  Artificial intelligence refers to the technique that is exhibited by machines as opposed to human or animal intervention. It is also known as machine intelligence or natural intelligence. The developments of this technology that can imitate human thought and surpass it or even become self-aware have been critically evaluated in computer science. Despite the achievements realized by this innovation, physicist Stephen Hawking warned that it might be the last kind of change we are aware of unless we decide to learn ways of avoiding their risks. In this paper, I want to challenge some of the results brought forth by "the Stanford one-hundred-year study on artificial intelligence."
  The article has stated that many fields like the transportation industry, the service of the low-income communities, the medical system, home robot and the human resource professions are or will be benefitted from the study of artificial intelligence. However, though this technology is efficient, it also may or would be difficult for us to adjust to it. I think the difficulties are often caused not by physical factors, but the diverse habits and feelings possessed by different people due to the disparity in cultures, religions, family backgrounds or environments that each of them was brought up. This way, the traditional methods in doing things would be more efficient due to the familiarity, religious drive or emotional fondness. More importantly, though the traditional methods would not be as efficient as AI in many applications, it may bring people more biological and sensuous satisfaction, and this kind of irrational satisfaction is also crucial to human needs and happiness as human beings are intrinsically animals. So I want to challenge the author that they may not use the word benefit, but change.  
  The other content I want to challenge the article about is that it says  As cars will become better drivers than people......... new urban organization.I feel the author only evaluate this situation in data, optimization or just guess. He/she pays no attention to human feelings. It is not hard to find something to send you from one place to another now, or to find a driver that is the same as an AI machine functionally to work for you - you can use uber, bus, train or planes that are public. The meaning of owning a car means the satisfactory feeling of driving and the interaction with the beloved ones about the procedure of steering.
  Finally, I dont agree with the author that Further, in the typical North American city in 2030, changes wont be limited to cars and trucks, but are likely to include flying vehicles and personal robots, and will raise social, ethical and policy issues. I, or we have to admit that AI machines can be quite reliable and robust with the development. However, I strongly believe that the more complicated or huge the actual machine , the less AI content should be used, especially when the accidents these actual machines caused are disastrous and irreversible. The disaster can be not only social, ethical, or policy, but also physical, fatal and feeling-hurting. 
Human beings are often greedy, and often there are not sufficient laws or rules to restrict the designers before something has happened. If AI can save money, we can not predict how much the boss or the designer would save, and what will happen due to the optimized savings and insufficient "buffer" or "margin." I think the government and the policy-maker would have the same idea.