If AI can drive a car, which we seem to be getting close to, the demand for car repair is likely to be significantly diminished, since car ownership will eventually stop making economic sense for most. The trend is already moving in this direction. Fewer young people of the age to become licensed drivers are choosing to do so.

That will probably be true for quite some time for many home repairs. However, smart home systems integrated into appliances and things like HVAC may be able to assist in diagnosing problems and make repair efforts more efficient. Or catch potential problems earlier, so that minor maintenance or small repairs can be done before reaching the level of full system failure.

The knowledge of how much and where to trim may exceed the capabilities of AI for a while yet, but you might start seeing robots that can do the dirty work, so to speak, under the supervision of a human who marks where the cuts should be made.

So-called robo-advisors are already a growing trend. It's probably only a matter of time before they are consistently better than their human counterparts.

Actually, this is probably one of the first areas of medicine where AI will have a big impact. Developing individualized treatment plans are where you're more likely to work with a doctor. But we're quickly moving toward letting AI take much of the load in diagnosis.

Teaching AIs are already happening at the college level. And there are lots of reasons that AI teachers will add a lot of value at all levels. I think there are strong reasons to keep human teachers as well rather than going 100% (or nearly so) automated, but some educators seem to think it will happen, and sooner rather than later.

Perhaps not. But having law enforcement that has no biases, never gets tired or frustrated, etc... will be a big step forward. AI will very likely play a role in solving crimes, and perhaps in adjudicating them, or at least deciding whether they should be pursued in the criminal justice system or not.

Not sure about this. Seems like an automated system could be better than humans at identifying the hottest spots, and focus fire suppression on them with greater precision. Or maybe AI controlled, integrated fire suppression systems will interdict small fires much more quickly before they become big enough to call for fire department deployment.

Depends on the context. Seems like an AI could do better at a human at scanning an area (e.g. pool or shoreline) and identifying people in distress. Actual rescue might be effected by a human lifeguard, though.

I really don't know if that would be a good or bad thing.

In the near term, AIs may not entirely do any of the above, but they will likely play a role in doing many of them better and more efficiently. That may mean a few jobs are obviated in those areas by automation, or a significant proportion. And while some of the above comments pertaining to advanced smart home systems, etc.. may be a bit future-y, we will probably see things along those lines in the coming decades.

Assuming we can figure out how to keep everyone fed, housed and cared for, which is still a very big question, probably people will do what they enjoy doing. Do people really need jobs, if all their needs are already being met? It seems we have a number of populations that who get along well enough without going to a job every day -- retirees, the idle rich, stay at home spouses (with or without kids), kids done with HS or college who are not quite ready to go out into the world (some of these can last a surprisingly long time) .... and there are some people who work just enough to get by to whatever standard of living they are willing to accept, and go from part time job to part time job, or do casual labor, gigs or short term contracts.

What does work provide that you can't get through other activities? And more interestingly, what other activities become much more practical when you don't have to squeeze them in around the 45-80 hours one might spend on work/commute/work-related activities?

That's a good point, and something I hope we start to figure out soon.

That's already happening, too. Medicine, law and other high profile, high status, well paid professions. Not quite to the same level as in this discussion where we're talking about 100% replacing the human worker. But if the smart search case law research algorithm can save the 20% of time an attorney spends doing research, he can do more of the other 80% of things he does. So where you used to need 5 lawyers, you might only need 4 now. Same kind of thing for, e.g. a radiologist. If an AI tool can help her do diagnoses much faster, maybe her hospital and/or the healthcare system in general needs fewer radiologists.

Indeed. I think a lot of people believe that "post scarcity" is just around the corner, but I think it will be a slower transition than many predict. The enabling tech is still advancing rapidly, but not at Moore's Law rates anymore. Hopefully, we are able to get some kind of UBI or other support system in place before widespread unemployment becomes a critical issue.

Certain people will probably always do that. But good password managers have been around for a while, and can easily accommodate such requirements. If anyone is unaware of those types of tools, that's probably a failing of their IT department for not having or properly communicating a standard for password management.

Not the OP, but thought I'd share a different perspective on this. Putting aside, for the moment, your cost estimates for autonomous vehicles (I'll come back to that), let's look at it from the other side. A $10/hour wage is going to cost the employer somewhere between $14-20/per hour by the time you factor in taxes, insurance (worker's comp and unemployment, I believe, are mandatory throughout the U.S., and as you mentioned, liability insurance), plus the additional fees paid to drivers for their gas/mileage/maintenance, etc.... I may be low-balling a bit, but let's call it $16/hour. And the dominoes nearby whose hours I looked at says they're open from 10:30am to 1am daily, which seems fairly typical -- 14.5 hours per day, 7 days a week comes to 5278 hours per year, but if we consider some holidays and early closing days, let's round it down to 5100. With our $16/hour number, that's $81,600 in costs avoided per year. For having one vehicle, available any time the location is open.

Now, as for your estimates. Non-fuel costs (tires, oil, preventative maintenance) for fleet vehicles tend to run well under $100/per month even for very high mileage vehicles, but let's call it $100 since small business owners may not have all the advantages of a large fleet operation. Now, if we assume a high utilization rate of 50% (driving time) and a high average speed of 20mph, that gives us about 51000 miles per year. At 25mpg (probably on the low side), that's 2040 gallons of gas. At the current national average of $2.528, that's $5157.12 in fuel costs, or $6357.12 when combined with maintenance. Even if that's off by 100%, and the vehicle cost is $30K or more, compared to the $81K driver cost, it's still a big savings in the first year. Other considerations that might offer less obvious advantages include tax treatment of the expenditures (capital and operating expenses vs. payroll) and depreciation.

Of course, that's the best case scenario, where we're comparing the maximum cost for having one driver available during all open hours. But it's obviously not a binary choice, in which a location has to have all autonomous vehicle or all human employee drivers. We won't even get into the discussion of whether the vehicle has to be a "car" in the normal sense, since it only has to carry food, not passengers.

Not really. A variety of services are indirectly (communication and delivery services that reduce the need/desire to go places) and directly (such as ride hailing apps, e.g. Uber and Lyft, car sharing services like zipcar) reducing the need to own a car, with the trend likely to continue downward. I seriously doubt your urban population has anywhere close to 100% car ownership currently with gas vehicles, so why hold EVs to that standard?

There are already a number of solutions available. For instance, a company called chargepoint installs and manages charging stations for office buildings, retail businesses, apartment/condo complexes, etc... as well as private homes. Blink charging provides similar services. Probably others as well. It's really not as challenging as you make it out to be. You're probably better off not owning a car in high density areas, but if there is reserved parking, charging can be accommodated.

Yes, there are a number of things that affect elderly people such that they cannot or should not drive -- vision impairment, as you noted, and even just declining ability to react quickly enough to safely operate a vehicle.

Those factors, combined with attributes of a retirement community like the Villages, such as being a somewhat isolated environment, moderate traffic, better than average signage and road markings, somewhat favorable weather (e.g. they're often in places with no snow), etc... make it a good place for rolling out early versions of fully autonomous vehicles.

Florida has for years had lax requirements for driver's licenses to cater to the large retiree population, allowing many drivers to keep driving privileges long after their reduced physical or mental abilities have made it a safety issue. Self driving cars provide a way for those who should not be on the road to keep freedom of movement with respect to personal transportation without the safety risks inherent is just letting them keep their driving privileges. As a result, I expect states like Florida and Arizona (the old and new favored destinations to retire to) to be early adopters of laws friendly to autonomous vehicles. Also California, with the largest number of elderly (though near the bottom percentage-wise) combined with the tech-friendliness due to being the home of silicon valley.

And I agree. There are plenty of things I'd rather spend my attention on than driving.

There is no real expectation of privacy when in public, already. That's not changing. In your own home, where people tend to have the greatest expectation and desire for privacy, obviously not buying a device with a built-in voice assistant is a perfectly reasonable and effective solution against being listened to by a voice assistant. In the homes of others, you can still make your own decisions about how much you want to participate by either not voicing anything you wish to keep private, or just not going to someone's home who uses such devices.

But if we're being honest, privacy is mostly illusory these days before even considering Alexa and similar services. There are some things you can do to try to preserve it, but privacy is already pretty much gone.
Your ISP knows what you do online. Unless you use a VPN service, in which case, they know what you do online.
Your phone carrier can track you location, even (though less precisely) if you don't use a smart phone.
Your bank/card issuer knows where and how you spend your money.
And so on.

You joke, but the "smart toilet" mentioned has a bidet, so kinda.

Let's abstract that away from a politically charged topic and see if it holds up, shall we?

That part seems fine.

That seems fine, too. Are you suggesting that when individual events are shown with a high degree of confidence to be influenced by the larger trend, it should be ignored or suppressed? That sounds more like a situation where politically motivated individuals should leave the science alone.

I think you inadvertently hit on something here that is counter to your point. Obviously, there are costs to selling, and not just the direct closing costs. OP is obviously wrong, of course. There are certainly cases where it is financially sound to buy rather than rent. But it's also wrong to claim that it is always better to buy. It varies based on many factors, but a common rule of thumb is (or used to be) that it's typically not cost effective to buy if you intend to move/sell in less than 7 years (though I have been seeing 5 years as the guideline more often of late).

The real answer is to consider your local markets (rentals and sales), total costs in either scenario, your housing needs/wants, and your personal situation and do a cost/benefit analysis based on your specifics.