I think and write about this a lot. Fortunately, as I see it, the contours of AI are already outlined, and in the near future, no matter what programmers do, they will not be able to create anything comparable to humans. Let me explain in more detail. Firstly, the AIs that exist today are incapable of transcending paradigms or knowledge. They are incapable of radically shifting their perspective on a problem, or even seeing the problem for themselves. Yes, they work well with what is known. But they cannot work with the unknown, which leaves us with a niche. Perhaps engineers could solve this problem if they created a self-contemplating AI, but how can we instill in it the will to do so? The will that we have. This problem is either unsolvable, in which case there is nothing to worry about, or it is solvable, but to do so, we will first have to unravel the mystery of existence itself. If we succeed, we will disappear, since only the mystery of existence (or hidden existence) gives us a reason for life. Paradoxical as it may sound. After all, if we truly solved this riddle, we would instantly become nothing more than algorithms. And an algorithm has no basis for existence.

And problem number two: we are not machines. We sense, we disrupt the continuum, we make mistakes, we do stupid things. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is not true. But it is precisely this feature that allows us to transcend limits. Ironically, even DNA is assembled with errors, which is what allows evolution to happen—as Darwinists claim.

At the same time, AI is very dexterous. It has taken away much of our mechanical thinking. It copes better with logical problems. We are left only to solve illogical problems or accumulate empirical data for it. This is a great challenge for the future. And yes, we can overcome it. But at what cost?

It has taken away much of our mechanical thinking. It copes better with logical problems. We are left only to solve illogical problems or accumulate empirical data for it. — Astorre

And create art

I am grateful that I don't have to do my laundry by hand, beating it on rocks in the river. — BC

Wait until you piss and shit your pants on a regular, or at least a semi-regular basis. Those things need to be washed first manually, and in cold water, at that. That is, if you want to keep the clothes for a while and prevent your washing machine from going all foul (despite using special detergents).

Which brings me to my point: with the ever wider implementation of AI, it looks like humans will be left with doing the dirty jobs, literally.

"What makes many applications of artificial intelligence so disturbing is that they don’t expand our mind’s capacity to think, but outsource it…" — Questioner

This is that cultist aspect to the use of AI.

Just like many people like to outsource their thinking to cults, so many people like to outsource their thinking to AI.

This speaks to the fairly common human desire to escape responsibility for one's own life and actions. That desire to be comfortably numb, and to approach life as a matter of going through the motions.

This speaks to the fairly common human desire to escape responsibility for one's own life and actions. That desire to be comfortably numb, and to approach life as a matter of going through the motions. — baker

This is a very interesting observation.

Wait until you piss and shit your pants on a regular, or at least a semi-regular basis. — baker

Wow! So very glad you reminded me of that possibility.

the AIs that exist today are incapable of transcending paradigms or knowledge. They are incapable of radically shifting their perspective on a problem, or even seeing the problem for themselves. — Astorre

Your perspective on AI has been obsolete for years now. The type of AI I dreamed of long ago was hand programmed to do specific tasks for just the right agents in preordained sequences depending on each query.

The newest artificial *general* intelligent programs come as open minded as possible unfettered by a human knowledge base, like babes opening their eyes for the first time seeing the flash of light off the robe of an obstetric nurse walking by.

I asked my health insurance website a question and their AGI agent replied that it was just learning the insurance system!

This isn't pure inflation due to shortages, but rather a market distortion due to a lack of incentives for production and competition. — Astorre

You missed the part of my post where I said with a combination of government services and universal basic income.
There is a way to do it without the world becoming a racketeering ghetto.

I suggest studying the experience of socialist states, such as the USSR. The issue isn't racketeering, but a lack of motivation for proactive action. A simple, everyday example from the USSR: the average citizen had no reason to get an education. You could simply graduate from high school and go to work. They couldn't refuse you—the employer had to write such a lengthy explanation of why the employee wasn't suitable that it was more profitable to hire you. Then you'd be trained on the job, sent to a vocational school, and acquired a profession. In any position, working hours wouldn't exceed 40 hours per week, and you'd receive 28 calendar days of annual paid leave, during which the union would send you to a resort for a free vacation. The average worker's salary was 208 rubles, while an engineer's was 213 rubles. Why would anyone want anything?

A modern example is the inhabitants of reservations, for example, in the US, who are paid a stipend simply for living. I haven't heard of any prosperity within the reservation, despite the fact that it would seem that all the conditions for creativity, art, and development exist.

Of course, with this approach, there was no inflation in the USSR, because it was a planned economy, with food prices set by the state, as were wages and benefits. True, with this approach, inflation could be prevented, but the initial question was, "How can a market economy cope with this?" A planned economy is too inflexible to meet market needs. Solving one problem only creates another.

Technology and the future of humanity. That is a thought provoking title. I would suggest that for the productivity of thought, the technology we need to evolve is 'hyper-aesthetics'.

Hyper-aesthetics is related to the quality of the environment around you in any given situation. Hyper-aesthetics is the meta awareness that helps you and those in your environment, maybe with coworkers or a boss too, a setting of the situation around your approach to the workspace and the workspace itself.

We may also use the well worn term 'conducive'.
The technology itself is the knowledge and art of bringing conducive elements to the environment so that the person and being in situ both in the approach to work and the workspace find the physical environment pleasing in all its aspects in order to raise the spirit of involvement and lower the internal displacement of emotional smog that so often is amplified or a direct cause of affects of the immediate environment.

As a technology, 'Hyper-aesthetics' also contains metrics and measurements as to the impact of the existing environment and the evolving of well being, calmness of self and other people, brought on by changes to the settings in the environment.

Mood and feeling, and the positive engagement in approaching tasks in work are the desired effect. This technology of hyper-aesthetics utilises the art of understanding the aesthetics of space, ambient and decorative lighting, its intensity and placement, the quality of air and its movement, humidity and temperature. The physical seating and workspace environment. The control of sound and silence. Opacity or transparency of physical walls, and the benefit of line of sight, or enclosed space versus intimate space. The presence and availability of sustaining drink and snacks and their efficacy. The desired working space around computer screens and the ergonomics of seating and standing in and around productive work time.

As the post uses the reference term, "the future of humanity", the outcome of emotional balance and harmony is fundamentally the technology and art of curating a conducive environment in order to set the basis for a consistent mode of existence.

Desire does and often change, which is why hyper-aesthetics must have metrics, and that gives the scope for evolving the environment to suit the needs and wants of its inhabitants.

The future of humanity relies on the certainty of self knowledge in order to carry forward its projects. Hyper-aesthetics is one aspect I would suggest is an element of philosophy that shouldn't be neglected or dismissed out of hand.

Unearthing the existential problems of life is the first task of philosophy and inquisition is a choice of methodology and means. The power of philosophy is the both the exhibition of what is in the now and the participation in the particular, so that codified meaning gains substance in instinctually driven life. Incidentally sharing the same form and utility as the impact of global culture.