This sounds like a loaded question but... Why don't more people who talk about AI $subject (eg, ethics, policy, strategy) actually engage with foundational technical literature? What is the plausible justification for not habitually skimming Arxiv?
-
Because they can do well professionally without. As an ethnographic adventure I went to a conference last year focused on AI, UBI etc. I didn't meet anyone, or see a single speaker, who was engaged w the primary literature on AI. But lots of these ppl speak at Davos, in NYT etc
See also: https://twitter.com/kristineberth/status/997356628339904514 … It's really interesting, and I'll bet there's a good book in it.
-
-
An amusing test reporters could apply: "Oh, before we begin, would you mind quickly writing down the equations describing backprop in, say, a simple feedforward net? Okay if it's a bit rough!" AKA, do you know how any of this works?
-
Slightly unfair - there are people with interesting things to say who would fail this test. Still, I think the idea has merit, some kind of FizzBuzz for AI "experts".
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
on the real value of the thought-workers who build all these intermediate abstractions that make new ideas
safe for popular consumption @vgr 2012 https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/05/09/welcome-to-the-future-nauseous/ …Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.