trasneoir
I'd expect level 5 autonomy to be slow, because level 4 delivers 80% of the benefits for 20% of the cost.
BUT "never" seems crazy unless you've got a very pessimistic outlook on humanity's medium-term future. Other than extinction or the collapse of civilization, what could cause it to "never" happen?
That said, I've got no problem with it in principle. Pricing externalities properly seems the simplest way to solve the tragedy of the commons, but it's complicated in this case by the fact that climate is a _global_ commons.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would make it a more manageable political lift. AFAIK the US is the only country to have "solved" the bigger political problem of long-term nuclear waste storage?
Volume is the key to price - we need an internationally-vetted medium-sized design, with a supply chain that can crank out hundreds of complete "just add concrete" systems per year.
As well as improving up-front costs, a ubiquitous design makes training and maintenance easier. This should improve the operation of these systems safer and cheaper.
OTOH, some newer designs (eg LFTR) are walk-away safe: Nuclear explosions/meltdowns are physically impossible short of deliberate sabotage.
I don't see how they relate to glucose vs fructose?
They are already unbeatable in perfect-information games like Chess and Go. They could crush human motor racers tomorrow.
They will be unbeatable in games with limited information (Dota/Starcraft) within months.
The next frontier is donkey-space games like rps, poker and day-trading (https://universalpaperclips.gamepedia.com/Donkey_Space) where they are already beating pros. It may be another couple of years before they totally dominate here.