> Humans won't be marketing, they will be marketed. It all depends on the progress and advancement of automation/robots/bots/etc but if we reach a point of "ge

> Humans won't be marketing, they will be marketed. It all depends on the progress and advancement of automation/robots/bots/etc but if we reach a point of "generalized" AI which can pass the Turing Test, we might be at a stage where it wouldn't make to market towards humans. Marketing might be directed to the elite who controls AI but what incentive would be there to divert resources to the masses and if resources aren't directed to the masses, what incentive is there to market to them? Though I don't think we are anywhere near generalized AI, I am genuinely shocked at the progress being made. When I was taking AI class 10 years ago, I remember the professor saying we were quite a long ways ( 2 or more decades ) away from AI beating the best at Go, Jeopardy, etc. The same thing with AI language/translation, image recognition, etc. The idea was that the "space" of Go was just too large for AI to be effective in the near term. And that an AI could grasp the "puns/history/questions" of jeopardy, let alone answer it was something that wasn't reachable in the near future. But just few years after I graduated, all of these "difficult" AI problems were "solved". I'm not trying to sound cynical, but the elite control the world and the human masses are an asset/property which the elite use for their ends - production in modern capitalist times. If AI and robots serve the elites better than humans, what incentive is there for the elite to divert resources to humans?