The artificial intelligence and life in 2030 provides a thorough and deep investigation and prediction about the near future of the development and application of artificial intelligence in the fields varying from peoples daily life to industrial production and national security. Most parts of the report from my perspective is objective and reasonable, and agrees with my previous experience. For example, the authors points of view with respect to the on-demand transportation agrees is consistent with the project that I took part in as a student researcher call future urban mobility, which targets on developing a public transportation system based on the autonomous vehicle to accurately pick up passengers in the predict demanding regions and drop them off at their destinations. However, there is one theory that I do not agree with, which is that most people will not be able to reach a satisfactory level of living with their work in the society under the influence of artificial intelligence, and this effect should be compensated with social safety net.

Firstly, it is worth noting that the purpose of creating artificial intelligence and allowing it to enter peoples life is to increase the efficiency of the production in the society, and most, if not all, of the artificial intelligence applications should fit this goal. Therefore, as the AI becomes more and more developed, the social efficiency becomes more and more increased. Consequently, as the authors agree, the cost of many products and services is decreased. Although the value of labor of human may be reduced in the future, the cost of living would likely to be lower as well, making it easier to live above a satisfactory level.

Secondly, while the artificial intelligence is quickly taking away many tasks that are previously occupied by human labors, there are certainly many fields that are not yet possible to be replaced quickly, or impossible to be replaced effectively by autonomous machines and processes. For example, in the effort of developing socially interactive robots, researchers found that while people interacts with robots that are extremally alike human but not human, they tend to reject being too close to robots. As a result, the jobs that involve face-to-face interaction with human are hard to be fully replaced by artificial intelligence. As AI reduces the cost of some replaceable tasks, people may want to pay more to those working on the tasks that are unreplaceable by the AI, raising the value of their labor.

Thirdly, although social problems may arise in the revolution brought by the AI, and these problems should be a concern for the society, it is not always fair to compensate these problems by forcing the redistribution of the fruit of AI. The authors believe that everyone should benefit from the AI because the AI is the child of the mankind. However, it is noticeable that the creation of AI applications requires a certain amount of devotion, and not everyone in the society is involved into the creation of AI applications, and those involved should benefit from their work as well. The engaging of social safety net for redistribution of the fruit of AI may turn the business affair of creating AI applications into a charity affair, and the labor of people who create AI may not be respected. In the short term, this redistribution may reduce the tension brought by AI, but in the long term it would likely harm the possibility of social development by forcing more talent people to leave this field due to unfair feedback.
