>>14129184Cycles of generations will be made obsolete: the moment you go to school for a career, someone or a group of people are already attempting and succeeding on making you obsolete. When your schooling is done, you are met with competitors—not a human competitor, but a robotic, algorithmic one. This competitor does not complain, does not need a lunch break, does not need vacations or holidays off. This competitor continuously works 24/7 while you sleep or commute. And unlike its human counterpart that degrade over the years, this particular competitor can be continuously improved at scale.
While technology replaces old opportunities with new opportunities, it does not look good for average people because robotics, AI, and algorithms are the new standard. Even exceptional people, the ones at the tail-ends of spectrums are not necessarily safe, simply because of the rapid pace of iterations and zero-to-one innovations.
As for social implications, there are too many. One interesting conjecture, however, is that politicians will attempt to slow and halt technological singularity—Ted-Kaczynski-like politicians will be popular and will gain populist votes. Simultaneously, populism will grow popular the more people are made obsolete because becoming obsolete is an attack at the peoples' own personal existence. These populistic factors will ultimately fail because human-labor is expensive and does not scale as easily as AI and algorithms because AI and algorithms have zero-marginal costs of replication (the closest form of infinite leverage humanity has achieved), while humans need years to be grown and developed.
On the individual-scale, individuals will appreciate technological progress because it allows the individual to do more with less: think about the farmer who does everything by hand versus the farmer that uses tractors. Meaning, while the populist as a group will complain about technological progress, the individuals will win via technology.
