Our whole nation can't make computers, just specialized individuals. This is what happens to a society as it advances. We don't all need to do everything, we fit specific roles, and it's a real problem in modern society.

Suddenly people need specific degrees to do entry level positions, making it difficult to move from one vocation to another without returning to school and getting another degree or diploma. We have the potential to do those other roles, but the specialization demands focus and time. This problem has nothing to do with AI, and its use isn't going to change that dynamic.

To be fair, what has happened in modern history is that the West has lost its ability to build hardware in favour of doing software, because that was more profitable. China is slowly getting better at doing hardware in general, it's getting obvious with robotics.

We can say "this is what happens to a society as it advances", sure. But it also means that if China stops building our hardware tomorrow, we're screwed.

Enters AI: teach all your citizens to depend on AI, and they will depend on the few companies that build AI. Which are generally controlled by those billionaires that keep showing that we should fear them. Maybe that is what happens to a society as it advances, but is it desirable?

If we look at history, what happens to a society as it advances is collapsing. Usually it's painful for those who live during the transition. Turns out we are probably those who will live it.

Now if we wanted our society to be more resilient to the changes that are coming, we would have to reduce those dependencies and get back in control as much as possible. AI is doing the opposite of that.

I saying this as no fan of AI but, honestly, this again seems unrelated to AI. Building computers are not skills the average populace had, and I don't see any signs that the people who did make those decisions are outsourcing their choices to AI.

I don't know what you mean when you say "what happens to a society as it advances is collapsing". Civilizations both advanced and not have collapsed. All that being advanced did was make it more obvious when they do. This is blaming technology when time is the actual culprit.

It feels like we're blaming AI when it's really profit chasing that's killing us.

> Civilizations both advanced and not have collapsed.

Which one(s)?

> Building computers are not skills the average populace had

Which is not at all a reason for the average populace to give up on other skills, is it?

Adanced? Rome. The easter island people were not specifically advanced, but they had a societal collapse from which they never recovered. Lots of civilizations have collapsed. Are we blaming the North America Indigenous populations or the Mayan civilization of collapsing because of their technology? It could be argued they collapsed because they weren't advanced enough.

Sorry, can you tell me again which one of those civilizations you mention hasn't collapsed yet?

I'm really confused. You say: "there are great civilizations who have not collapsed, let me give you examples!" and you proceed giving me examples of civilizations that... collapsed.

Humans become reliant on tools all the time. I bet the folks in an average Amazonian tribe know a lot more about lighting a fire, catching and processing wild game, and building an improvised shelter than my excuse for camping skills. They aren’t reliant on electricity or a Bic lighter, that’s for sure.

Would I trade places with them? No.