> but the author does advocates from a position of "class privilege": of having access to good lawyers, good doctors, and good schools already, and not feeling

> but the author does advocates from a position of "class privilege": of having access to good lawyers, good doctors, and good schools already, and not feeling the urgency of tools that might extend those things to people who don't I dunno I think you can also take a really dim view of whether society as currently structured is set up to use AI to make any of those things more accessible, or better. In education, certainly we've seen large tech companies give away AI to students who then use it to do their work. Simultaneously teachers are sold AI-detection products which are unreliable at best. Students learn less by e.g. not actually doing the reading or writing, and teachers spend more of their time pointlessly trying to catch the very common practice. In medicine, in my most recent job search I talked to companies selling AI solutions both to insurers and to healthcare providers, to more quickly prepare filings to send to the other. I think the amount of paperwork per patient is just going to go up, with bots doing most of the actual form-filling, but the proportion of medical procedures that gets denied will be mostly unchanged. I am not especially familiar with the legal space, but given the adversarial structure of many situations, I'm inclined to expect that AI will allow firms to shower each other in a paperwork, most of which will not be read by a human on either side. Clients may pay for a similar or higher number of billable hours. Even if the technology _works_ in the sense of understanding the context and completing tasks autonomously, it may not work for _society_.