Jevons Is a Paradox, Not a Rule

Jevons Paradox says that as technology becomes more efficient, overall resource consumption can increase. This was seen during the Industrial Revolution when more efficient coal engines led to higher coal usage. However, this paradox is not universal, and efficiency can also lead to reduced resource consumption.

In the context of AI coding tools (e.g. GitHub Copilot), there's a belief that increased efficiency will lead to more coding jobs by lowering development costs. While this may happen, history shows that technological advancements can also displace workers.

Counter Examples

The invention of programming compilers made coding more efficient but reduced demand for assembly language programmers, who were once critical to assembly-based software development. While many of those programmers probably found other coding jobs in higher-level languages, Jevons simply doesn't guarantee it.

Similar patterns have occurred in other industries more starkly. The mechanization of agriculture reduced the need for farm labor.  See this graph:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-people-employed-in-agriculture

Then there's the replacement of draft horses, where ICE vehicles meant horses were no longer needed and millions of draft horses were slaughtered or displaced, and their population dwindled.  See this graph:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338480301/figure/fig1/AS:845430833283085@1578577826802/Evolution-of-the-horse-population-in-France-from-1800-to-2010-translated-from-French.ppm

In recent years, coal consumption has fallen despite energy efficiency gains due to the shift to other energy sources (e.g. renewables, gas).

The rebound effect, which drives Jevons Paradox, doesn’t always occur at full strength. For example, energy-efficient LED lighting and fuel-efficient cars have reduced overall energy and fuel consumption, despite potentially increasing usage. Similarly, AI tools may lead to fewer coding jobs, even if more code is produced.

Ultimately, while AI could increase software development demand, it may also reduce the need for certain types of programmers. History shows that efficiency gains don’t always lead to more jobs. Jevons didn't guarantee draft horses more jobs, after all.

This was written in collaboration with an AI — another example where more words will be written as efficiency per word increases but the number of writing jobs may well decrease (as it apparently already has: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65906521 ).

What Latin Phrases to Italicize in Formal Writing?

When writing formally, you'll probably have to use some Latin or other foreign words or phrases, like "e.g.", "viz.", "inter alia", "etc.", etc. Do you italicize them? Or do you not? Actually, some you do italicize, while others you don't. So how do you figure out which is which?

The rule of thumb is, if the word or short phrase has been so commonly used in English writing that it's immediately recognizable to an English reader, meaning the word or phrase has been assimilated into current English usage, then don't italicize it (i.e. it is anglicized and should be set in roman). If the phrase is an abbreviation of a Latin phrase, also don't italicize it. Finally, don't italicize foreign proper names, foreign names of people, institutions, places, etc., and also usually not for foreign quotation.

Otherwise, italicize the word or phrase to show that it's foreign. When writing italicized foreign words or phrases, make sure to put in the appropriate accents and diacritical marks (this means that for German nouns, the initial letter is capitalized.

But which words or short phrases are commonly used in English enough not to be italicized? It could be a tough call. To help you, here's a compiled listing of frequently used foreign phrases and whether to italicize them: