What if the A.I. Boosters Are Wrong?

Despite the advent of personal computers, the internet and other high-tech innovations, much of the industrialized world is stuck in an economic growth slump, with O.E.C.D. countries expected to expand on aggregate just 1.7 percent this year. Economists sometimes call this phenomenon the productivity paradox.

The big new hope is that artificial intelligence will snap this mediocrity streak — but doubts are creeping in. And one especially skeptical paper by Daron Acemoglu, a labor economist at M.I.T., has triggered a heated debate.

Acemoglu concluded that A.I. would contribute only “modest” improvement to worker productivity, and that it would add no more than 1 percent to U.S. economic output over the next decade. That pales in comparison to estimates by Goldman Sachs economists, who predicted last year that generative A.I. could raise global G.D.P. by 7 percent over the same period.

The bullish camp has great hopes for A.I. Sam Altman of the ChatGPT maker OpenAI sees A.I. wiping out poverty. Jensen Huang, the C.E.O. of Nvidia, the dominant maker of the chips used to power A.I., says the technology has ushered in “the next industrial revolution.”

But if the boosters are wrong, it could be trouble for the developed world, which is in desperate need of a productivity breakthrough as its work force ages and declines.

A.I. won’t reverse stagnation, Acemoglu told DealBook. One reason: The technology can automate only about 5 percent of an office worker’s tasks, he found. “A.I. has much more to offer to help with the productivity problem. But it will not do that on its current path, that’s why I’m so troubled by the hype,” he said.