This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not sure why you're trying to shadowbox with a completely different set of arguments, instead of what I actually said. I fully agree with you on this point, and in fact quite admire Chinese industrial policy.
I'm simply making the point that mathematically it is not possible that America could meaningfully experience a productivity boom driven by exporting to global markets as you initially suggested. There is simply not enough money in global markets capable of absorbing a meaningful productivity increase in American goods. Any such increase in production would need to be absorbed by American consumers, which would then mechanically raise the consumption input of GDP, realistically by quite a bit, if you're proposing that Grok designed Optimus robots or Teslas etc are going to be mass produced and consumed.
My median expectation is similar, in that that significant amounts of what AI can automate was already bullshit, and that application of AI to actual production will find itself limited in an Amdahlian sense by everything it cannot automate. My point is that if you expect rapid American production dominance diffused into the physical world driven by AI advantage, I don't see how you can expect minor net GDP and productivity growth at the same time. Mechanically this would bring up C, I and moderately NX in the GDP equation.
There is (see Americans bullying people into investments), but more importantly this isn't a story of money. AI-driven productivity could lead to cost reductions, and marginal displacement of current imports, eg from the same China (here we assume that the US will be meaningfully better at extracting value out of AI). So it's possible to have substantial growth in production without equally impressive growth in revenues. The story of Chinese solar panels is illustrative. Chyna is replacing a large fraction of global energy infrastructure, what does this buy them? 0.3%?
Ultimately, at the scale of American economy it is just not enough to make things to make a difference.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link