate executive or a salesperson with a master’s degree is, on paper, as qualified as a teacher with a master’s degree. They could fall in the same category in a study measuring a correlation between education and incomes. But now if, instead of taking into account diplomas, we measured education by actual tests of knowledge and reasonning in all fields, the results could be quite different. Studies based on IQ are more straightforward, but the subject here is more about knowledge than intelligence, because at the moment LLMs provide superhuman knowledge, but not yet superhuman AGI.