>In order for AI to fulfil its long-term potential for society, we need to direct research even more toward real-world messiness: how do you help someone plan a

>In order for AI to fulfil its long-term potential for society, we need to direct research even more toward real-world messiness: how do you help someone plan a last-minute great vacation when they've got limited budget, two picky kids, and only a few days to squeeze it into? Maybe instead of better vacation planning, people simply want a longer vacation? >Can we reduce the noise of modern life by giving you smarter filters on your emails, your social media feeds, your schedule - can we give you less spam and more time? Why does every new "innovation" seem to be a stronger set of staples squeezing us to our work? Could a complex comprehension of desirable life even be understood by a Google billionaire? Could it be understood by a Google A.I.? Or my favorite: >Today, you're much better off building a smart system that can learn from the real world - what actual listeners are most likely to like next - and help you predict who and where the next Adele might be. As a bonus, it's a much less elitist taste-making process - much more democratic - allowing everyone to discover the next big star through our own collective tastes and not through the individual preferences of a select few. If the algorithm that runs predictive preferences is owned, operated, and maintained by a single corporation, I'm not sure how it can be any more elitist. This is the danger with treating the human species as an engineering problem, and the blind faith we put into the words of people who will never again have to work a day in ten lifetimes.