back
1 comments
Useful to do what? Create more technology? Destroy the planet even further than we already have? Make us more addicted to screens? No thanks.
>a distinct lack of a specific goal

>now about creative perceived value so that we can spend money on it, merely to develop it further.

>in turn we will become too independent from each other to care about each other. But the addictiveness . . .

>We are like children playing with fire at a gas station.

All this could have been said about the early work on "personal" computers by Xerox which never did do them very much good at all, using 20/20 hindsight looking at what followed after.

>It's only powered by immediate, short-term gains whose positive value to society don't last when compared to the long term societal detriment.

Looks to me like all most of them have is short-term losses, and for many that will be as far as they get.

For some of them also, Societal-Detriment-R-Us, no doubt about it, so good call overall from a reasonable point of view.

Thats a pretty cynical take. The likely overly optimistic take would be that it would provide a level of usefulness of a highly paid and highly competent personal assistant.
If the overly optimistic upside is a quicker, more knowledgeable, higher-performance-information-digesting personal assistant at lower cost than ever before, it would still be out-of-reach for almost as many ordinary people as the top professional human personal assistants are now.

Unless they never manage to reign in the costs, then it will be more out-of-reach than a real human, disregarding the potential game-changing element of real human empathy.

I would expect those that have funds to spare already have both, regardless of the limitations of each.

If you can come up with a possible downside, that would be something to compare it against.

Everyone might not have to be cynical for their opinions of the potential outcome to be either positive or negative.