I work for Amazon as a software engineer, and primarily work on a mixture of LLM's and compositional models. I work mostly with scientists and legal entities to ensure that we are able to reduce our footprint of invalid data (i.e. anything that includes deleted customer data, anything that is blocked online, things that are blocked in specific countries, etc). It's basically data prep for training and evaluation, alongside in-model validation for specific patterns that indicate a model contains data it shouldn't have (and then releasing a model that doesn't have that data within a tight ETA).

It can be interesting at times, but the genuinely interesting work seems to happen on the science side of things. They do some cool stuff, but have their own battles to fight.

There is a tad bit of difference between caring about an opinion and tolerating one. Obama's opinions on AI are unqualified pop culture nonsense. They wouldn't be relevant in an actual discussion that would cite relevant technical, economical and philosophical aspects of AI as points.

Why? It's a tool like any other, and we're unlikely to stop using it.

Right now there's a lot of hype because some tech that made a marked impact of consumers was developed, and that's likely to ease off a bit, but the actual AI and machine learning technology has been a thing for years before that hype, and will continue after the hype.

Much like voice driven digital assistants, it's unlikely to redefine how we interact with technology, but every other way I set a short timer has been obsoleted at this point, and I'm betting that auto complete having insight into what your writing will just be the norm going forward.

This is the same logic that allows right wing ideologues to become legitimate sources of information. A causal interest in a topic is NOT the same as being an industry expert, and the opinions of industry experts should be weighted far heavier in our minds than people who “sound like they know what they’re talking about”.

And your logic is the same followed by government agencies when they effectively agree to regulatory capture because all of the industry experts work at this company, so why not just let the company write the rulebook? 🤔

I personally don't believe we need "industry experts" in every new, emerging type of tech to be the sole voices considered about them because that's how we largely arrived at the great enshitterment we're already experiencing.

Edit: It's really quite a baffling take (given a moment's thought) that the big problem and/or a large problem facing America is that we aren't cozy enough with "industry experts". Industry practically write the policy in this country, and the only places where we have any kind of great debate (e.g. net neutrality, encryption) is where there are conflicting industry concerns.