I see only a difference in degree. It starts with trusting AI to write your emails, then organizing your calendar, then organizing your finances, then establishing financial goals, then making important life decisions. And then you're a pet.
There will be companies actively trying to build this kind of trust. And they will succeed -- at least, they'll be able to deliver this kind of advice for almost no cost, and much of the advice will be considered helpful, much of the time.
But who's going to be on the other side, arguing that listening to the AI advice is a net bad?
That sounds more like a Parent-Child relationship than Owner-Pet to me. I guess I take inspiration from the Culture series where AIs indeed have basically all the agency and "run" things but humans are not relegated to the status of pets.
>But who's going to be on the other side, arguing that listening to the AI advice is a net bad?
If an AI reached the point where it is objectively better than the human, across all intellectual metrics, to which it is giving advice would it be a net bad?
I see only a difference in degree. It starts with trusting AI to write your emails, then organizing your calendar, then organizing your finances, then establishing financial goals, then making important life decisions. And then you're a pet.
There will be companies actively trying to build this kind of trust. And they will succeed -- at least, they'll be able to deliver this kind of advice for almost no cost, and much of the advice will be considered helpful, much of the time.
But who's going to be on the other side, arguing that listening to the AI advice is a net bad?