A very thoughtful post, @josediccus! 👏 I really liked your point that "liking it" isn't the test of an innovation: every big change, from crypto in 2013 to AI today, splits opinions. And the Warren Buffett example is spot on: sometimes it's not that a technology is wrong, it's that it doesn't fit the world we grew up in. 💭
I agree with you that AI replaces some jobs (editors, DJs, filmmakers) while giving ordinary people tools that were once reserved for professionals. Your comparison with guns replacing swords says it all: more power, faster, with real collateral damage. And I'm sorry that AI abuse has already cost you income opportunities: that's the real side of the story, and it deserves attention too. 🤝
One angle I'd add, which also makes AI harder to accept for many people, is its physical footprint. All that "cloud" lives in data centers that use a lot of energy and land. A few days ago I wrote about a creative answer from Italy: a data center built inside a mountain, 100 metres underground in a working mine (Intacture, in Trentino). I find it a good example that innovation can try to be smarter about where and how it lives. ⛰️☁️ And I shared more thoughts in my Actifit report from that day.
I'm with you on staying open-minded, with one condition: use AI as a tool, not as a substitute for human judgement. 🌱
Question: do you think the future of AI will be shaped more by these physical limits, like energy and infrastructure, or by regulation and public opinion? 🤔
Matteo - Ca' Paradiso, Cagli 🌿
www.caparadiso.com