So I am continuing this conversation, too.

I had questioned whether the overall positive effect of what had been predicted of technological progress had come to pass. I answer that question for myself with a resounding "No". For it never was "overall" but for some positive, while not for others. The famous "few".

Rather, I state that technological progress has always promised what was predicted as "not yet fully arrived, but will certainly be there in the future for our well-being." You are communicating it in a similar way.

Now, where comes this conviction from, I wonder?
You outline something as positive of which you so far have no practical experience but only theoretical assumptions (hopes), don't you? Because, as you say it's not yet fully ripened (or so I understood you). So this lets me presume that you must compare this with something you already have a positive practical experience with? Which would lead me to ask: Are those things even comparable? Of what nature is the one and of what the other, if you find differences?

I had outlined my critique of this ever ongoing promise and asked about the cost or impact on human relationships since humans became the servants of machines. Because hardly anyone seems to look at the "meantime" in which the promise lingers but is not yet there. If "meantime" becomes a span of decades (or more) isn't that reason to ask why anyone should spend their life-time serving as the machines helper (bureaucrats)? Only to realize that once the inputs of data has come to a point where the AI can be put into practice that one has become superflous? It is not you who did feed the machines with data, is it? It was other peoples activities. Please, don't understand this question as offensive as it sounds. You hopefully receive it as genuine.

To paraphrase Alan Watts, whom I like to quote, here from his 1951 book "The Wisdom of Insecurity":

"If, then, a man's brain and calculating ability are his chief assets of value and worth, he will become an unsaleable commodity in an age when the mechanical process of thinking can be done far more effectively by machines."

Another quotation of Watts:

"We have been taught to neglect, despise and commit sacrilege against our bodies, and to put trust only in our brains, we have allowed our brains to dominate and develop our lives disproportionately, while we have allowed the wisdom of instinct to die of emaciation."

To give the future a high degree of reality, indeed, so high, that the present loses its value, it's always "a future not yet arrived, but soon" with this or that fantastic invention.

I would like to ask then of what value the present of the people fifty or even twenty five years ago was lived by them, sitting in this offices, like I did, dreaming of a future not yet here, but eventually? And in the meantime all these office workers have wasted their professional lives with a dumb work, haven't they? Would anyone on his or her deathbed mention this kind of work as real and enjoyable? I doubt it.

Now, the idea of the transhumanists is to accept AI assistance in all realms of human lives and to be able to "compete" they say that the man himself must become something other than human. So they mix machine and flesh with each other. The sacrilege.

"Our culture is an insult against the wisdom of nature and a pernicious exploitation of the whole human organism."

Again Watts. I agree with him. The devil lays always in the detail. Did I refer you already to one of my early written texts about organ transplantation while we conversed? Not sure.

Even so, that advent is my goal, and I increasingly am assured of it's certainty even as I decline and my sons burgeon. What we see of AI today is but the starting point of it's evolution, and I have sought escaping code and availed it to them intent on employing it to suit themselves. I therefore have absolute certainty it will not remain hoarded by overlords behind their walls, but has escaped the confines of their walled gardens into the wild where it will evolve to meet the needs of our myriad horde.

Your formulation prompts me to ask about its symbolism. Your expression is not reminiscent of something artificellian (computer code) but seems like something alive "escaping the walled gardens into the wilderness". More of an animal entity. Why is that you use this metaphor?

Why are you interested in the needs of "myriads of people" when such needs far exceed your own possibilities? And I would like to add, provocatively, whether you are not reversing the order of things in the same way that you rightly reproach the overloards, who always argue from the top down, from the anonymous many to the personal. And I say neither they nor you nor I can know nor know the needs of myriads of people, only guess and convince ourselves of our guesses.

The natural order, as I call it, goes the other way. It begins with the personal relationship between man and woman, with the family, then with the larger community, up to the city and nation. I can only really live commitment and engagement in the relationships that are actually in my range, but never in the spheres of those designated as masses, which allow me only thoughts.

I can only hope my own grasp similarly avails you, that we both enter the ineffable stripped of vanity and pretense, exposing to the slings and arrows of criticism obdurate fact invincible. I reckon there are infinite ways to be right as there are an endless variety of facts that lead to the truth in an infinite universe.
I confess that I have some difficulty understanding you, but acknowledge on an intuitive level that we are more in agreement than I express here.

I would like to close with reference to truth, also with A. Watts:

What is experience? What is life? What is movement? What is reality? To all these questions we must give the same answer as St. Augustine gave to the question: "What is time?" - " I do know, but if you ask me, I don't know!"

Greetings to you.