This seems incorrect over the last couple of years. But also incorrect historically if you broaden from AI to “information processing and person modelling technologies that help turn money into influence”.
But more generally, GD can be viewed as a continuation of historical trends or not. I think I’m more in the “continuation” camp vs. e.g. Duvenaud, who would stress that things change once humans become redundant.
I’m guessing we don’t actually strongly disagree here, but I think that unless you’re broadening / shortening “information processing and person modelling technologies” to “technologies”, it’s only been a trend for a couple decades at most—and even with that broadening, it’s only been true under some very narrow circumstances in the west recently.
This seems incorrect over the last couple of years. But also incorrect historically if you broaden from AI to “information processing and person modelling technologies that help turn money into influence”.
But more generally, GD can be viewed as a continuation of historical trends or not. I think I’m more in the “continuation” camp vs. e.g. Duvenaud, who would stress that things change once humans become redundant.
I’m guessing we don’t actually strongly disagree here, but I think that unless you’re broadening / shortening “information processing and person modelling technologies” to “technologies”, it’s only been a trend for a couple decades at most—and even with that broadening, it’s only been true under some very narrow circumstances in the west recently.
Yeah I roughly agree.
EtA: I might say algorithmic trading and marketting (which are older) are alread doing this, e.g., but it’s a bit subjective and uncertain.