@nprofile1q... Again, where is the objective, rational cost/benefit analysis of such blanket statements/claims? Also, when stated like this, the "problems/risks" are usually hand-waved away as unimportant short-term hurdles, eventually overcome by exponential further investments, even though they might already be fundamental show stoppers and at some point it's simply Sunk Cost fallacy time...

Is a supposed productivity gain in software engineering (btw. itself a highly contested and so far also largely disproven claim!) really worth to throw so many other more important aspects of society (current & future) under the train? Is it still worth it, if the produced software is riddled with bugs and inprecisions, lower standards and requires lobbying & de-regulation of existing standards just so that the AI steam train can keep on rolling?

Where do you draw the line? When does AI tech become a problem for you? When other important services (maybe some you also depend on) have been defunded to funnel all money into these investments? When another "gigafactory" data center is build right next to your house?

You see where I'm going here: It's really a question of priorities and the (public) reasoning from AI boosters always seems far less researched, balanced/nuanced and holistic, often very worryingly so...

AI is the last lifeline for the infinite growth myth, which just doesn't exist. I'm tempted to append "anymore", but it never did...

AI infrastructure investments are the accelerant to pour into the fire, quite literally so...