Whenever amateurs and tinkerers use "low code" or Rapid App tools* to create apps, almost 90% turn into maintenance headaches in my experience. They "mostly work" up front, but either the original author leaves, or the app grows into too big a mess for the original author to fix.

The user group calls in the formal IT team to fix it, and then get angry when the formal IT team says, "they didn't use standard practices, made poor documentation, and we are not familiar with their tool". I expect AI "solutions" to be similar.

Formal IT groups are becoming orphanages. Now a rash of AI latchkey orphans are on their way...

Always remember, making the baby is the easy and fun part.

* Such tools don't inherently have to be bad, but in the hand of amateurs they usually are.

this won't end well, pun half-intended

Everyone here is reading the comments page of a Slashdot article, speculating about what will or won't happen at an upcoming Apple WWDC.

I think we can take 'incredibly dull lives' as a given.

That seems like short-term thinking. A better approach would be to figure out how to do the future-prediction optimizations in ways that malware cannot exploit, so we can reap the benefits of the optimizations.

Hell, what stops one of these rich people from using his money to take care of those who need it now? The only one who tries is Gates, and he gets routinely villified for trying.

Oh FFS. Food banks are locally run, staffed, and financed.

I don't believe you.

Who's stopping you from writing a check?

It's not our responsibility.

I'll just have to learn to live with the knowledge that you disapprove.

Except that the cash is drying up anyway, per the article source. And it was inevitable that enrollment would slow down as soon as China ramped up their higher education system enough to provide for their own needs. That's been their M.O. in every other sector of their economy: get Western help until self-sufficient, then kick the West out to protect their own markets. Education is no different from factories in this case.

not very resilient after all

They are "resealant" misspelled.

Probably because they are big enough to survive while a merger or acquisition is negotiated. It's the quiet way to die.

In 1950, most women were married and stay-at-home moms, with the female labor participation rate at just over 30%. Most men did the working. We have a vastly different social situation now. The women's labor rate is now 57%. Men are now under 67%. In the year you citied, 1950, men had an 86% participation rate. The male rate has been steadily dropping since the 60's. So there's definitely been a change in attitudes and work ethic since the 50's.

Such revolutions always end up with the revolutionaries killing the very people they were supposedly fighting for. Ask the French how that turned out for them.

That's not the argument. The argument is that simply giving people money all their lives with no requirements for work in return will make them permanently dependent on others. Worse, they'll come to have a sense of entitlement that their neighbor owes them a living. The West has always prospered with the worth ethic: He who does not work, shall not eat.

So, if AI takes that work away to an extent that will truly leave masses of people permanently unemployed? Then better a Butlerian Jihad than Behavioral Sink.

When work and purpose is taken away from Man, he rots.

Americans would have no problem temporarily helping a nation that had a crop failure one year, or had food supplies destroyed by a hostile force. What they have a problem with is permanently taking responsibility for feeding that nation, when that nation is more than capable of feeding itself. And that became the problem with USAID. It became a permanent burden, often with the expectation that US tax dollars were always going to show up to do the job that the native people and their governments should be doing themselves.

I also suspect that much of USAID wasn't for humanitarian purposes as much as it was for buying influence abroad, under the guise of humanitarianism. One of the primary objections to cutting the USAID budget at places like the Brookings Institution and CSIS is that if the US stops paying foreign food and medicine bills, then China will step in and play sugar daddy. Well, good. Let China drain their coffers then. As far as I'm concerned, that's not a bug, that's a feature.

The people of the United States are exceedingly generous in giving their money to charities, foreign and domestic. Americans sent almost 30 billion dollars abroad to foreign recipients in 2023. Americans pretty much have decency covered. But this isn't about decency. It's about responsibility.

So, I ask again: who is responsible for feeding those children abroad? The implication of the parent post is that the responsibility is squarely on US taxpayers, and not the parents of those children or their own governments.