While I think it is a meaningful question to ask, I had a really hard time to get very deep into the article. At any one point in time, at least 30% of the pag

While I think it is a meaningful question to ask, I had a really hard time to get very deep into the article. At any one point in time, at least 30% of the page is covered by an advertisement. Some of the time nearly 100% of the page is an advertisement. No doubt that the page layout and advertisement itself were decided upon by some form of automated thinking (in the case of layout css in the case of advertisement something closer to what we think about when we say AI). The author raises a concern about automated thinking. But the article is displayed in a scenario that relies on a plethora of automated thinking. Let me guess he's only using good automated thinking while the other automated thinking that affects him is the bad kind? Ultimately, humans use tools and we push really hard to develop better and better tools. Maybe the tools other people are using concern you (and maybe that's a good thing to be concerned ... after all shoe stores used to x-ray feet), but progress continues and those that don't adapt are left behind. Maybe he's got a point, but I also don't see the new yorker abandoning its website and reverting to paper. How bad can the automated thinking really be. Honestly, I'm not sure I have any major refutations or solutions concerning the article. It's just that I keep bumping into people making odd statements about how they're really worried about the computers or the internet and they're making these statements on facebook. Seeing someone concerned about AI on an ad supported website makes me wonder if they appreciate how much of their existence is already dependent on AI.