[jaimebuelta]

The main point of this article is mostly misguided, IMO. The real one is that you don't know which tech innovation will have a great impact before hand.

Most of the things that has big impacts are actually things we skip through. For example, we have a pretty decent camera in our pockets at all times. We take pictures constantly. The "selfie" revolution, one that has big impacts in how we perceive ourselves and want other to perceive us is enabled by having an small quality camera around. At some point passing from "terrible quality" to "good enough quality" made a jump in that. Sure, not everyone takes selfies. But it has been a big change in photography in the last 10 years or so. So big we have a new name for something it exist before.

I'm pretty sure that being able to track a run and share it on social networks is a big motivator to do exercise, for example.

I seems weird to me talking to AI, and even weirder that "the future" is calling to a shop with an AI instead of using some sort of web shop/app/whatever to get an appointment.

But who knows...

[redial]

Most revolutions have been silent revolutions. The only one that was an instant world event was the iPhone launch. All the technologies named in the article; Wifi, Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, even YouTube and Wikipedia were not introduced to millions of people at once in a Silicon Valley event. AI will change the world, but it'll be slow, like how the internet changed the world little by little replacing retail, letters, phone calls, and now maybe 40 years later, TV. AI is a process revolution, not a product revolution. So he's right, big tech products have been mostly useless, specially compared to their promises.