20 minutes ago, jas007 said:

....

Real AI is something else and is a few yers off, perhaps. 

 

I'm not worried about it. It's coming and will be a bigger disruption than many people seem to think. That's a good thing, if you're an investor and can see through the nonsense.   

 

AI is going to cause massive poverty.  Bill Gates says people will have more time for leisure and be happier.  I think a huge proportion of people are going to be unemployed and it's wishful thinking to think those that benefit will feed any of their increased wealth to the unemployed.

 

One of my Neighbours is CTO for an international software house, he's downsized his team from 120 to 30 developers.  They are losing clients because their clients now do it with AI.

 

I don't see AI creating Universal Basic Income, human nature is greed.

22 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

AI is going to cause massive poverty.  Bill Gates says people will have more time for leisure and be happier.  I think a huge proportion of people are going to be unemployed and it's wishful thinking to think those that benefit will feed any of their increased wealth to the unemployed.

 

One of my Neighbours is CTO for an international software house, he's downsized his team from 120 to 30 developers.  They are losing clients because their clients now do it with AI.

 

I don't see AI creating Universal Basic Income, human nature is greed.

I was thinking about this the other day and looked at some historical examples of disruptive technologies.  And while some people may indeed be displaced as the result of AI, that's not to say that massive job opportunities won't open up in other areas.

 

This may be a bad example for a number of reasons, but it's still on point:  

 

Consider the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. It used to take hours to separate the cotton fibers from the seeds, but with the cotton gin, the speed of this process was hugely increased. Did this displace some workers?  Sure. But the resulting efficiencies changed the game of cotton production entirely. Cotton fabric could be cheaply produced, and this changed not only the economy of the South with an increased need for slaves, but of the North as well and its textile industries.  More slaves were needed to grow and  pick the cotton, and the now more inexpensive product enabled textile factories in the North to profit economically. Of course, slave labor was a bad thing, but I suppose it's not unlike today and the workers at places like Amazon who have jobs because Jeff Bezos disrupted how consumers shop.  Or all the drivers who now work for UPS delivering packages from Amazon.  

 

Or if you don't like that example, consider the invention of the silicon chip and the computers that eventually came along and revolutionized many industries.  Some people lost their jobs, but others found work opportunities in other areas. 

 

You can look back in history and find other examples of other disruptive technologies. The introduction of the railroad. The invention of the internal combustion engine.The industrialization of agriculture. The changes that come along with new technologies are always disruptive, but the end result isn't always bad. 

2 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

They are compared to the alternatives at a similar price point. I've ridden in loads over the years (probably 30-40 Uber rides in Dubai for example) and they feel cheap and flimsy inside.

Depends on the spec. Not remotely cheap or flimsy in my one experience.