What I like about this interview is that it demonstrates the absurd, thought-terminating clichés that modern elites use…and Acemoğlu just steamrolls them. Like this:

DER SPIEGEL: But it is true that humankind has indeed benefited a lot from new technologies.

Acemoğlu: That is the reason we have to go so far back in history. The argument that you just gave is wrong. In the past, we’ve always had struggles over the uses of innovation and who benefits from them. Very often, control was in the hands of a narrow elite. Innovation often did not benefit the broad swaths of the population.

There was no argument. A sentence does not an argument make. But regular people trying to argue from a similar perspective would say “…well, yes, but…” whereas Acemoğlu is just like “Nope. You’re wrong.”

I am sorry, but I am not buying his internet. Every technological change that had significant impact on our economy (fire, iron making, machinery, electronics, computers, internet) benefited most of the people. I challenge you to name even one counter example.

But that’s not the point. It did have a significant impact. Acemoğlu’s point is about the distribution over time of that impact. Elites tend to accrue for themselves the benefits of technological change.

In terms of AI, it makes some people more productive that others. So, right now, only some people are benefiting from the introduction of AI. Jobs with a $1 million salary are being advertised to replace striking Hollywood writers. It’s easy to say technological change creates winners and losers as I learned in my econ classes. But in the midst of such change, how long winners remain winners and losers remain losers matters a great deal to both.

In other words, the transition to cleaner energy sources puts coal miners out of a job until the sun goes out and the wind stops blowing. And it’s foolish claim the trade for higher quality air and a decline of associated respiratory illnesses is worth a miner’s despair and depression because they’re forever unemployed, their skills worthless.

You are making very different argument, with which I actually agree. But his point was counter argument to the statement that technology benefited us in the past. And his counter argument is bad and just wrong.

AI is nothing like what was in the past. That should be the argument, not that in the past technology did not benefited us.