This argument makes no sense. Work can be great, even if you do get paid for it. It's not a charity, after all. We work to live, and if we can get paid for work that's fun, so much the better.

Incidentally, people who are good at something, tend to enjoy doing that something, and vice versa, people who enjoy doing something, tend to enjoy their work. Combine that with competent leadership (rare, I know), and you have a place people want to work.

There's a name for this: Private Equity.

Ruling class...huh? Letting them look down? Who exactly is doing that, and what does that even mean?

Apparently you haven't done much driving among big city skyscrapers. GPS is very intermittent in large hubs of cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, and Dallas. Sometimes, when coming out of a parking garage, it can take minutes before the GPS picks up your location.

I was an 80's computer geek, and I still thought the original story was lame. But it was still fun.

Makes me wonder which stocks this guy is investing in.

Farming may be seeing tremendous improvement, but that has not kept the employment numbers up. 100 years ago, 12 million people worked on farms. Today, just 2.5 million. That's almost 10 million farm jobs lost.

In 1970, about 20 million Americans worked in factories, today just 13 million. That's another 7 million jobs lost.

So how is it that we're still at full employment? Your "tremendous growth" did not keep the job numbers stable.

The answer is, those people changed to other kinds of work, that never existed before. They are now computer programmers, social media influencers, air traffic controllers, IT support, fiber optic installers, drone pilots, on and on.

The same will happen with AI, as it has happened with all of the other jobs that were automated away.

Were the last 100 years of farm mechanization years of "tremendous growth" for farming? Were the last 50 years of factory automation years of "tremendous growth" for factories? Hardly. The "tremendous growth" argument doesn't hold water.

And guess what, businesses already don't have secretaries. That was a thing 30 years ago, but no longer. Sure, there is one here or there, but it's a very uncommon occupation. I guess AI already eliminated that job, 30 years ago.

Yes, I know what it means. I'm poking fun at the English, which doesn't really match the meaning.

This is why AI isn't going to replace thinking people. Humans instinctively know that a 27% score is "problematic" and will understand that if AI said otherwise, something was wrong with the question or the computation. AI doesn't instinctively "know" when the output is incorrect.

Companies that try to turn over significant decision making to AI, will quickly find out that AI can make some terrible decisions in terms of being able to stay in business. Human decision makers will be needed for a long, long time.

So quantum cryptography has already run its course and we've moved on past it? There must be a gap in my timeline. Perhaps my mind was entangled.

You're wrong on two counts.

First, machines do replace people, in large numbers. Today's factories are filled with robots that replace people who used to work in those factories. 95% of farm jobs have been replaced by machines over the last 100 years.

Second, the idea that machines can think, is buying into the AI hype bubble. I actually use AI every day, and benefit from it greatly. It *makes me more productive.* But it's clear that there is not even a shred of human thinking, whatever that even means. As others have said, it's just fancy autocomplete.

AI is nothing more than the next iteration of automation. As with all the iterations before it, it will replace some jobs, and create others.

Starvation is caused by corruption and greed, not by automation and technology. This has always been true.

"Society" doesn't "want" anything for you. Not in any country, not in any economic system. It doesn't want you to starve, nor does it want you to succeed. Thinking otherwise is delusional. Survival, and having nice things--that's on you, not on society. Now, if you are truly helpless, yes, society (ideally, your family) needs to care for you. But for those who are able-bodied and can work, if they won't work, then I have no sympathy for their situation.

If someone is working, and isn't satisfied with their income, but won't to do what it takes (like move) to increase that income, then I also don't have sympathy for their situation. This is a case of making personal choices and having to live with the consequences of those choices.

Ironically, the vast majority of people who are in danger of starvation, are in cities, not in small towns. So somehow, despite, the relative lack of jobs in small towns, people there aren't starving. Why is that? I believe it's because people in small towns have a strong belief in personal responsibility, that taking care of their own needs, is up to them, not the government. So, they do whatever they have to do to get by. They might not be rich, but they figure out ways to get food on the table.

Good points, I'd mod you up if I could.

Sometimes, perception doesn't match reality.

2014-2019 were *great* years for Disney, in terms of market share, and good years in terms of ticket sales.
The pandemic put a big hit on the numbers. but other than those banner years, their market share now is higher than it's been since the 1990s.

https://www.the-numbers.com/ma...