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?
-
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".
A serious point: the notion of an "AI expert" is a very difficult one. Does it mean an expert on: (a) hypothetical future artificial intelligences; or (b) the current crop of techniques, which may or may not have anything to do with (a), but are certainly far distant from it.
-
-
I didn't say expert in my original thing. I think experts get annointed by the press/participants in discourse. So people can usually talk their way into becoming 'experts'
-
Sorry, wasn't referring to your original, just the general discourse in which this is a common sleight-of-hand. It happens often.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The challenge is that people in class (b) are often presented as being in class (a). Arguably, no-one is in class (a). This is not a criticism of any of those people or even, really, the journalists: it's arguably a category error arising from terms like "AI expert".
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would add class (c) People who are familiar with the long history of AI. I think there are a lot of people in (a) and/or (b) but not in (c).
-
I'm not sure you can be an "AI expert" if you don't know much about the field's history.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.