The little girl who leads us home

We have already overcome the intelligence of jargon. Of the niche. Of specific knowledge.

I don't even know what the concern is with a "general artificial intelligence" (AGI).

Has anyone noticed that we live in the intelligence of niches? I opine:

If you call telephone support now, an attendant will know almost everything about telephony by heart. Even within this telephony niche, 80% of the cases are always the same, constituting a niche of the niche, that is, the small niche of typical telephony support cases.

Are we already able to train an artificial intelligence (AI) in typical telephony cases? Or in telephony as a whole. Are we not capable?

So why do I observe from afar - there among the thinkers of large companies in the field - a concern with general artificial intelligence?

If we can already replace all the niches in the world with specific artificial intelligences, why should we worry about the possibility that only one intelligence - artificial, generalist (AGI) - does everything?

I don't quite understand this concern.

Replacing all the niches in the world with artificial intelligences specialized in niches is already a dazzling enough revolution. That will impact our lives.

I would say that even if a general artificial intelligence is ever created, the change will not be as impactful as the revolution now, in which all niches can be replaced by specialized artificial intelligences.

There are not enough people to make it a reality yet, but there is already enough knowledge to create specialized artificial intelligences to replace any niche, or almost any niche.

If we add the physical action of robots, we can include all niches.

Intelligence to fry delicious hamburgers.

For sewing.

To create autocad plants - which already take into account solar incidence, given the coordinates of the construction, the personal taste of the owners (etceteras). You can already build with construction robots and increasingly modern materials.

To coordinate the traffic of entire cities. In real time, perceiving the number of cars, intersections, traffic lights, emergency vehicles. How much green time at which intersections to minimize congestion for everyone, at this exact moment? And after a few minutes?

To help restart internet modems and, if necessary, check financial issues or request an in-person appointment.

To prescribe medications.

To discover cancer spots in images.

To discover which songs trigger the best emotions in me, in which periods, at what intensity, directly consulting the gadgets that I put on myself to measure hormones, heartbeats, heat, pleasure. Leaving the “like” as something from the beginning of the 21st century. Creating playlists that maximize my emotions. In each phase (instant, actually) of my life.

To create ideas for new niches in which specialized artificial intelligences can operate, such as this list typed here - still - by a human and their limitations.

To be my lawyer. In this specific action.

To be a prosecutor. In this specific action.

To judge based on cases decided by English juries recorded since several centuries ago. Which previously judged case does this case most resemble?

Specialized artificial intelligences need to be trained with specialized cases. If we give “a ton” (a large number) of real cases from the past for an artificial intelligence to train on these cases, usually, just like that, we have an artificial intelligence specialized in something specific.

There is still a lack of people to train so many niches. But it is a matter of lack of time, at this moment, no longer a lack of knowledge or processing capacity.

Our human life was a bit like that, wasn't it? Isn't it at work where we actually learn a lot of what we need to do? And that much of what we need to do is much less than everything we learned in almost a decade of school, plus half a decade of college and further studies?

The first artificial intelligence, the specialized one, seems to me like that little girl who starts in the company - in each niche - and ends up president of the company. Without ever needing a “general artificial intelligence” diploma.

This little girl will allow each of us to no longer work, but continue consuming - a paradox only in appearance (I opine). The little girl - the specialized artificial intelligence - delicately pushes us out of factories, offices, snack bars, courts, but without stopping a millimeter of production - often on the contrary, improving the quality of production compared to when it was human production.

We, humans, are delicately working less, without stopping consuming the things that continue to be produced - now produced without us. Increasingly being produced without us.

This job loss is no longer a loss of production, as it was until a few years ago. It is a loss of (need for) work.

We will solve how to define what someone will pay for what. Money, which has always been a measure of work, will be replaced by anything else, except a measure of work.

Work is beginning to wane. Consumption - including more time to consume things we consume when we have free time - remains abundant.

The revolution that specific artificial intelligence “allows” (a euphemism for “forces”) creates ideas for entire posts of amazement with each possible change.

For example: will we still need bus lanes to transport workers en masse, very early?

What will the new money be like that will measure anything, except work, as work will no longer be currency, due to the lack of need to work with the scope with which we humans need to work today.

Will there be one or a handful of AI owners enslaving us all? There will not be, I opine.

Etceteras.

Great revolution to all of us ☀️.