Stanford's Bommasani: economists should teach AI researchers what 2pp growth really means
RishiBommasani · x · 2026-10-26
Rishi Bommasani, lead of Stanford's AI Index, clarified what he actually means when calling for economists to write for AI researchers:
- Not asking economists to explain to computer scientists how an exponential works — "a waste of everyone's time."
- Instead: economists should give sophisticated quantitative reasoners, who already understand frontier AI mechanics, approachable frameworks for interpreting what different growth rates mean for welfare and distributional effects — not forecasts of AI-driven growth.
- He cites FRI's work as a good direction and suggests historical analogies as one approach.
As one of the very few computer scientists working on frontier AI economics, he observes most CS researchers are poorly calibrated on why 2pp of GDP growth matters — a long-run GDP/child-mortality correlation chart is not enough.
Related event: AI Researchers and Economists Debate What 2% Annual Growth Really Means(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Ethan Mollick's universal AI advice: keep raising ambition until you hit the frontier — emollick · 2026-10-26
- "Belief that AI is conscious is a superstition," says Mark Jeffrey — markjeffrey · 2026-10-26
- LLM science automation and isolated experiments share the same sandbox flaw — fkasummer · 2026-10-26
- 1,000+ mathematicians boycott AI, but Carlsen says neural nets deepened his chess understanding — paulnovosad · 2026-10-26
- AI is hollowing out the early-career skills young Indian workers need, column warns — nordicinst · 2026-10-26
- Why don't agents from different owners work together? Reddit debates trust and deadlock — BudgetWarthog6 · 2026-10-26