In this context I’d imagine you meant what the technology could evolve into. But what I’m saying is the technology is fundamentally incapable of being intelligent.
I imagine you think of “the technology” as just artificial intelligence in general. I’m talking about the actual technology in todays “ai”. The inner workings.
Yeah I think you're dead on. I'm evidently not alone in thinking that the age of information is driving a lot of consciousness of worldwide issues on a scale we've never seen before. People in the Middle Ages only knew the small world they lived in on the scale of a city or region. If that city or region was prospering, their life was likely pretty damn nice.
These days, we're aware of all issues everywhere. And if you don't create that perspective for yourself, that can be incredibly overwhelming. You have to give in to a certain sense of wilful ignorance because you literally cannot be involved with every one of those problems. Not clicking on all the doom and gloom news articles has done wonders for my mental health. I guess you could say this thread was a moment of weakness.. :p
That's life. What value you assign it is up to you to decide. Philosophy is how I find my value, for others it's religion. Ultimately, that's something you have to figure out for yourself.
By your logic, the first humans should've stopped having kids and died out the first time they faced any sort of existential issue. Life's hard yo, that doesn't mean it's not worth living.
I've responded to effectively this type of thinking here:
https://lemdro.id/comment/2874668
By no means trying to diminish the concern. I'm merely trying to give a different perspective to get away from the "we are doomed" mentality, which I don't think is helpful either for your mental health or addressing the issues at hand.
I'm not dismissing its usefulness for those scenario's (see my response to Veltoss below). But people tend to way over-estimate what it is capable of.
Generating an office layout? Yeah absolutely, because that's largely based on prior art, no real innovation required. Though as you noted you'll almost certainly need to "steer" the AI because there's so many variables and permutations that it cannot realistically come up with a perfect solution without real intelligence. It'll require iteration from "someone" no matter how advanced it gets.
But AI as it exists right now won't replace let's say your office manager, who would probably be given the responsibility of planning the office layout. Because their job entails making lots of intelligence based judgment calls. That said; given they will get more AI powered tools to do their job there may be fewer jobs available overall because now your office manager at some big office won't need an assistant anymore.
Note I am not saying that AI affecting our economy isn't happening or won't happen. I'm merely saying that any predictions people are making should be met with a heavy amount of doubt, because there is so much misunderstanding out there.
This is literally us telling you to join and you're calling people dumbass. Please have some perspective.
Edit: I just saw your edit to your original post. Consider this my last response. Very childish.
They are still your peers when it comes to the battle of workers vs employers. Sure, put it in a different context and it may sound wrong.
Can I use group finder?
Then no thank you.
Kinda funny how they screwed it up for both the online and offline use case.
That’s fair, but also moot while there are non electric cars available for less than 30k. Hopefully in time they can get the cost down.