Europe on top of innovation once again. Watch out US and China! /s (I say this as a French citizen)
I live in the UK. Our Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is a woman called Michelle Donelan. She graduated with a BA in history and politics, and her career outside of being a career politician was in marketing, including a time working on Marie Claire magazine and for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). How in the world is she qualified for to run the nations tech initiatives? If she was appointed as CEO of a tech company, the stock would sink like a rock over night. Dare I even get started on Michael Gove, who originally wanted the role...
Taiwan's Minister of Digital Affairs; Audrey Tang. Tang was a child prodigy, reading works of classical literature before the age of five, advanced mathematics before six, and programming before eight, and she began to learn Perl at age 12. On CPAN, Tang initiated over 100 Perl projects between June 2001 and July 2006, including the popular Perl Archive Toolkit (PAR), a cross-platform packaging and deployment tool for Perl 5.
South Korea's Minister of Science and ICT; Lee Jong-ho. Professor of electrical and computer engineering at Seoul National University. He was named Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in 2016 for contributions to development and characterization of bulk multiple-gate field effect transistors.
Australian Minister for Industry and Science; Edham Husic. Husic worked as a research officer for the member for Chifley, Roger Price. Husic was first elected as a branch organiser in 1997. In 1998, he was elected as vice-president of the Communications Division of the CEPU. From 1999 to 2003, he worked for Integral Energy as a communications manager.
That's just from a quick search of some countries other than Europe/US/China. I tried Israel and Singapore too, but neither of those ministers had a "technical" background per-se.
I don't disagree with your general point that technical competency is a really, really good idea, but I don't share the I guess cynism. Lots of people don't have the capabilities of their subordinates and that doesn't stop them from being effective leaders. The leaders we look at are just incompetent.
It's the job. It sucks. Nobody that is actually good would want to do it. It ends your life.
Edit: it also doesn't help that these leaders are chosen either directly or indirectly by people - the general public - that have no idea what the job actually entails. To become a politician you have to endure the political equivalent of a modern code interview - being "popular" - without actually testing if you can do the actual job and have the required levels of competency for it.
I do think that they should have a basic grasp of the fundamentals of their field though, and most politicians honestly don't even have that. I don't want to put up walls to being a back-bencher MP, but there should be a bare-minimum barrier for entry for certain Ministerial positions, especially one like Technology minister. You can't have someone leading a team who needs every-single-concept dumbed down for them so they can only make decisions from basic abstractions.
I think the problem with democracy is we ultimately interview and select leaders whos skills are in persuading a population, but we don't generally need those leaders to actually take the job, we need people who are good at distilling information and making appropriate judgements for the benefit of the population
William Easterly.
I too wish they'd know more about what they decide on, but really they should already rely on subject matter experts and otherwise I don't think the problem is lack of knowledge, as the quote indicates. It was said in the context of erradicating poverty but I think it applies to these discussions too.
Arguing from authority is nice and all (not), but the problem is not lack of technical expertise in decision makers (no one can reasonably expect a politician to understand modern AI tools), but rather about the decision making process itself.
There should be an established process by which such a dumb decision, with - in all likelihood - negative economic implications for the entire country, could be put to rest via a democratic process.
I'm not asking for some IEEE fellow with 100s of patent. I'm not even asking for a junior engineer with a couple of years in the industry. Hell, I daren't even ask for someone with a Math A-Level at this point. I'm asking for someone who can string a sentence about technology together, while also understanding a 10th of what they just regurgitated. It's embarrassing watching the leader that is meant to represent our industry go on stage and repeat a babble of buzzwords that they learnt about 4 hours before, in their latest think-tank meeting. That's not leadership. That's bull-shiting, and it stinks.
The whole point is that you don't need any tech knowledge to respect the basic ratified human right of access to information. That is all you need to not enact bans on specific websites for your country.
Being a good technologist is an advantage to such a position, obviously.
I don’t have much of a problem with a minister who knows they’re not an expert but makes it a top priority to surround themselves with people who are, and to listen to them, who has good morals.
That of course describes zero Tory ministers but one can dream.
As consequence both journalism and politics in the UK seem less about the truth or doing what's best and more about selling convincing short term rhetoric.
We need a revolution where we hang the last Cambridge classics graduate with the entrails of the last Oxford PPE graduate[1].
1. Hahahahahaha, I'm joking[2] of course!
2. Kinda...
I'm in the Netherlands as you can tell and 'even' we are not that much more progressive. There is currently a massive farmer uprising and everybody is complaining literally non-stop about just about everything. Meanwhile nobody has even tried GPT. I get pitchforked even in my own country for saying we need to stop focusing on breeding cows and get (and stay) better at real tech.
Then again, my social skills are not really up there..
EDIT: "real tech", I know. Simplification. I know it's hard and I know it's important we eat, but countries with like 5000% more arable land can provide for us.
Massive simplification, but I don't think it's a completely unfair characterisation.
Well, It's easy to see why you get backlash when you tell people to change their way of life, get asked for a reason, and say you don't care.
And vast swathes of technologists are insanely over-enthusiastic about technical change, to the point of it resembling a religion (and the singularitarians are like the monks who self-immolate themselves, except they want to immolate all the rest of us, too).
Frankly, it's probably far wiser to take it slow than charge full speed ahead for no good reason and just hope you can fix the problems you cause.
I asked a group 10 friends, none of who work in tech, about what they think about ChatGPT and then consensus is that it's a slightly better Google in certain situations. None of them are worried that it's going to put them out of work, take over the world, or violate their privacy. I have to agree with them. I think all this AI stuff is way overhyped, just like all the other fads that came before: VR, crypto, drone delivery, CRISPR, autonomous vehicles, metaverse, etc.
I remember having the exact same discussions on HN about autonomous vehicles over a decade ago. The consensus then was that autonomous vehicles would make truck and taxi drivers obsolete within 5 years, and that this massive, sudden loss of jobs would cause a lot of social unrest. Yet here we are in 2023 and there are a grand total of zero driverless trucks on the road. I'm not saying AV tech is totally useless or that we won't someday get to a world where a large percentage of vehicles are self-driven, but it's clear now that the hype and fear around them was heavily exaggerated.
I feel the same way about ChatGPT. It's definitely cool and impressive, but the hype will die down once people realize how truly limited it is.
Edit: I do think there is a slight difference from your example here. Trucks are already here and driving them is a known thing and it is easy to see how it could work (making it work is still hard). Automating cognition itself is automating a nearly unknown skill. Nobody quite knows what it is we are doing and what box we are opening.
That is entirely reasonable ask, especially when the harm could be large. It's a lot harder (and often impossible) to put a genie back in a bottle once it's out.
> I remember having the exact same discussions on HN about autonomous vehicles over a decade ago. The consensus then was that autonomous vehicles would make truck and taxi drivers obsolete within 5 years, and that this massive, sudden loss of jobs would cause a lot of social unrest.
So some internet commenters' schedule was wrong, but that doesn't mean the bigger point was wrong. Some people thought we'd die in a nuclear war in the 80s, and they'd still be prescient if it turns out we die in on in the 2030s.
Technologists tend to be pathologically optimistic about technology, and tend to hand wave away the problems it will cause. It's important to keep that attitude in check, because they sure as hell don't seem to have the wisdom to do it themselves.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/these-angry-dutc...
Just one sample quote, but it's worth reading it all:
> The dispute over nitrogen permits has put Microsoft’s data center developments in direct opposition to an increasingly powerful farming community. Earlier this month, a new political force, called the Farmer Citizen Movement (BBB), did so well in provincial elections, it became the joint-largest party in the Dutch Senate. The party, which emerged in response to the nitrogen crisis, also has strong views on data centers. “We think the data center is unnecessary,” says Ingrid de Sain, farmer turned party leader of the BBB in North Holland, referring to the Microsoft complex. “It is a waste of fertile soil to put the data centers boxes here. The BBB is against this.”
And another one because it shows some of the thoughts:
> “Of course, we need some data centers,” he says. But he wants us to talk about restructuring the way the Internet works so they are not so necessary. “We should be having the philosophical debate of what do we do with all our data? I don’t think we need to store everything online in a central place.”
I'm waiting for them to suggest it should be moved to the cloud rather than put in data centres.
This is a symptom of widespread technological illiteracy, globally (at least in the west)
> Ruiter says he’s continued to talk about data centers because he wants to remind people that “the cloud” they’ve come to rely on isn’t just an ethereal concept—it’s something that has a physical manifestation, here in the farmland of North Holland. He worries that growing demand for data storage from people, and also, increasingly, AI, will just mean more and more hyperscale facilities.
Your country is very lucky to have its own high-quality farmland and the culture around it. The food there is of such a quality that "countries with like 5000% more arable land" will never have a chance at of having. See the US, for all its land, most of the food is low in nutrition or outright toxic.
I am European, and I just proved it by complaining about complainers :)
Also, reverse the tables: If someone comes suggesting to you to ban computers and the Internet completely and pull a study out (Internet damages brain). Would you be happy, offended, indifferent... okay I hope you get the point.
And even capital gains are taxed far less than income.
I think it's more that the US was made up of immigrants so it got to start anew without a massive established aristocracy and monarchies.
There is an issue on the capital gain / income in the E.U., but my understanding was that the U.S. was even worse in that regard (people can live of their salary through most of Europe).
There's plenty of innovation happening in Europe. See e.g. ASML.
What Europe is not good at is generating a lot of hype around something. Which has probably something to do with the investor climate there.