| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update 08:54 - Jan 9 with 2964 views | nrb1985 |
U.S. productivity hits highest level in 2 years - tentative signs I'd say that AI is beginning to have a meaningful impact in the work place.
https://www.reuters.com/busine
This chimes with current anomaly in U.S. economic backdrop - where earnings and GDP are surging but are in a very low hire/low fire labour environment.
Appreciate concerns around job displacement (particularly for knowledge workers like me!) but for a country like ours that has low productivity, awful demographics, slowing labour force participation - and has decided it wants less immigration - these types of technological advancements may prove extremely beneficial.
[Post edited 11 Jan 19:41]
|  | | |  |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:28 - Jan 9 with 805 views | J2BLUE |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:08 - Jan 9 by NedPlimpton |
But that's the point. You can't just say for every job that software has replaced X amount must go to the government. It's basically a tax on innovation and where do you draw the line? What about e-tickets and scanners at turnstiles instead of people? What about emails instead of letters delivered by postmen?
Our main sponsor is a workflow automation company. What happens to their employees when the cost of providing their services goes up because their customers have to give 10% to the government? |
As I said it's a starting idea for a future when the unemployed could be in the tens of millions. |  |
| |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:57 - Jan 9 with 756 views | TractorWood |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:01 - Jan 9 by thebooks |
This is nonsense, pure whatiffery.
US productivity is a pyramid scheme of everyone building vast data centres and shovelling huge amounts of money to Nvidia. |
I think there a load of great uses for AI. However, its ability to produce without human opinion and judgement will always (imo) be limited to slop, agreement bias and hallucinations.
The incredible levels of investment are a giant ponzi scheme and will fall apart for 95% of the bubble. |  |
| |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 07:10 - Jan 10 with 682 views | thebooks |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:57 - Jan 9 by TractorWood |
I think there a load of great uses for AI. However, its ability to produce without human opinion and judgement will always (imo) be limited to slop, agreement bias and hallucinations.
The incredible levels of investment are a giant ponzi scheme and will fall apart for 95% of the bubble. |
Yes. I think LLMs are a piece of tech like any other, with a set of uses based around pattern prediction.
AI is being sold (grifted, really, as per the OP) as an economic, political, everything panacea whereas in fact it just makes money for a gilded few, and reinforces fascism by allowing computers to make decisions over human life and, like you say, just generating slop based on existing biases.
Ironically, it creates very few jobs. Data centres are low-staffed, and of course getting AI to bash out a half-arsed marketing plan deprives someone of a job. |  | | |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:16 - Jan 11 with 571 views | nrb1985 |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 17:48 - Jan 9 by CoachRob |
Your definition of productivity is the one used by mainstream economists and it is complete nonsense.
You could search for this using any LLM such as Co-Pilot;
"Here’s the short version: mainstream economics treats productivity as a purely monetary or labour–capital phenomenon, while thermodynamics shows that physical energy flows and entropy fundamentally constrain all production. When you ignore those constraints, you systematically mis-measure what actually drives economic output.
1. Standard economics treats energy as “just another input”
In neoclassical growth models (like Cobb–Douglas), the contribution of a production factor is assumed to equal its cost share. Since energy has historically been cheap—often only 5% of total costs—economists conclude it contributes only 5% to output.
But this is a category error.
Energy is not like labour or capital. It is the physical capacity to do work, and without it, neither labour nor capital can produce anything at all. As Ayres and Kümmel argue, energy conversion in machines is the real basis of industrial growth.
2. Thermodynamics says: no energy, no production
Thermodynamics gives us two non-negotiable laws:
1st law: You can’t produce output without energy inputs.
2nd law: Every transformation increases entropy, meaning useful energy is degraded.
Economists rarely incorporate these laws into productivity analysis. As a result, they attribute output growth to “technology” or “TFP” (total factor productivity), when in reality much of it is simply better energy conversion efficiency.
This is exactly the argument behind thermoeconomics and ecological economics.
3. “Technology” is often just better thermodynamic efficiency
When a steam engine goes from 5% to 20% efficiency, economists call the resulting output jump “technological progress.”
A physicist calls it: more useful work extracted per unit of energy.
By ignoring thermodynamics, economists mislabel physical improvements as abstract “productivity.”
4. Macroeconomics lacks a physical foundation
A growing body of work argues that macroeconomics should be built on thermodynamic principles, not just preferences and markets. For example, Chater & MacKay propose an axiomatic macro theory explicitly modeled on thermodynamics.
This approach yields:
clearer definitions of value and money
better understanding of inflation
more realistic constraints on growth
But mainstream economics still treats the economy as a closed, frictionless system—ignoring entropy, energy flows, and physical limits.
5. Ignoring thermodynamics leads to bad policy
When you treat energy as trivial, you get:
underestimation of the economic impact of energy shocks
overestimation of the role of capital and labor
unrealistic expectations for “green growth”
failure to see that economic growth is ultimately energy growth
This is why ecological economists like Georgescu‑Roegen and Daly argue that ignoring thermodynamics makes mainstream economics fundamentally incomplete."
Why are some people so gullible with these weird definitions, we all did thermodynamics at school, some of us still use it in our own work, but there are these people who think the world runs on magic. |
With respect mate, you’ve told me I’m talking nonsense in an area that’s pretty much been my profession for the last c. 20 years.
But you can’t explain in your own words — simply — why I’m wrong, instead relying on AI, which makes it hard to have much faith that you actually understand the point you’re objecting to.
Out of interest, which economists do you listen to? | | | |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:17 - Jan 11 with 570 views | nrb1985 |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:01 - Jan 9 by thebooks |
This is nonsense, pure whatiffery.
US productivity is a pyramid scheme of everyone building vast data centres and shovelling huge amounts of money to Nvidia. |
"US productivity is a pyramid scheme of everyone building vast data centres and shovelling huge amounts of money to Nvidia."
Are you confused between the stock market and productivity? For somebody with such a high conviction in their own views as you, that would be a bit embarrassing if so... [Post edited 11 Jan 12:35]
| | | |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:31 - Jan 11 with 561 views | nrb1985 |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 07:10 - Jan 10 by thebooks |
Yes. I think LLMs are a piece of tech like any other, with a set of uses based around pattern prediction.
AI is being sold (grifted, really, as per the OP) as an economic, political, everything panacea whereas in fact it just makes money for a gilded few, and reinforces fascism by allowing computers to make decisions over human life and, like you say, just generating slop based on existing biases.
Ironically, it creates very few jobs. Data centres are low-staffed, and of course getting AI to bash out a half-arsed marketing plan deprives someone of a job. |
Good grief, there’s a lot going on here.
Firstly, where have I said AI is some kind of panacea? I deliberately used phrases like “tentative signs” and “could be useful”. Not all of us are as confident in our ability to predict the future as you seem to be.
On job creation — history is pretty clear on this. Over a very long period of time, big technological shifts (steam engine, electricity, the internet, etc.) have tended to create more jobs, not fewer. You might be right that this time is different, but history really isn’t on your side — and given we’re two years into this, certainty feels a bit odd that somebody who showed earlier in the thread they don't understand what productivity is should have such strong opinions.
The data-centre point doesn’t really make sense either. That’s basically like saying, in the infancy of the internet, that the only jobs it would ever create were people laying cables and maintaining phone lines. You’re focusing on a very narrow infrastructure and ignoring what may in the end actually gets built on top of it.
But even putting all that to one side — and this is where you’re kind of agreeing with my original point anyway — even if AI doesn’t create loads of new jobs, that might actually be the point.
If you’re a country with declining birth rates, fewer working-age people and a desire for lower immigration, being able to do more with a smaller labour force is probably a good thing... [Post edited 11 Jan 12:36]
| | | |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:34 - Jan 11 with 560 views | nrb1985 |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:57 - Jan 9 by TractorWood |
I think there a load of great uses for AI. However, its ability to produce without human opinion and judgement will always (imo) be limited to slop, agreement bias and hallucinations.
The incredible levels of investment are a giant ponzi scheme and will fall apart for 95% of the bubble. |
You're right on the first point - it's not good at generating new ideas as it can only work with what's available in our observable world. AGI is coming though and that may change.
My point is more about productivity though, not AIs ability to emulate human judgement/creativity.
For example, reading and pulling out the relevant parts of a 50 page contract in a few seconds vs. a few hours for us. | | | |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:49 - Jan 11 with 543 views | thebooks |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:34 - Jan 11 by nrb1985 |
You're right on the first point - it's not good at generating new ideas as it can only work with what's available in our observable world. AGI is coming though and that may change.
My point is more about productivity though, not AIs ability to emulate human judgement/creativity.
For example, reading and pulling out the relevant parts of a 50 page contract in a few seconds vs. a few hours for us. |
AGI is not “coming through” — we’ve been promised this for years, it’s always just around the corner.
A prediction machine cannot be intelligent by definition — it can just make guesses based on patterns within existing data that is verified by masses of manual, low paid labour. LLMs especially so as they don’t even have world models, which makes them less “intelligent” than, say, a chess-playing program.
I really don’t understand why some people are so taken in by this technology and feel the need to proselytise over it. It’s not going to “fix” anything, just make a few grifters incredibly wealthy while damaging the environment, livelihoods and ultimately society. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:54 - Jan 11 with 527 views | nrb1985 |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:49 - Jan 11 by thebooks |
AGI is not “coming through” — we’ve been promised this for years, it’s always just around the corner.
A prediction machine cannot be intelligent by definition — it can just make guesses based on patterns within existing data that is verified by masses of manual, low paid labour. LLMs especially so as they don’t even have world models, which makes them less “intelligent” than, say, a chess-playing program.
I really don’t understand why some people are so taken in by this technology and feel the need to proselytise over it. It’s not going to “fix” anything, just make a few grifters incredibly wealthy while damaging the environment, livelihoods and ultimately society. |
In your opinion - which is based on your 100% faith in your own ability to tell the future.
I’m unsure though why anybody should give a 2 fs about the views though of somebody who earlier in the thread demonstrated they don’t really understand the difference between the stock market and measures of productivity…
But let’s try this one more time - maybe take some notes…
We already seeing tentative signs that there are productivity improvements in the real world. The UK (and Europe) has a huge issue with low productivity and worsening demographics. Ergo - my OP, AI as a tool for business could well be extremely useful.
Now go and finish your home work, tomorrow is a school day. [Post edited 12 Jan 6:25]
| | | |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 17:06 - Jan 11 with 456 views | Charlie_pl_baxter |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 13:12 - Jan 9 by nrb1985 |
I mean, right off the bat mate…
Higher GDP and a bigger tax take without raising tax rates — which can fund public services or help stabilise / pay down national debt.
For the NHS, that could mean a more efficient, higher-quality service without asking everyone to pay more tax.
It could help preserve the welfare state despite awful demographics. Compared with 20 years ago, there are materially fewer working people supporting each retiree — and that ratio is only heading one way.
It also makes lower immigration more economically viable, if that’s the political choice — easing pressure (allegedly) on housing, infrastructure and services without killing growth.
I’m sure I could think of a few more if I really put my mind to it — but it’s after 1pm on a Friday... |
Given that the firms that own AI are all in the US or China where do you think today taxes are mostly going? A less optimistic vote is that AI becomes a Trojan horse for foreign powers to deliver productivity while siphoning off the economic benefits. Much like we did for a century or so to our Imperial possessions.
With both the US and China having the military power and the will to use it in their economic advantage we could be in real trouble. |  |
| |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 19:40 - Jan 11 with 402 views | nrb1985 |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 17:06 - Jan 11 by Charlie_pl_baxter |
Given that the firms that own AI are all in the US or China where do you think today taxes are mostly going? A less optimistic vote is that AI becomes a Trojan horse for foreign powers to deliver productivity while siphoning off the economic benefits. Much like we did for a century or so to our Imperial possessions.
With both the US and China having the military power and the will to use it in their economic advantage we could be in real trouble. |
Sorry - might be being a bit thick here but why would a UK company or small business increasing their productivity/earnings (with U.S. AI tools as per your post) pay taxes in the US?
You've lost me. | | | |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:03 - Jan 11 with 367 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 12:54 - Jan 11 by nrb1985 |
In your opinion - which is based on your 100% faith in your own ability to tell the future.
I’m unsure though why anybody should give a 2 fs about the views though of somebody who earlier in the thread demonstrated they don’t really understand the difference between the stock market and measures of productivity…
But let’s try this one more time - maybe take some notes…
We already seeing tentative signs that there are productivity improvements in the real world. The UK (and Europe) has a huge issue with low productivity and worsening demographics. Ergo - my OP, AI as a tool for business could well be extremely useful.
Now go and finish your home work, tomorrow is a school day. [Post edited 12 Jan 6:25]
|
You're coming across as a lovely human being that has found their perfect place in society from which to shine. |  |
| |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 06:21 - Jan 12 with 311 views | nrb1985 |
| U.S. Productivity - an AI Update on 21:03 - Jan 11 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You're coming across as a lovely human being that has found their perfect place in society from which to shine. |
Hi - with respect, having been called a “grifter” by said poster, without provocation, think I’m fairly entitled to offer up a “sharp” response.
In fact, you’ll be very hard pushed to find any example on here of me giving a prickly response though without receiving “some” first.
Not that you would see it that way of course, as I imagine you think everyday is open season on somebody like me.
Happy Monday! [Post edited 12 Jan 6:29]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
