What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Jobs, you say? I don't believe we'll have jobs in 200 years. Certainly not in the western world. Like @Grendelsbayne said, there will be those who won't partake in this, for various economical and cultural reasons. But they'll just be 23rd century equivalent of the Sentinelese.

No Work, that's fine; just don't expect to have access to modern clean food, water, shelter, energy, information, etc.

You want to live like the Sentinelese, enjoy being stuck on a Island full of primitives w/o access to anything like "Modern Life" in the 20th or 21st century, much less in the future.

There will be, IMO, no world that will allow ANYBODY to be a lazy bum who doesn't work and contribute to society via "Work" through a regular job and participate in the economics of that time.

Otherwise, why should society help you, if you decide not to contribute?

UBI, that's fantasy, nobody is going to give you free anything to sit on your arse all day.

 

[Daedalus]

No Work, that's fine; just don't expect to have access to modern clean food, water, shelter, energy, information, etc.

You want to live like the Sentinelese, enjoy being stuck on a Island full of primitives w/o access to anything like "Modern Life" in the 20th or 21st century, much less in the future.

There will be, IMO, no world that will allow ANYBODY to be a lazy bum who doesn't work and contribute to society via "Work" through a regular job and participate in the economics of that time.

Otherwise, why should society help you, if you decide not to contribute?

UBI, that's fantasy, nobody is going to give you free anything to sit on your arse all day.

Humans just won't be needed, being lazy has nothing to do with it.

And you've misinterpreted what I mean about the Sentinelese. We, you and I, are the 23rd century equivalents of the Sentinelese.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Humans just won't be needed, being lazy has nothing to do with it.

I HIGHLY doubt that will ever come to pass.

If humans aren't needed, the Robot Revolution will happen & Humans will be exterminated while they get rid of humanity.

And you've misinterpreted what I mean about the Sentinelese. We, you and I, are the 23rd century equivalents of the Sentinelese.

LOL, is that what you think?

Most of us do ACTUAL WORK.

 

[Daedalus]

I HIGHLY doubt that will ever come to pass.

If humans aren't needed, the Robot Revolution will happen & Humans will be exterminated while they get rid of humanity.

They don't need to exterminate us. It's an odd mistake we make in fiction when we apply human logic to computer programmes. Unless a human pre-programmes a computer to exterminate us, that's a different thing.

Economics of the future will rely heavily on robotics, its been moving in that direction for a while. Do you not think that Boston Dynamics robots, driverless cars, autonomous drones are but a small taste of things to come? Humans get sick, humans want holidays, humans want families, humans want better pay etc etc. We're quite troublesome beasts of burden, better left to our own little interests.

Coincidentally, I was in Denmark not so long ago, and entire housing estate was having the grass mown by a fleet of robot lawnmowers. That would have been human jobs 20 years ago, or even 10. The only revolutions we may see will be done by groups of humans, in my opinion.

LOL, is that what you think?

Most of us do ACTUAL WORK.

I'm not sure if this is some sort of personal slight, but that's still not what I meant. I'm talking about primitives.

We're the primitives compared to the humans of 200 years from now. No doubt there will be pockets of humanity (like us, now, today) that still think the the best way to live is to forge with their hands, work the land and drive a car by themselves. But they'll be quaint little oddities, while the rest of humanity is living a very different life. Perhaps the Amish is a better comparison..

I don't particularly like the inevitable consequence of our obsession with newest and shiniest technology, so without some kind of massive cultural shift we're heading there whether we like it or not.

 

[Airin]

The proto-internet is a good example of what I mean, look how far its come. Today, we have instant click shopping, and tomorrow most deliveries won't even need humans anymore. I could probably stay in my house and have everything I need brought to me, if I had a form of universal basic income. The only thing I'd need to worry about is illness and death.

Goods have been delivered to our homes since the start of commerce in ancient times. Groceries brought to cities from rural areas in carts, ships bringing spices from the other side of the world... The process is much faster now, but this is just the refining of a very, very old practice; it's not a quantum leap.

If everything you have to worry about is income, illness and death... Well, you have to worry then about the exact same things as our ancestors since the dawn of time.

But, AI would likely be a primary source of entertainment with hyper-individualised forms of media which would make the tv of 50 years ago look like cave paintings.

Hyper-individualised forms of entertainment already exist; this is basically the motivation behind fanfiction. But at the end of the day, you still need creative and imaginative people to create content and entertain those that have less imagination or no creativity. And even a wonderful novelist will need other writers to entertain him in turn, since his own stories have no surprises for him.

AI can't really create, since it's just algorithms that recombine and regurgitate what PEOPLE have first created. If those that can paint or write or compose music find out that the benefits of their hard work are going to a machine instead of their bank account, they'll simply stop producing. Or they may start planting potatoes instead; those at least they can eat.

 

[Daedalus]

Goods have been delivered to our homes since the start of commerce in ancient times. Groceries brought to cities from rural areas in carts, ships bringing spices from the other side of the world... The process is much faster now, but this is just the refining of a very, very old practice; it's not a quantum leap.

If everything you have to worry about is income, illness and death... Well, you have to worry then about the exact same things as our ancestors since the dawn of time.

When it's not humans delivering humans to our door, will it then be a quantum leap?

I can't deny that death, illness and especially income are still as worrisome as ever.

Hyper-individualised forms of entertainment already exist; this is basically the motivation behind fanfiction. But at the end of the day, you still need creative and imaginative people to create content and entertain those that have less imagination or no creativity. And even a wonderful novelist will need other writers to entertain him in turn, since his own stories have no surprises for him.

I disagree. Think the holodeck, and its ability to create the perfect scenario or story based on knowledge of the user and a few simple instructions. Sure, you can replicate an author's work, but imagine if the computer simply knows you based on your past habits. Your phone does something similar, it even listens to you when you don't think it is.

AI can't really create, since it's just algorithms that recombine and regurgitate what PEOPLE have first created. If those that can paint or write or compose music find out that the benefits of their hard work are going to a machine instead of their bank account, they'll simply stop producing. Or they may start planting potatoes instead; those at least they can eat.

We still have blacksmiths, but how many people rely on them these days? It's the love of the craft, not necessarily income.

 

[Airin]

When it's not humans delivering humans to our door, will it then be a quantum leap?

No, not really. It will simply mean that the guy who's now driving a delivery truck, will be elsewhere building, designing or repairing the machines that deliver the goods. This guy, who in another life would have been struggling to get his driving license, will now struggle studying robotics and engineering. The nature of the work has changed, but the amount of time in his life he wastes on work may not change significantly (or maybe it will even increase).

Basically, as long as human survival depends on things that humans have built themselves, people will need to keep building and working. The only way you could sit on your ass all day and do nothing, is if some superior, self-sufficient kind of being decided to take care of all your needs out of the goodness of their hearts (think of domestic cats with their owners).

I disagree. Think the holodeck, and its ability to create the perfect scenario or story based on knowledge of the user and a few simple instructions. Sure, you can replicate an author's work, but imagine if the computer simply knows you based on your past habits. Your phone does something similar, it even listens to you when you don't think it is.

Yeah, but we're talking about different things here. A truly intelligent, feeling and imaginative computer could of course create art. But that would mean it's a real, artificial "person"; not unlike us, save in the materials that compose its body. Nothing right now resembles this, not even remotely. We barely understand our brains, how can we even start building one?
A machine who simply recombines material that you feed into it, depends 100% on your ability to create such material in the first place. It can't paint a landscape if you (or someone else) isn't able to paint several landscapes first, in order for the machine to recombine. There's no actual thinking process behind it. And if I can paint landscapes myself... then why would I waste them, feeding them into a machine for nothing, when I could sell them and get some reward for my hard work?
The only reason why generative AI seems so unlimited right now, is because legislation is still very lax on it, and these programs have free rein to steal copyrighted material from the internet to feed their databases, without permission or payment for the legitimate creators. Yet lots of artists are already pulling their works from internet sites, precisely to avoid this. It's disguised plagiarism, and very difficult to track, but plagiarism nonetheless.

As for my phone listening... Well, I disabled all kinds of audio input, save for calls, a long while ago (don't know if that's enough, but I never noticed any "personalized ads" again). In any case, it's the same thing; the phone isn't intelligent, it's simply using a search engine for my input, either through a keyboard or a microphone.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The human mind isn't designed to process info at the speed of modern day computers, I doubt any special evolution will happen in the next 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years to allow that to happen in a natural evolution sort of way. It would have to be artificially induced / made to happen.

So at best, it allows silent / long distance communication at human processing / understanding speeds & more direct mental communication with our tech / gadgets / devices / electronics.

Less clunky human oriented interfaces & more direct ones like the Synaptic Transceiver.

Think of the Synaptic Transceiver like a BlueTooth interface from your mind, to your device; it lets you think thoughts, and communicate through a basic mental verbalization interface directly to/from your head w/o audible verbalization from your mouth.

The computer takes care of the rest.

Imagine receiving BlueTooth style Text/Audio/Images/Video directly to your mind.

As vivid & clear as your eye sight or hearing.

The only difference is that you need to mentally concentrate to activate the interface to send or receive the info from your devices.

It would definitely cut out the clunkiness of using some devices & lower latency due to the commands/instructions going straight from a persons mind to the device to process.

No need for buttons, physical interfaces.

Just thought, and the machine does what you want it to do, within it's operational capabilities.

That's the part where I said the technology has to exist first and that's no guarantee. But since we barely understand the human brain yet, it is possible breakthroughs in understanding could lead to a fix or workaround for the problem of our limited processing speed.

I'd find more likely that research discovered dormant (but natural) telepathic abilities in the human brain, and some way to use them, rather than this being achieved through technology. Even things far simpler than this (i.e. fusing a broken bone) is ultimately achieved by nature itself. Technology hasn't sped up this process significantly. Or think about vaccines; sure, they save lots of lives, but in the end they rely on our capacity to develop antibodies.

I wouldn't because:

a) If we used to have telepathic powers that would've been a massive evolutionary advantage and therefore we would never have lost those abilities and they would not now be dormant and in need of rediscovery.

and b) As far as I'm aware there is no known plausible scientific basis for telepathy existing at all. How could you ever transmit thoughts directly (without needing to translate them into spoken/body language or into a wireless/radio signal) from one brain to another with first physically linking them together? Neurons can't travel through air, water, wood, stone, etc, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Tallguy]

I agree with Gene Roddenberry that Starfleet ships shouldn't have cloaking devices, that our heroes don't sneak around.

Other than Who Watches the Watchers. And City on the Edge of Forever. And The Enterprise Incident. And Star Trek IV. And A Private Little War.

 

[Airin]

That's the part where I said the technology has to exist first and that's no guarantee. But since we barely understand the human brain yet, it is possible breakthroughs in understanding could lead to a fix or workaround for the problem of our limited processing speed.



I wouldn't because:

a) If we used to have telepathic powers that would've been a massive evolutionary advantage and therefore we would never have lost those abilities and they would not now be dormant and in need of rediscovery.

and b) As far as I'm aware there is no known plausible scientific basis for telepathy existing at all. How could you ever transmit thoughts directly (without needing to translate them into spoken/body language or into a wireless/radio signal) from one brain to another with first physically linking them together? Neurons can't travel through air, water, wood, stone, etc, as far as I'm aware.

"As far as I'm aware" is the key here. There may be large areas of nature that current science is incapable of understanding, or it doesn't even begin to guess they exist. But they could still be parts of nature. Maybe the areas we don't know are even larger than those we do. Surely quantum physics and nuclear power would have sounded like magic for Newton? (okay, I'm not sure at which time scientists discovered atoms, but at some point, the very concept would have seemed as mystical as the Force in Star Wars).

What I mean is that major revolutions come, in my opinion, once science discovers new properties in nature and the paradigm shifts, rather than in the further development of current technology. Transport is now much faster than centuries ago, but at the end of the day, is still based on the same principles than riding a horse: mechanical power generated with fuel (or more recently, electricity). For something as revolutionary as, say, the Transporter to exist, we'd need to first find out that life can subsist even when a body is separated in molecules. The way we understand it now, a human body can't even be alive without a head.
And going back to telepathy, if such a thing as thought transference exists, then technology could, in theory, enhance it and make it usable. But if it's something that doesn't exist in nature to begin with, then I don't see how technology alone could ever change that.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Since this is the controversial thread...
Spock is the racist one, not McCoy. He's always pointing out how illogical humans are, and how superior is the Vulcan way. Most of the times that McCoy is harsh to him, is because Spock had been unnecesarily unpleasant beforehand, or downright hurtful when shown some kindness (for example, the scene in "Bread and Circuses"). Doubly guilty, because Spock does in fact understand emotions, yet uses his apparent lack of them as excuse to hurt others' feelings without the need to say "sorry", because he's just being "logical".

Yours is not a controversial opinion; i've often said Spock is a racist toward humans, with innumerable TOS episodes showing Spock's disgust and constant condemnation of humans as a species, not just directed at an individual. Some ST fans put on Spock-defensive glasses on to prevent themselves from seeing his trait on display, or excuse it because he's their "other" so they tell themselves his verbal attacks are justified in every case, when they are (and the following is an absolutely crucial determining factor in situations of this kind) not usually based on a personal or more expansive racial grievance.

 

[Tallguy]

Yours is not a controversial opinion; i've often said Spock is a racist toward humans, with innumerable TOS episodes showing Spock's disgust and constant condemnation of humans as a species, not just directed at an individual. Some ST fans put on Spock-defensive glasses on to prevent themselves from seeing his trait on display, or excuse it because he's their "other" so they tell themselves his verbal attacks are justified in every case, when they are (and the following is absolutely crucial determining factor in situations of this kind) not usually based on a personal or more expansive racial grievance.

And we have since seen that, quite frankly, he was "raised this way". (And I'm not just talking about his parents.) Vulcans are the worst.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

"As far as I'm aware" is the key here. There may be large areas of nature that current science is incapable of understanding, or it doesn't even begin to guess they exist. But they could still be parts of nature. Maybe the areas we don't know are even larger than those we do. Surely quantum physics and nuclear power would have sounded like magic for Newton? (okay, I'm not sure at which time scientists discovered atoms, but at some point, the very concept would have seemed as mystical as the Force in Star Wars).

What I mean is that major revolutions come, in my opinion, once science discovers new properties in nature and the paradigm shifts, rather than in the further development of current technology. Transport is now much faster than centuries ago, but at the end of the day, is still based on the same principles than riding a horse: mechanical power generated with fuel (or more recently, electricity). For something as revolutionary as, say, the Transporter to exist, we'd need to first find out that life can subsist even when a body is separated in molecules. The way we understand it now, a human body can't even be alive without a head.
And going back to telepathy, if such a thing as thought transference exists, then technology could, in theory, enhance it and make it usable. But if it's something that doesn't exist in nature to begin with, then I don't see how technology alone could ever change that.

Sure, science can theoretically lead to massive paradigm shifts that prove what once seemed impossible is actually possible. But that doesn't mean 'anything could happen, maybe everything we know is wrong' is a reasonable basis for making an educated guess about the future.

And nobody proposed the idea that technology will create telepathy. What technology might create if scientists (who are already working on this today) succeed is a real-time linkage between a human brain and a computer system. Once you make that leap you can, theoretically, control any possible computer system with your mind, including direct wireless transmission of your thoughts and wireless reception of others'. But that's not telepathy. It's a far future version of the internet.

Nevertheless, depending on exactly how it works and given enough time, it could easily render spoken language obsolete.

 

[kkt]

Those halcyon days.

The proto-internet is a good example of what I mean, look how far its come. Today, we have instant click shopping, and tomorrow most deliveries won't even need humans anymore. I could probably stay in my house and have everything I need brought to me, if I had a form of universal basic income. The only thing I'd need to worry about is illness and death.

AI generated images are fooling people into believing all sorts of nonsense now too, which is probably the most worrying part. But, AI would likely be a primary source of entertainment with hyper-individualised forms of media which would make the tv of 50 years ago look like cave paintings.

Jobs, you say? I don't believe we'll have jobs in 200 years. Certainly not in the western world. Like @Grendelsbayne said, there will be those who won't partake in this, for various economical and cultural reasons. But they'll just be 23rd century equivalent of the Sentinelese.

I think it's a bit ironic that you're all hearing my thoughts in their head right now, just by reading this. Some of you are probably half a planet away and i never once opened my mouth. Yes you..im talking to you reading this..and my mouth is closed.

Oh I know what you're thinking (lol), we've used written words to communicate over long distances since the dawn of time, this is just way faster. Plus 200 years, cut out the middleman (the screen) and you'll see where I'm going with this.

Sorry for the ramble, the  real future scares me. I think about it a lot.

In a lot of ways the proto-internet was better. No, you couldn't shop with it, but it didn't deliver advertising to you either. You could send email and read usenet without having to use a blacklist and a whitelist. It wasn't used to brag about everywhere you go and what you eat when you get there. For the things I use it for, even though the bandwidth was smaller, it performed faster because everything it did wasn't overwhelmed with porn and spam and spyware.

Having some sort of purpose, whether it's a formal job or volunteering or just a group of friends who meet regularly, is very important to humans. We are a social species and being needed by others gives us value.

There's a science fiction short story, I'm not remembering the author right now. It's about an elderly woman who passed away a few years back, alone in her house. But everything in the house was automatic. It went right on serving her three meals a day, and then cleaning up the plates after an interval in which she didn't eat. It read her a poem before bedtime every night. But didn't notice that she was dead.

 

[fireproof78]

There's a science fiction short story, I'm not remembering the author right now. It's about an elderly woman who passed away a few years back, alone in her house. But everything in the house was automatic. It went right on serving her three meals a day, and then cleaning up the plates after an interval in which she didn't eat. It read her a poem before bedtime every night. But didn't notice that she was dead.

Fallout 3 has a similar scenario with a Mr. Handy robot assistant going through the regular routine, including reading a bedtime story to the child's skeletons and wanting to go walk the dog depending on the programmed instruction.

 

[Citiprime]

Having some sort of purpose, whether it's a formal job or volunteering or just a group of friends who meet regularly, is very important to humans. We are a social species and being needed by others gives us value.

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”​

—Friedrich Nietzsche​

I once saw a video with Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and the author of Man's Search for Meaning, where he made a comment which has always stuck with me.

"Depression is suffering without meaning."​

To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.

There's a science fiction short story, I'm not remembering the author right now. It's about an elderly woman who passed away a few years back, alone in her house. But everything in the house was automatic. It went right on serving her three meals a day, and then cleaning up the plates after an interval in which she didn't eat. It read her a poem before bedtime every night. But didn't notice that she was dead.

I believe you're thinking of "There Will Come Soft Rains" from Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles.

A nuclear catastrophe leaves the city of Allendale, California, entirely desolate. However, within one miraculously preserved house, the daily routine continues – automatic systems within the home prepare breakfast, clean the house, make beds, wash dishes, and address the former residents without any knowledge of their current state as burnt silhouettes on one of the walls, similar to Human Shadow Etched in Stone.​

​

That evening, the house recites to the absent hostess a random selection by her favorite poet, "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Sara Teasdale. A windstorm blows a tree branch through a window in the kitchen, starting a fire. The house's systems desperately attempt to put out the fire, but the doomed home burns to the ground in a night. The following dawn, all that remains is a single wall, which contains an automated system that endlessly reads aloud the date and time.​

 

[kkt]

In a lot of ways the proto-internet was better. No, you couldn't shop with it, but it didn't deliver advertising to you either. You could send email and read usenet without having to use a blacklist and a whitelist. It wasn't used to brag about everywhere you go and what you eat when you get there. For the things I use it for, even though the bandwidth was smaller, it performed faster because everything it did wasn't overwhelmed with porn and spam and spyware.

Having some sort of purpose, whether it's a formal job or volunteering or just a group of friends who meet regularly, is very important to humans. We are a social species and being needed by others gives us value.

There's a science fiction short story, I'm not remembering the author right now. It's about an elderly woman who passed away a few years back, alone in her house. But everything in the house was automatic. It went right on serving her three meals a day, and then cleaning up the plates after an interval in which she didn't eat. It read her a poem before bedtime every night. But didn't notice that she was dead.

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”​

—Friedrich Nietzsche​

I once saw a video with Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and the author of Man's Search for Meaning, where he made a comment which has always stuck with me.

"Depression is suffering without meaning."​

To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.

I believe you're thinking of "There Will Come Soft Rains" from Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles.

A nuclear catastrophe leaves the city of Allendale, California, entirely desolate. However, within one miraculously preserved house, the daily routine continues – automatic systems within the home prepare breakfast, clean the house, make beds, wash dishes, and address the former residents without any knowledge of their current state as burnt silhouettes on one of the walls, similar to Human Shadow Etched in Stone.​

​

That evening, the house recites to the absent hostess a random selection by her favorite poet, "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Sara Teasdale. A windstorm blows a tree branch through a window in the kitchen, starting a fire. The house's systems desperately attempt to put out the fire, but the doomed home burns to the ground in a night. The following dawn, all that remains is a single wall, which contains an automated system that endlessly reads aloud the date and time.​

Hm. That might have been it. I'll have to take a look at it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Having some sort of purpose, whether it's a formal job or volunteering or just a group of friends who meet regularly, is very important to humans. We are a social species and being needed by others gives us value.

This is certainly true. But as you already acknowledged, formal jobs aren't at all necessary to acheive it.

The key issue regarding the future of employment as we know it today is pretty simple and not at all related to human social needs. The question is will automation go so far that the vast majority of job opportunities disappear. If the answer is no, then the future of employment won't look that different from the present. But if automation does trigger a massive tipping point eventually, then ubi funded by those automated profits will be the only thing that can prevent total economic collapse because automated high productivity is completely worthless economically if most people are too poor to buy anything.

We're not standing on that apocalyptic precipice just yet, but the idea that automation isn't heading that way and that 'there will always be new jobs in new fields to replace the old ones' does not really seem to line up with the reailty we live in, imo. Even if there are certain creative fields that computers never learn how to do because ai isn't as good as people think, the entire human race can't all find jobs in the small group of viable career fields. And that's even assuming companies actually acknowledge the limits of automation at all. Hollywood, for one example is already pushing hard to insert ai into their business model despite current ai being terrible for that type of work. Because it's vastly cheaper than humans (and even allows them to pay the people they can't get rid of less money) and they have plenty of experience telling them they can get people to watch terrible movies or shows anyway, as long as they have the right subject and good marketing.

 

[knightgrace]

My controversial opinion is that due to the Nomad probe of 2002, artificial intelligence, has been the prime earth shaker, in terms of pushing the envelope of technological development...
Therefore the Geoffrey Mandel is correct in his essay 'The History of the Federation '. The Starship that discovered Vulcan, and made first contact with, beamed down with the relatively new materializer.

Furthermore star travel was perfected by fifty years after the discovery of the space warp by Zephram Cochran. Meaning that the majority of the steep learning curve has been successfully passed. This is Kirk in the episode 'The Return of the Archons', is surprised by a later Starship being pulled down from the sky. This just didn't happen!
What this means for example, that the Durance class Cargo-Tug, as originally depicted, is accurate. Meaning that not much has changed for a long time since the Cargo-Tug.
This may mean that artificial intelligence has been given up, for some time. Because it was ultimately uncontrollable.

 

[kkt]

This is certainly true. But as you already acknowledged, formal jobs aren't at all necessary to acheive it.

The key issue regarding the future of employment as we know it today is pretty simple and not at all related to human social needs. The question is will automation go so far that the vast majority of job opportunities disappear. If the answer is no, then the future of employment won't look that different from the present. But if automation does trigger a massive tipping point eventually, then ubi funded by those automated profits will be the only thing that can prevent total economic collapse because automated high productivity is completely worthless economically if most people are too poor to buy anything.

We're not standing on that apocalyptic precipice just yet, but the idea that automation isn't heading that way and that 'there will always be new jobs in new fields to replace the old ones' does not really seem to line up with the reailty we live in, imo. Even if there are certain creative fields that computers never learn how to do because ai isn't as good as people think, the entire human race can't all find jobs in the small group of viable career fields. And that's even assuming companies actually acknowledge the limits of automation at all. Hollywood, for one example is already pushing hard to insert ai into their business model despite current ai being terrible for that type of work. Because it's vastly cheaper than humans (and even allows them to pay the people they can't get rid of less money) and they have plenty of experience telling them they can get people to watch terrible movies or shows anyway, as long as they have the right subject and good marketing.

AI as I examples of it today isn't adding anything. Google's AI summary of search results is nowhere near as helpful as reading the first few results. Washington Post's AI summary of articles and reader comments are not helpful at all and reading the most popular comments is a lot better way to get some idea of the general views. I expect it's a bubble that will pop sooner rather than later. Maybe AI operating in more restrictive fields is more worthwhile, I don't know.