People still do that in the 21st century?
yes, b/c I can buy used, and sell if I get tired of it. I can also play most games (eff you GTA5) when comcast is having one of their frequent outages. Try that with your newfangled downloads.
IT is a cost center which yields 0 return on investment compared to planes
The proper response to someone who says that is, "How efficiently to you think you can schedule flights, book passengers for them, process them onto a plane, and keep track of all of the above if the IT infrastructure were to all disappear?"
The paradigm you describe will come to pass, and then pass away.
Sadly, you're probably right. That doesn't mean it won't be painful for those that live through it. Being a peasant in Medieval Europe, a slave in early american south, or a serf in Stalinist Russia was not a "good time".
The scary questions for me are, how long is this phase going to last, and what's going to be left when it comes to an end?
people will seek the consultation of AI that can process market data at a level far beyond what any human group can
I would expect there to be multiple AIs to be involved here, and they would ultimately be fighting for control of the markets, as people do now. If there is only 1 AI, I don't see how it could reconcile conflicting requests from multiple people/groups. Well, actually I can see how that would happen, the golden rule would be applied: Those who have the gold make the rules.
leading to the eventual complete governance of humans by AI.
So, eventually some version of The Matrix. Either the monied class controls the AI, which then controls the masses (assuming the proles still exist) and fools them into thinking it's in their best interests; or, the AI takes full control, and decides that the whiny meat bags are more trouble then they are worth, and finds a final solution.
I can see how an AI might somehow be developed to lead the mass of humanity, but I don't have any faith that it would happen that way. Even if such a thing was claimed, would we be able to verify the correctness of such a claim?
In my remarks I made the point that this resolution was perhaps well-intentioned, but bought into a really dangerous idea that somehow DRM-based access to the law from an exclusive private provider is "good enough." I was actually joined by the standards establishment in arguing strenuously that "read only access" simply doesn't exist and DRM is futile. A law is either public or it isn't. (And if a law isn't public, it isn't a law!)
Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders. -- Gauss