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?
-
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.
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".
