Seems like a waste of time to read news, even if you work in AI policy.
The example you provided of the Axios article illustrates why I think youāre incorrect. I remember reading this article, and being convinced that the US AISI was all but guaranteed to be scrapped. Yet knowledgeable people I heard from soon after implied they thought this was still a coin toss. Why such a discrepancy? I think the news has a āsomething is happeningā bias. Sometimes they twist words to imply something is happening, even when itās not clear-cut.
The way fast news presents issues can lead to receiving the wrong conclusion: my summation at the time was incorrect, as yours seems to be.
āthe US government was planning to gut AISIā
Really? It seems more appropriate to say, āthe Trump White House was maybe planning to fire all probationary employees at NIST, which would have gutted AISI, but the final scope was not determined at that time.ā And actually, this would have been a great hedge, because it turns out that a month later the US AISI is still here, despite many probational NIST employees having been fired earlier in the month.
Agree that headlines are biased to sound stronger than what you read in the piece, but I think the effect is pretty small.
Yes, sometimes things change after an article is published. Seems to me you would have to have some extra knowledge to think that AISI would be safe ex-ante. (If AISI is in fact safe now I would love to know what happened.)
Bloomberg had to add that information after publishing. See their correction:
(Updates with further details about scope of terminations in second paragraph.)
Iām not sure what the Axios piece said because of paywall rip
Overall, I think youād be clearly better off reading the Axios piece and knowing that AISI could be in jeopardy because of pending cuts to probationary employees vs not reading it at all.
Seems like a waste of time to read news, even if you work in AI policy.
The example you provided of the Axios article illustrates why I think youāre incorrect. I remember reading this article, and being convinced that the US AISI was all but guaranteed to be scrapped. Yet knowledgeable people I heard from soon after implied they thought this was still a coin toss. Why such a discrepancy? I think the news has a āsomething is happeningā bias. Sometimes they twist words to imply something is happening, even when itās not clear-cut.
The way fast news presents issues can lead to receiving the wrong conclusion: my summation at the time was incorrect, as yours seems to be.
Really? It seems more appropriate to say, āthe Trump White House was maybe planning to fire all probationary employees at NIST, which would have gutted AISI, but the final scope was not determined at that time.ā And actually, this would have been a great hedge, because it turns out that a month later the US AISI is still here, despite many probational NIST employees having been fired earlier in the month.
Agree that headlines are biased to sound stronger than what you read in the piece, but I think the effect is pretty small.
Yes, sometimes things change after an article is published. Seems to me you would have to have some extra knowledge to think that AISI would be safe ex-ante. (If AISI is in fact safe now I would love to know what happened.)
Bloomberg had to add that information after publishing. See their correction:
Iām not sure what the Axios piece said because of paywall rip
Overall, I think youād be clearly better off reading the Axios piece and knowing that AISI could be in jeopardy because of pending cuts to probationary employees vs not reading it at all.