Let's read between the lines here. The title does not say it will make employees irrelevant, it says it will make "people" irrelevant. Does anyone in their right mind actually think that whoever pioneers the way to mass produced AI is going to use it to "make a better life for the rest of us"? What is more likely to happen is that once the tech is developed and produced, the CEO, or group of CEO's along with their cronies will pick a nice patch of land on planet earth (probably several patches of land), cordon it off with massive AI security forces, and leave the rest of us to die in the wasteland. I can't think of a better way to depopulate the earth; reducing resource consumption exponentially while having the entire planet to yourselves. LOL @ "Universal Basic Income".... our UBI will be whatever we can kill each other for over what's left.

As technology has become ever present in the workplace, we have become repetitive multitaskers. The organization I work in has people doing simple, repetitive tasks, over and over and over again; often they are not related to each other. For instance, our auditing team doesn't just have to audit documents, they have to create a folder on this drive, copy a document from that drive, email a copy to this person, cc that person. Technology is cultivating the behavior; but it isn't the root of the problem.

Monkey bars, of course!

I'm playing somewhat less than I used to but only because of work. However, when I do play, I enjoy the NES and SNES emulators much more than a lot of the modern games. There's something rewarding about completing the Triforce in Zelda or beating Mother Brain in Metroid that doesn't echo in modern games, at least for me. I like games that are puzzling and challenging and that show imagination. The ultra realistic games I find very dull.

This is a rather uninformed post regarding the field of computer programming. I don't mean to disrespect you, but I implore you to a) do a little more research and b) open your mind. As an "artistic" type myself, I have found that it has only helped me in the field of software development. After all, a system is an abstraction of a process, or series of processes, that represent a real world problem to be solved. The nature of that abstraction is manifested in its objects and their implementations and properties. These things aren't tangible; not in the sense of concrete or steel anyway. Yet they are every bit the result of a creative approach. I've been developing since 1986, yet I received a degree in architecture; a hightly "artistic" endeavor to say the least. Throughout the years, I have found more similarities than differences in these two fields. Surely one can make a concrete box with a roof on it (like Wal Mart). Similarly, one can make a program that "works" (like a program that updates databases). But the real beauty of software should lie not only in its function, but its form. Does it inspire the users who interact with it? Has it solved a problem elegantly? I agree with the importance of technical aspects present in programming. However, to assume that engineering is only a technical endeavor or that artists only provide a "colorful world" is to miss a major facet of our field.

Sounds like a good opportunity to try those wine powered processors.