One thing that I think he is missing: AI is trying to solve problems which we otherwise cannot solve. The old nuts and bolts methods simply don't scale. If we don't get AI, we will continue to have traffic accidents, release dangerous criminals on the public, or treat patients with the wrong medicines. Without AI, people are going to die.
But of course, we do need to be very careful, and prepared for failures.
https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/presentation/mickens
Great keynote about AI, ML, IoT, society and security. Thought provoking and hilariously entertaining.
@Demo318
There was a comment here from someone called Sarah(?) who said she'd be 90% likely to believe a women before a man. Or something to that effect - I tried the search here without success.
The surprising thing here is that it was a woman saying it - in my experience, women are much more critical to other women than men are. But perhaps when there is a conflict between a man and a woman, it is the instinct among both sexes to support or protect the woman.
All right. New here, so bear with me if I breech some kind of protocol or etiquette.
So adding some sciencytechy stuff which is also moderately politically uncorrect: I hear much complaining about gender bias in medicine, and in particular in how medical research overwhelmingly is directed at men and typically male diseases.
Then I find this claiming the exact opposite:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/08/government-medical-research-spending-favors-women.html
And even this, from 1994:
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96jun/cancer/kadar.htm
Assuming these are correct (and they look thorough and easily verified to me), why does everybody have the wrong impression? Is it just because there are strong communities which push the opposite view for ideological reasons? And are people reluctant to contradict them out of fear of shaming, or perhaps out of a sense of chivalry?
Longer blog post on his experience here:
Joined Aug 2018
