[dahwolf]

Regarding the email example, you're reasoning from the current state of AI whilst I was looking at its future state where it's close to flawless.

The bigger point was that sending AI content to each other is utterly pointless. The generate->send->read->generate reply->send cycle would simply be: generate.

Example: you send me an email asking about a project's status as well as the contact person for a particular vendor the company deals with. I'll manually reply with the answer, or let AI generate it (fully or partly) and send it back to you. Great. In the future state, your AI will simply give you the answers directly. You won't email me and you don't need me.

My take on the meaning of life is that there isn't any, it's whatever you make of it. But I wasn't being that deep. I believe that our current still human approach has substantially more meaning than AI generating almost anything.

I'm happy that you enjoy the process of art-making itself, that's a robust baseline to fall back on, but joy in process applies to very few interactions. My point is that many if not all digital interactions become pointless.

[roryisok]

> In the future state, your AI will simply give you the answers directly. You won't email me and you don't need me.

that sounds great. you emailing me about a project and waiting for me to write an email to you is an inefficient waste of both of our time, and if AI can give us that time back, it should.

> My point is that many if not all digital interactions become pointless.

but I disagree that it will render all digital interactions pointless - just the day to day drudgery.

20 years ago, if you wanted to find out the opening times of a store you had to call them up or walk to the door. now, you can google it in seconds. we have done away with a lot of the short phone conversations, and our lives are better for it. but we still talk on the phone. the conversations are more meaningful and less redundant.