You're absolutely right, although on a completely different topic: I'd argue that most of the things you mentioned might not be good for society, especially when combined with the view that most technological development takes place in publicly traded companies whose primary obligation is to maximize quarterly profits. I guess it is innovation when a personalized recommender system is able to pick exactly the right conspiracy video to HD stream to someone's phone that will get them to keep watching videos on an ad-supported platform. But not exactly society "blooming" in my view.
Edit: Obligatory "I saw the greatest minds of my generation destroyed by advertising KPIs" reference
fwiw, that's a very time-local judgement of the progress we made. Objectively, as a species, we solved inter-connectivity, high quality media, etc. - the fact that we currently live in a culture where these means are distributed in the name of wealth will simply be meaningless a couple hundred years down the line.
> Objectively, as a species, we solved inter-connectivity, high quality media, etc.
I do not think that is an objective statement at all. I think one could just as readily make a highly data-supported argument that never in history have we been more factionalized or inundated with low-quality media than in the current moment.
Because the feedback-loops that allow for notions as isolated material wealth will lose traction (or at least that's what I estimate will happen). Where do you think automation will lead us over the course of ten generations? What will AI be capable of at that point?
After, say, 50% of people have nothing meaningful to contribute to society anymore via jobs, how will this change the perspective on work/wealth/etc as a whole? Now add another five generations after we reached that point, just to get rid of some friction of people holding on the the past.
The system design of power/hierarchy makes sense in a partitioned world of limited resources. If we expect any continuous level of progress in our problem-domains (for example fresh water), its just a matter of time until culture eradicates certain inequalities. As of now, there is an active demand for inequality. People want to be wealthy, and as it is, that requires others to be poor and do the shit jobs. One part of this equation will continue to change in our favor - maybe forever.
I don't think this is "so deeply ingrained into our species", I think its nothing but culture, or maybe some middle ground, in which case culture will be the dominant factor over the long run.
>Where do you think automation will lead us over the course of ten generations? What will AI be capable of at that point? After, say, 50% of people have nothing meaningful to contribute to society anymore via jobs
It will lead to physical elimination of that 50%, and probably more.
>I don't think this is "so deeply ingrained into our species", I think its nothing but culture, or maybe some middle ground, in which case culture will be the dominant factor over the long run.
Monkeys, from which we split off millions of years ago, have very strong hierarchies. It's great to believe we can fix everything with culture, but biology exists.
>The system design of power/hierarchy makes sense in a partitioned world of limited resources.
Resources will always be limited. Our wants, collectively, are infinite.
Just think about "thought influencers". It's nothing but status games, and that will not go away even if every single physical need has been taken care of. Why? Because the top influencer can program brains of millions, and some - even of BILLIONS of other humans.
How do you fix that with more resources, the competition over who gets to influence and brainwash everyone else?
Edit: Obligatory "I saw the greatest minds of my generation destroyed by advertising KPIs" reference