
When reading, “Artificial Intelligence And Life in 2030”, there were very few ideas or claims that I strongly disagreed with. Most of their technological predictions seemed fair, reasonable and occasionally exciting. Overall I agree, advancements in Artificial Intelligence have helped technology progress to where it is today, and further improvements will continue to contribute towards further societal developments. One concept I found appropriate to challenge is the rate at which some of the discussed technological advancements would take place. For example, the article states that flying vehicles and personal robots will be commonly used by individuals within the typical North American city by 2030. I think this is a fair claim but the discussed time frame seems to underestimate the difficulty of perfecting this technology, as well as successfully implementing it across the nation. I think the quick, widespread emergence of this technology would be spectacular and quite exciting but existing obstacles will draw out this development to a timeframe much longer than 15 years. One problem faced by any developing technology is the resistance experienced from the currently dominating organizations that stand at risk of being replaced by newer and arguably more efficient and effective inventions. In the case of flying vehicles, I think a certain degree of opposition can be blamed on the existing oil industry. If the writers’ claims turn out to be true, I find it difficult to imagine that the new wave of flying vehicles will still be dependent on gas stations. When the effort is taken to create a car so advanced that it is capable of flight, it seems likely to evolve past the gasoline dependency and implement other, more efficient sources of energy.

Another claim made in this article regarding the state of a typical North American city in 2030 is that personal robots will be featured in many households. Similar to my first disagreement, my reasoning for challenging this prediction is simply the timeframe. I think, eventually, automated homes and personal robots, which aid their owners in household chores such as cooking and cleaning, will become the norm. It will be well over 15 years for this technology to become affordable enough for the average consumer to purchase and install. Like most groundbreaking technological advancements, I think household features like “personal robots” will first be only reasonably applied by those who are significantly wealthy. Emergence of this technology could be incredibly beneficial to society. Owners of these products will save both time and effort, leaving them with more energy and leisure time to spend as they choose. One could argue that the application of robots to cook and clean would provide parents with the freedom to spend more time with their spouses and children. Similar to my previous disagreement, the emergence of this technology may also receive resistance from existing industries. For example, many people maintain jobs that involve cleaning and/or cooking for places like personal homes, office buildings, schools and restaurants. This work could theoretically be replaced by a well programmed robot. Since the new technology puts a handful of current jobs at risk, it is fair to assume these developments will receive some resistance from those who may become unemployed.  