The tacit assumption here is that we can predict what aspects of AI will be most beneficial. But if you look at the inventions/discoveries that have most affected the world over the past few decades I think you'll find that they are largely unpredictable, e.g. the internet, computers, antibiotics, etc. It's actually difficult to find a non-incremental improvement that was planned. We have such a glut of scientists right now that it doesn't make sense to focus them in any specific direction. AI is a popular field and people are going to be working in it, regardless of whether we adopt a set of research priorities or not.
back
2 comments
> adopt a set of research priorities
Try this explanation on for size: Have the whole group, with a lot of signatures, etc., come out with a big statement, a paper, a position, policy paper, on what the AI research priorities are.
Then, presto, bingo, any prof looking for grant money can pick one or a few of those priorities, adjust the direction of his work, and claim to both the granting agency writing the check and the journals to publish his papers that his work is on the priorities.
And just what is the solid basis for the priorities? Sure, that paper. And, reading that paper, it looks solid, right? I mean, it very much looks like the right stuff, right?
Or, maybe an AI researcher wants to do something else. So, they can claim that their work is leading edge, disruptive, original, crashes through old barriers, is better than the conventional, etc., right? And maybe that approach will get grant money, accepted papers, tenure, etc.
Sounds to me like a way to help get grants and get papers published and, thus, to keep the parade, party, whatever going.
Meanwhile, back to good engineering, etc.!
That is, if the paper looks weak for its claimed, obvious purpose, then maybe look for the most promising non-obvious purpose! E.g., some people are good at manipulation, and some people are gullible. Or, "Always look for the hidden agenda."! Or, don't be too easy to manipulate!
Eric Drexler wrote rather accurately about the importance of a global hypertext publishing network back in the mid-80s (following earlier less-measured but not crazy writings by Ted Nelson); he also projected that one could exist by the mid-90s. (He avoided timeframes when analyzing other technologies.) It's not so much that there are no good futurists as that "you can't tell people anything": http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-an...