| > Artificial intelligence is a very fast-moving frontier and what (and who) to believe about it is hard for a non-expert to decide. Crypto is another example of a big field that seems to contain conflicting experts. For the lay public it is very hard to know who to believe. The "lay public" doesn't care in the first place. They don't have the time to read various studies and journals to compare conflicting points of view. What they do have time for is news media, and a whole lot of it > But sometimes experts are wrong. And very often, there’ll be another expert who has a different, even contrary, professional opinion on the same subject. So non-experts are left having to decide which expert we want to believe. The non-experts aren't concerned with who to believe, they're concerned about what should be done. Believing something is true != thinking something should be done (ref Hume's is-ought problem). I'm convinced that the author of this isn't complaining that the public has read various conflicting scientific studies and is unable to make a decision, they're complaining because the public is split on what should be done, which is the real source of disagreement What should be done is a moral question that's independent of the results of any single experiment. To propose that a group of experts "decide" what's moral for the rest of society would be analogous to establishing a public religion |