You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
A enormously important but underappreciated thing: as a researcher, make sure your financial incentives are aligned with the public interest & with the progress of science. In particular, your funding & compensation should not depend on your ability to impress non-experts.
If you start a research lab where your funding depends on whether your research can impress the general public, or a rich donor, or the CEO of some tech company, then you will very soon find yourself running not a research lab, but a PR agency with a research arm attached.
And that's a bad place to be -- bad for science, and bad for the public that's being misled. Incentives matter more than you know -- make sure you have the right incentives early on.
Easier said that done, though, right? What's a research funding model that doesn't (ultimately) rely on impressing the general public in some way?
The usual, most common model of science funding largely does not rely on impressing non-experts. It involves convincing expert committees and peers. In the field of AI, having to impress non-experts to get money is a very new development.
So where should the halal funding come from? Money is a real issue and most people have to compromise.
There is this very strange attitude that some scientists have that communicating with clarity what you are doing and why to the general public is somehow distasteful. Reminds me of Russian math/physics books, where being totally incomprehensible is seen as somehow a virtue.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
