...that comes out to about 3.5% growth a year for the tech sector, from Codex, and by fiat assumption 3.5% growth for coders in the 10% of the economy outside tech that has software engineers. 24/n
At the same time, as Codex is improving efficiency, coders are losing their jobs. So there is a net increase in GDP there is also a drag on growth. I don’t know how much this is but someone losing their 100K-200K job will spend a lot less on the economy. I ignore this. 25/n
NLG: Maybe other applications add additional impact from GPT-3, using the same logic maybe another 5% growth a year from other adjacent sectors (10% of the economy). You have robot therapists, robot financial planners, and robot CRMs. 26/n
Again, not everyone will choose these options as some will prefer the human touch, you also have the same cost disease problem, and people losing their jobs. 27/n
Since the US economy is 23 trillion dollars in size even if you have a 5x growth in the industry that’s still only a one-time growth of 1.7%. Businesses like Covariant and Boston Dynamics are niche businesses in a niche industry and do not move the needle. 28/n
Even increasing the pharmaceutical industry by 5x would lead to an additional 11% one-time bump in GDP. Smoothed over fifteen years comes out to be less than a 1% increase in growth. 30/n
Adding all these things together, 3.5% increase in tech sector (10% of economy) = .35%, 5% increase in adjacent sector = .5%, 3.5% increase in engineers outside of software (10%) = .35%, Self-driving cars 1.7%/ 15 years = .1%, pharma growth is .66%...31/n
...Putting all this together you have 2% additional GDP growth from deep tech and related advances, 2% from current growth which leads to 4% GDP growth in this widely optimistic scenario 32/n
You still need 3% growth from another tech that I haven’t named or hasn’t been invented yet, but I hope my exercise has illustrated how much inertia must be overcome GDP-wise to get even 3% more GDP growth. 33/n
This will be even harder by 2030 when the economy will have increased from 23 trillion to around 30 trillion in size. The amount needed to grow 7% at 30 trillion would be more than 25% higher than what is needed at 23 trillion. 34/n
In short, I hope I've convinced you that getting 20% growth in GDP, much less 7% in GDP is a monumental task for an economy as large and as advanced as the United States. Thanks for reading. 35/n