Even as an (very) amateur futurist (you have to start somewhere), you run across information that challenges perceptions - both your own and those you see every day. One of the biggest lessons I've learned through my research/writing is that any lack of objectivity skews your viewpoints on the future. I can and should include my beliefs, values and desires, but too much subjectivity and any forecasts are little more than daydreams or nightmares.

It'll start out that way, of course. We'll buy these networked, AI driven toasters to pop some bread in which they'll char to perfection every time. There will be toast contests with our friends, an app keeping track of how many slices we consume over time and how many steps it takes to burn the calories - more with butter - even more with jam.

Like most things, the toaster will lose its newness. The shine will wear off as the dust collects. Every so often, it'll let us know how unhappy it is. How unused if feels. That's when we start buying bread just to give it something to do, so it will feign happiness and not annoy us with its app notifications - "It's time for some toast!"

Over the weekend, I was listening to This Week in Law's episode from January 31: Deep blue vs The Universe. They started the episode on the topic of the Singularity and James Miller  and Stan Liebowitz discussed how we might know the Singularity has been achieved. Each had a different view on how far into the future this event might occur and what capabilities that intelligence should possess to be considered "intelligent." Both viewpoints were informative, but I found Dr. Liebowitz' statements extremely interesting in how he felt a contrast between an artificial intelligence and a human should be used to identify when the artificial process has reached or surpassed a comparable human capability. Dr Liebowitz shared this thought:

@24:25 - I see things computers can do that people can't, but things people can do that computers can't is what we're talking about.