While statements like that are needless fear mongering, any jobs they do replace in the long term are at least making the economy more efficient, in the same sense as computers did. It’s unfortunate for anyone’s job to become redundant, but technology shouldn’t be delayed or avoided for that reason alone.
Seriously though, reasonable discussion of its usefulness aside, how can’t people see that outrageous statements like that without any scientific or practical backing, clearly made to inspire devotion and/or fear, keeping the hype and the money and resources drain on, are the telltale of a tech hype?
I honestly think tech hype cycles don’t work if people can recognise them as hype cycles.
I think there are a lot of business majors out there with access to a lot of capital and absolutely no technical expertise making decisions about where all the money should go in tech, and experts talking about the limitations of that technology do not reach their ears.
Edit: on reflection I think the hyoe cycles works even if people know it’s a cycle, because the investment game here is to pump up the stock, knowing that the bubble is growing, then dump before the bubble bursts. The investment market makes hype cycles happen regardless of whether the tech is vaporware or not, and that’s bad for tech in general.
Add comment