>>10310013OP, there are two reasons and two reasons only you would post a thread like this, and neither one of those reasons make you look good at all:
1. You unironically have drunk the marketing and media Kool-Aid about so-called 'AI', and as such actually believe the utter fantasy that they've portrayed it to be.
2. Thread is bait, and bad bait at that.
The poor excuse for 'AI' they keep trotting out to everyone has no cognitive capability to speak of, it's just decision trees and '''deep learning algorithms'''; it has no capacity to actually THINK, and never will, not until we unlock the secrets of how our own brains produce that phenomenon. Self-driving cars, for instance, don't 'think', can't tell the difference between a human being and a lamppost, they're both just 'objects' to it's programming, with no special significance, and if it comes across something outside it's programming, it has to '''phone home''' and have a HUMAN OPERATOR get it out of whatever jam it's in, because it CANNOT THINK AT ALL.
What you seem to THINK 'AI' is, is GENERAL AI, which we do not have -- and will not have until we can understand how a living, working human brain does what it does *as a complete system*. We won't be able to do that until we have the instrumentality to fully observe a human brain functioning; we do not have that technology yet. We may never.
Until then all claims that """robots will take all our jobs""" is utter and complete nonsense. No machine can replace a human being, not yet, and probably not ever, or at least not in our lifetime. There will be no 'automating' of everything, it simply won't work.
