"Because we've reached an especially toxic phase in the history of AI. A lot of companies have ploughed billions of dollars into the dream of being able to repl

"Because we've reached an especially toxic phase in the history of AI. A lot of companies have ploughed billions of dollars into the dream of being able to replace human workers with machines, and they are desperate to make us believe it's going to work - if only so they can cash out their investments while the stocks are still high." Over its short history so far we have learned that Silicon Valley's only viable "business model" is data collection, surveillance and online ad services. "AI", i.e., next generation autocomplete, can work for this in the same way that a "web browser" or a "search engine" did. In the end, no one pays for a license to use it. But it serves a middleman surveillance "business model" that solicits ad spend and operates in secrecy. When this "business model" falters, for example because computer use and ad spend stagnates or shrinks, then Silicon Valley's human workers are not "needed". Large numbers of these human workers are paid from investment capital or ad spend, not from fees for services or the sale of products. Perhaps the question is not whether "AI" can "replace" Silicon Valley's human workers. Perhaps the question is whether the online ads "industry" is sustainable.