[jacamera]

I blame the experts. It's their responsibility to explain things to the public and engage in forums that the public is paying attention to (e.g. podcasts). They don't have to bloviate about everything under the sub, but they do have to be able to break down and communicate their ideas to the non-expert public. Failure to do so creates a vacuum that is filled by the Marc Andreesens and Peter Thiels of the world.

[janalsncm]

If you go on Marc’s Twitter he spends most of his time subtweeting with emojis and one word responses. And he has millions of followers (for what reason?).

A scientist, aside from their day job, is now also supposed to spend time debunking whatever half baked topic of the day is?

The only world where that works is one in which MA’s reputation is built on not saying dumb stuff all the time, like a scientist’s reputation is. If his follower count dropped for example. But it’s not, and that’s not how it works. People like him will move on to the next thing tomorrow.

[eli_gottlieb]

I've gone on a science communication podcast to talk about my work: https://braininspired.co/podcast/202/

This does not seem to have stopped anyone bullshitting to the media about AI.

[s1artibartfast]

Absolutely not. That turns the experts into politicians and pundits. Experts should stay in their lane and provide accurate and trustworthy information.

Yes, it should be accessible and digestible, but should not be pushed.