People who understand the technology at least can descriptively tell you what it does, which is a lot more useful than what laypeople think based on whatever populist media they've consumed.
People who understand the technology at least can descriptively tell you what it does, which is a lot more useful than what laypeople think based on whatever populist media they've consumed.
What it does at a technical level (better described is "how it does what it does"), which is what the experts on AI are experts at, is not that important.
What you need to know to have a chance to see its future impact is a very high level understanding of what it does on a non-technical level, and how better it could do it in the next 5-10 years. Which doesn't require a PhD on AI at all. Not even a BSc.
See how many top computer scientists missed where the PC and the web revolution would end up and what it would allow. Even Gates missed the important of this internet thing. Where someone not that technical like Jobs could get it much better...
https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/15/7396569/Steve-jobs-inter...
https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-predictions-about-the-i...
Things like bait and switch will be called something else like 'dynamic pricing'.
Oh wait that's already being done ... (see amazon).
Then there's the societal mechanics, what 'good' happens from stalling the economic engine (i.e. eliminating the bottom 2/3 of the factor markets)?
Also don't forget, violation of constitutional rights, under false positives, and the crazy maker algorithms that drive insanity (social credit like).
The requirements to use AI are negligible compared to an atom bomb. Comparing it thus is a poor comparison because its so much worse.