Answers.Body: <p>Here is something I've noticed about humans: We're bad at projecting the future with all of its 2nd, 3rd ... <em>N</em> order effects, and we're REALLY bad a projecting and quantifying risk. So, I'm not sure that you'll get an answer that is anything more than either trivially true (&quot;Chatbots will be commonplace&quot;) or a correct but wasn't justified (&quot;We'll explore the stars by sending out swarms of AI-enhanced satellites that will use their computing power to improve themselves since they are always on but have copious amounts of down-time&quot;).</p>
  <p>But if you want to limit the timeframe to the next decade and don't mind the previous caveat, here goes:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>Chatbots will be commonplace. This will include ones that can handle conversation, like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu0OKD3UL_k" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gridspace</a> but can also handle multiple languages and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching" rel="nofollow noreferrer">code-switching</a>.</li>
  <li>In professional use, AI will augment professionals (such as lawyers, physicians, teachers, and accountants) at the upper end (who will add value with strategy, experience, and research) and replace them at the lower end.</li>
  <li>In military use, they will be used for target identification, automated assessment of damage, threat notification, and forecasting.</li>
  <li>We'll explore the stars by sending out swarms of AI-enhanced satellites that will use their computing power to improve themselves since they are always on but have copious amounts down-time.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>I don't hold a lot of hope out for communication without error of to speakers of different languages as you can have two native fluent speakers who have known each other for years speak to each and still have them miscommunicate.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-24T08:35:23.833Z
Answers.Text: The von Neumann idea is very far off in terms of physical technology to implement a first generation. I am not sure why you might consider that to be reachable within a decade, whilst your first three suggestions seem much more conservative as predictions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-24T13:53:11.733Z
Answers.Text: I'll second what Neil said, and add that depending on what you mean by "improve themselves", that might belong to science fiction. Continual online training based on new data is something we might have our systems do. Rewriting their code *during the mission* is probably not. By contrast, reliable realtime translation is actually a quite plausible prediction (which surprised me; most articles of this sort are filled with nothing but wishful thinking).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ray
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-24T16:04:07.087Z
Answers.Text: I should clarify. I don't think we're going to launch some sort near General AI level satellite that will somehow how GAI-level intelligence. I'm talking more about iterating through a set of parameters for optimization that get used as the basis for the next set of inputs and possible then re-optimized. So, the magnetic field of Jupiter inputs get used for Saturn which gets used for Heliosphere edge refinement. Any actual code improvements would come from earth. Also, it was meant as a callback to the first part of the answer and let me reference justified true belief for the hidden joke.
Answers.UserDisplayName: hrokr
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-03-06T18:26:29.410Z
Answers.Text: @Ray -- I'm sorry guys but that was meant as a joke. I referencing the not justified part of "correct but wasn't justified". In other words, it's nothing to make a prediction that ends up being false as they aren't remembered. True ones where people had a good reason makes them look like seers. "Correct but wasn't justified" just means lucky guessers but in a world with no penalty for wrong guesses we see it a lot.
Answers.UserDisplayName: hrokr
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-07-24T06:41:01.667Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-07-24T06:41:01.667Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: hrokr
Body: <p>AI is the emerging field and biggest business opportunity of the next decade. It's already automating manual and repetitive tasks. And in some areas, it can learn faster than humans, if not yet as deeply.</p>
  <p>From the Forbes article</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>In the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/10/17/the-ai-enabled-future/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AI-enabled future</a>, humans will be able to converse and interact with each other in the native language of choice, not having to worry about miscommunicating intentions.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>I would like to know more about how artificial intelligence will change the future?</p>
  
Tags: <social>
Title: How artificial intelligence will change the future?
UserDisplayName: Pluviophile
ThreadText: # How artificial intelligence will change the future?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-07-23)
  
  AI is the emerging field and biggest business opportunity of the next decade. It's already automating manual and repetitive tasks. And in some areas, it can learn faster than humans, if not yet as deeply.
  
  From the Forbes article
  
  > In the [AI-enabled future](https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/10/17/the-ai-enabled-future/), humans will be able to converse and interact with each other in the native language of choice, not having to worry about miscommunicating intentions.
  
  I would like to know more about how artificial intelligence will change the future?
  
  **Tags:** social
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2020-07-24. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  Here is something I've noticed about humans: We're bad at projecting the future with all of its 2nd, 3rd ... *N* order effects, and we're REALLY bad a projecting and quantifying risk. So, I'm not sure that you'll get an answer that is anything more than either trivially true ("Chatbots will be commonplace") or a correct but wasn't justified ("We'll explore the stars by sending out swarms of AI-enhanced satellites that will use their computing power to improve themselves since they are always on but have copious amounts of down-time").
  
  But if you want to limit the timeframe to the next decade and don't mind the previous caveat, here goes:
  
  * Chatbots will be commonplace. This will include ones that can handle conversation, like [Gridspace](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu0OKD3UL_k) but can also handle multiple languages and [code-switching](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching).
  * In professional use, AI will augment professionals (such as lawyers, physicians, teachers, and accountants) at the upper end (who will add value with strategy, experience, and research) and replace them at the lower end.
  * In military use, they will be used for target identification, automated assessment of damage, threat notification, and forecasting.
  * We'll explore the stars by sending out swarms of AI-enhanced satellites that will use their computing power to improve themselves since they are always on but have copious amounts down-time.
  
  I don't hold a lot of hope out for communication without error of to speakers of different languages as you can have two native fluent speakers who have known each other for years speak to each and still have them miscommunicate.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: The von Neumann idea is very far off in terms of physical technology to implement a first generation. I am not sure why you might consider that to be reachable within a decade, whilst your first three suggestions seem much more conservative as predictions.  
  > **username_3**: I'll second what username_2 said, and add that depending on what you mean by "improve themselves", that might belong to science fiction. Continual online training based on new data is something we might have our systems do. Rewriting their code *during the mission* is probably not. By contrast, reliable realtime translation is actually a quite plausible prediction (which surprised me; most articles of this sort are filled with nothing but wishful thinking).  
  > **username_1**: I should clarify. I don't think we're going to launch some sort near General AI level satellite that will somehow how GAI-level intelligence. I'm talking more about iterating through a set of parameters for optimization that get used as the basis for the next set of inputs and possible then re-optimized. So, the magnetic field of Jupiter inputs get used for Saturn which gets used for Heliosphere edge refinement. Any actual code improvements would come from earth. Also, it was meant as a callback to the first part of the answer and let me reference justified true belief for the hidden joke.  
  > **username_1**: @username_3 -- I'm sorry guys but that was meant as a joke. I referencing the not justified part of "correct but wasn't justified". In other words, it's nothing to make a prediction that ends up being false as they aren't remembered. True ones where people had a good reason makes them look like seers. "Correct but wasn't justified" just means lucky guessers but in a world with no penalty for wrong guesses we see it a lot.  
  
  ---
  
  