[krisoft]

Thank you. In the recent weeks I was considering to subscribe to the economist. But if this is the quality of their writing on a subject I can judge then I would rather not poison my mind with articles from them which I have no expertise over.

[mdp2021]

I am not sure, I think it is an almost acceptable introduction for the layman to the divergence between deterministic, classic AI and in-focus, out of ANN functions AI. It gives the reader a notion that the divergent paths exist - but not much further structured historic or divulgative context. Interesting and informative notions, e.g. the existence of fuzzy logic based systems, or artificial vision as tending to rely on textures instead of shapes, or the problem of transparency, are hinted without leaving the reader with more understanding. Real problems and historic achievements look as if a current matter born out of contemporary industrial issues. For example:

«How to give AI at least some semblance of that understanding - the reasoning ability of a seven-month-old child, perhaps - is now a matter of active research».

Err... «Now»?! No, that has been an explicit topic. Expert systems come to mind as one of the most explicit efforts to tackle it. And they are mentioned, at 60% - as a reference that the layman cannot decode! And an example of how the article makes academic matters seem like strategies promoted by industrial agents.

The Economist has better material. I now also have the doubt if on average it does stand without crutches - without the reader having to put it back into an historic framework of reality -, though.

[krisoft]

> it is an almost acceptable introduction for the layman to the divergence between deterministic, classic AI and in-focus, out of ANN functions AI.

I agree with that. And if all that the article would do there would be nothing wrong with that.

But it goes further and makes sweeping statements about the state of self driving cars in general.

It talks about using machine learning to classify stop signs, and then writes: "Similar techniques are used to train self-driving cars to operate in traffic."

Which might be true for some systems, but not for others.

If you read this article you would think that present day self-driving cars are just a bunch of machine learning hooked up to a steering wheel. There are systems like that, but many people question their safety. Most other systems follow a hybrid approach, where there are machine learning components surrounded by old fashioned robotics. Leveraging the strong suits of both approaches.

[Engineering-MD]

I wouldn’t judge all their articles by this one. Bear in mind this is not their core area of expertise, they are going to over simplify and make some mistakes. Generally, I find their core stuff in economics and politics to be insightful and thought provoking even if in my subject domain (medicine) they make some mistakes.