Automation will destroy certain jobs (as did cars for buggy whips). What pisses me off (and I believe ought to piss off others) is the monetizing of these types of works behind paywalls (as Nature and Science, the journals, are wont to do) when public access to the primary sources would help inform debate.

Reading tarted-up flag-planting arXiv papers can be tough going even for practicioners, to say nothing of the general public. But ultimately the general public will have to vote on propositions, or vote in representatives, to pass sensible (not hysterical) regulations.

For example, after an Uber lidar-equipped vehicle killed a Phoenix jaywalker (a separate part of law that I do not like, but acknowledges physics and shitty drivers), Uber halted testing in most markets. This is sensible based on public reaction, but three major problems compounded to take Elaine Herzberg’s life:

1) the lidar did not function as designed,
2) the backup driver did not function as instructed, and
3) Ms Herzberg did not obey the law.

This is a situation where the facts eventually became clear, and still it is difficult to say that one side or the other overreacted (personally I think Uber did the right thing PR-wise, but I also worry that less testing means slower progress towards safer cars, since human drivers are legendarily shitty and much less safe than conservative self-driving cars with functional lidar).

Now let’s consider more complicated problems, such as replacing medicinal chemists with reinforcement learning systems, or China’s AI approach to “social credits”. Both have potential benefits and huge potential drawbacks, and both are relatively easy to grasp compared to some thornier cases. One is purposely obscured due to a dictatorial regime; one is obscured not by administrative fiat but by copyright law and a very silly tradition in academic and quasi-academic research. Hiding results in paywalled “prestige” journals rather than making it available to the general public is seen as a mark of distinction (and avoiding a $30k-$50k open access charge is just sensible conservation of research funds, in this scenario. I know because I am an academic and I personally think OA charges are a waste, though for different reasons.)

Anyone who wants to [break the law] can obtain the primary documents in the former case via sci-hub. That’s just a fact. But is this any more reasonable than Georgia allowing companies to charge for access to state laws? Is it reasonable for people to pay twice, in most cases, first for the research* and then for the report, when faster dissemination of primary sources can directly inform debate over some important issues?

It seems silly that we would have a system where others are expected to pay for, digest, and opine upon research done by the primary authors. It would not be necessary if the norm was to disseminate AI breakthroughs in a format like distill.pub, where the whole point is to explain both the results and their context. But until academic and quasi-academic researchers can kick the “prestige” habit, that’s unlikely to happen, and the public will be left to listen to pundits (often idiots) rather than forming their own well-informed opinions, and that sucks.

No time to edit, but hopefully you get the idea. Disclaimer: I am an academic, applying “AI” to medical care for children with rare and deadly diseases; I used to work at GOOG a million years ago; and what I see among the worst hucksters sickens me, because I think it’s going to kill people in spite of better competing ideas that could improve the human condition. I’m just one person with one vote. I’d like everyone else to form their own opinions, because theay might change mine. Thus primary sources are critical.

* anyone who does not believe that taxpayers subsidize industrial & corporate r&d via tax credits and incentives is quite naive; it is not different from academic competition in that regard.