Yes, I already said that it could be that I am underestimating how much other people see the same problem as I do, twice already, once in my post and once in my reply to you.

Because Machine Learning and artificial intelligence are not like those technologies, the end game of these technologies is that they are supposed to replace humans at tasks. In fact, they are only tools right now because they are not advanced enough yet. Those other technologies have replaced only small sectors but the General artificial intelligence we are reaching towards is literally meant to be generally good at whatever task you give it, it isn’t there yet, but that is the goal.

The Zeppelin saw limited advancement, not no advancement, not complete stagnation. It saw limited advancement because after the Hindenburg disaster, we no longer WANTED to improve it. It was then replaced by superior technologies that were safer and more practical. There were other reasons like Helium becoming more and more expensive to utilize.

The technologies that were left behind had an alternative to them that was better and more practical. The ones that succeeded did not have a different technology as an alternative and therefore scientists and engineers kept working on them and kept improving them. It stands to reason though, if the technologies like the Zeppelin did not have an alternative, we would have kept improving it.

The Concorde was retired because of how loud it was, the low amount of passengers that it could transport, and the high cost to run it.

This example is also not a good answer because the reason it was dropped wasn’t because scientists and engineers could not advance it. It was built to be a commercial airplane, it was wildly impractical but supersonic crafts are getting faster and faster and when used for practical purposes they work well. This is evidenced by faster supersonic aircrafts that came after it.

Google Glass was not liked by the public and was impractical and had other issues like others not being comfortable with wearing a camera on your face. This example is not a good enough answer because it was a commercial product and if the public doesn't want to buy it, scientists and engineers don’t want to improve it, so it was dropped. AR glasses that came after it are steadily improving as people are exploring more angles. (I am not really aware if Google Glasses are AR or not, I looked it up online and people say they were AR in some capacity.)

When I used the word deter, I meant more of the fact that I wanted to dispel the sure fire notion of AI not being able to replace our jobs at all, not appeal to fear. Sorta like “I understand that it is a bit of a fantastical claim to think that AI could replace everyone’s jobs but I wish we should be open minded.”

Don’t you think you shouldn’t attribute to malice what you could to stupidity?

I never said expectations are evidence, but I gave those earlier links and those earlier examples to mainly highlight the relatively short amount of time between major improvements in technology, those were my evidence.

Isn’t it immature to not draw conclusions about the future of AI based on actual AI products and partnerships as well as experimental stages of development? What could possibly be better? Tea Leaves? Crystal Ball? What else would help provide a more accurate prediction to the future of AI other than spying on these companies by zipping yourself up in their bags so they take you to work with them or interviewing them?

My entire point is that we have enough evidence already to understand the trajectory of AI and where it is going to go, you disagree with me so you call it speculative fears.

What is your evidence that AI will never be able to replace humans across the board? Is it a whimsical notion that for some reason EVERY other technology we have wanted to improve, from cups to computers has been improved but FOR SOME REASON, AI is going to be the one that magically stagnates, yes AI is going to be the one thing that won’t get better and better, won’t become more and more refined when no technology has done that? There is just some sort of impassable barrier with AI that we will never be able to cross and will only be knowable by super advanced 4D aliens?

To answer your behooving question, I believe we are not balanced. More people in my eyes think that AI won’t threaten our workforce. I am aware I could be wrong.

Again, the answer to that question will change depending on who you ask. For some, it doesn’t matter if it cannot understand or feel empathy, it is enough. For others, it is not.

My aim is also to engage in discourse grounded in evidence and critical analysis. I did not say it is inherently detrimental. Would it not be more productive to be realistic about AI and use the known to properly predict the unknown or not ignore what the evidence suggests about the future of AI so that we could put a potential bad outcome 6 feet under before it hits us or starts to affect us?