@bert_hubert@eupolicy.social I stopped when I got to the second sentence because you're doing the same thing AI boosters do to justify the marketing: not defining your terms. What does 'AI' mean, for the purpose of this article? If you include all systems that use machine learning as 'AI', then 'AI' has added a huge amount of value to the economy, most of it prior to the current bubble. If you count only the things that the major vendors are pushing, then you have a three trillion dollar hole. You cannot meaningfully talk about 'AI' while veering madly between these two extremes. It's like writing an article on digital transformation that justifies that game consoles contribute to the economy by taking a segue to point out how industrial automation makes factories more efficient. They both use chips that run algorithms, but that's about the only commonality. The economic impacts of the two (both positive and negative) are completely independent. The only reasons to conflate them are that you don't know what you're talking about or that you're actively trying to sell something by misleading your audience.