respectfully disagree here - not entirely, but rather the axis upon which the split is discussed. AI at this time mostly involves natural human language (typed

respectfully disagree here - not entirely, but rather the axis upon which the split is discussed. AI at this time mostly involves natural human language (typed first) interface to knowledge, enacted in code. The failure of Prolog and that era of AI was said succinctly by IBM's Sriram Raghavan (sp?) as "determined by rules and facts, and who is going to type in all those rules? so it went nowhere" At this go-round, some semblance of understanding of questions, plus really a lot more data on tap, changes the equation. An "AI" freed of needing pre-built if-then-if-then could possibly work at speeds of iteration, or speeds in response times, that will startle even those prepared for this. So in the "John Henry race against the steam engine" [0] sense, no contest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore) What humans will retain, and build, is authority. A signature authority is a ticket to an easy life, as many in law and health care know well. "executives" of all kinds, and even the lowly salesmen, will retain that signature authority despite any competency of any other, human or machine, because it is adversarial in the first instance. The contest of will and locks will not be ceded, but the contest of erudition and good taste, will be lost by the human in most cases. That is a suggestion for the axis upon which to measure the future fates of humans in markets and governance. AI is a surveillance state wet dream in the making. It is the humans we have to watch out for, starting yesterday IMHO.