It's just an average. "New" tech that is more of a combination of well-understood pre-existing tech often gets there faster, while genuinely *NEW* stuff can take several. AI might change the whole dynamic. We'll just have to wait and see.

This entire sub-thread is a wonderful illustration of how ideology is cancer. You're just arguing over which of your cancers is worse.

That'd certainly be better. Anyone supporting any politician in high office right now is part of the problem. They're all cancers.

Typically you want to be somewhere around the 3rd generation of adopters. That's usually how long it takes to work out the serious issues.

Yes.

That's already happened. The question is how long it'll take for them to be able to write one that's any good. The hard thing here is figuring out how to teach it to do something that very few people really have an understanding of.

I'm a contractor, in a business that isn't going away anytime soon, and that AI is particularly bad at. We're very good at what we do, and have been using the rudimentary AI already on the market for a couple years already (limited in usefulness, but staying on top of it).

I'm not worried for me in the next 10-15 years. Nobody honest can predict past that.

I am, however, very worried for the world. Nobody has come up with a good answer to the question behind the question you just asked, and the disruption will almost certainly lead to war (China/Taiwan & India/Pakistan being the biggest worries in the medium term).

The question behind the question is the fact that you can't even just somehow tax the machines, and then pass those taxes on to people, because that automation will drive costs and prices down, while at the same time less spending money from less income earners will also push prices down, and it'll be easier to offshore... so there will be significantly less economic activity overall to tax, and a smaller tax base, all while the spending to keep the social safety net working skyrockets.

There's no way to make that math work.

The closest thing I've seen that approaches 'an answer' is some sort of system that doesn't involve money at all, where the needs themselves (food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, transportation, etc) are just... met. We've no idea where things will settle after it all blows up, but maybe enough tax revenue will be there to pay for those needs just being met, then some extra for spending cash (UBI).

Both major parties in the US and UK seem (the only nations I watch close enough to comment) hell bent to make this situation much worse. I think an economic collapse is essentially inevitable. It'll just be less horrible in some other places in the world.

I'll be collecting it from overseas where I've already started moving my business, and watch while the country devolves into bankruptcy.