> I think you're conflating bad management practices with the effects of generative AI. I kindly disagree :-). Management is about increasing profit, not impro

> I think you're conflating bad management practices with the effects of generative AI. I kindly disagree :-). Management is about increasing profit, not improving the product. And we see the results: arguably most products are worse today than they were 10 years ago. Software is a great example of that: the hardware made huge progress, but the resulting software is slightly worse than it was with hardware orders of magnitudes slower. > As for copyright, that's a matter for the courts and legislature to decide. Unfortunately, I think the US are showing us differently. The billionaires decide and again, they optimise their profit. > What happening in AI, on the other hand, can potentially take us to the next level as a species. All the established science says that we are about to collapse (most species are, already: we are the cause of the current mass extinction that is the fastest in the history of the planet). We don't have a solution to the energy problem, and we're running out of time. We don't have a solution to the climate problem, and we're running out of time. And we don't have a solution to the biodiversity, that is well into a mass extinction. There is one thing we know we can do: start doing less with less, adapt our society to handle the coming changes as well as possible and accept that it will be worse than today anyway. The direction we are taking, though, is what you suggest: hope for a miracle, hope for what we don't know. "Maybe technology will save us". Sure. Maybe god will, too. Feels unlikely to me.