I’ve seen quite a few fora, groups and public user comments to have noticed stereotypes one will meet in the field of AI. Some of these were quite shocking to me as a newcomer, so now that I’m older and wiser I’ve made a list of these stereotypes with pointers for newcomers on how to deal with them.
Disclaimer: The best inspiration in this case came from other places than this forum, and each stereotype is based on at least three different people (including billionaires), so if you feel personally addressed, you’ve only yourself to blame and a good reason to re-evaluate your online behaviour. As I said, these are stereotypes.

“Soon, robots will…“
The pundit.
An open mind with much AI knowledge, but unable to assess it realistically in favour of eternal hope and optimism. Loves to dabble in predictions, features the words “soon” or “will” in every other sentence. Generally cheerful, takes no responsibility. Believes AI is just around the corner.
Best action: Be nice, take news reports with a grain of salt.

“I figured out the secret to intelligence! It’s so simple!”
The outsider.
A layman with a passing interest in psychology. Has no AI knowledge but recently came to a generic revelation. His theory, or rather idea, typically consists of one word, e.g. “associations”. Instead of explaining methods, this person will only continue to essay common knowledge examples to prove how right he is. This person is oblivious to the fact that his idea is so obvious and general to everyone else that it is of no practical application.
Best action: Encourage programming. Person will either disengage immediately or change interests after two weeks into the attempt.

“That’s not true AI. True AI can…”
The believer.
Has AI knowledge and has at least made an attempt at creating AI on paper. Will accept nothing anyone creates as “AI”, for shifting reasons. See also the logical fallacy “No true Scotsman”. Generally discourages progress in any area, lacks patience and has a firmly closed mind. Occasionally offers intriguing insights but little in terms of constructive methods. Usually believes in “the singularity” like an AI messiah.
Best action: Avoid.

“No. You are wrong, only my way will work.”
The troubled scientist.
This person is creating an AI and/or hasn’t been able to get it to work, but wants so hard to believe that he’s not wasted several years that he is convinced his is the only one theory that can succeed. Will therefore adamantly oppose anyone whose approach differs from his until they say he’s right. Secretly feels insecure about his own work due lack of results or success, tries to convince others to gain assurance and possibly get people to work on his idea for him.
Best action: Drop confrontation when it starts, and suggest that all ways forward are progress.

“That’s right, but you have a lot to learn.”
The professional.
Stuck in the mindset of his particular professional application, this person will advise you to do exactly as he did to end up exactly where he is. Prone to suggest expensive academic literature in Russian that may or may not be of use to you. Means well and is capable of opening his mind, but fails to see reasons to do things differently.
Best action: Ask for references on specific areas of your own focus.

“I don’t care, I just want to talk to an AI in my lifetime.”
The eccentric billionaire.
Has little AI knowledge and no interest in technical details. Retains the childhood wish of having robot friends to talk to and will pay anyone who promises to make it happen if their plan sounds believeworthy enough.
Best action: Convince to invest in your approach.

“…”
The wise.
Has much AI knowledge and is willing to share bits of it with modest newcomers on occasion. Is willing to listen and consider new insights, and shows interest in promising new endeavours. Otherwise works on various AI problems on his own and has learned to stay out of fruitless confrontations altogether.
Best action: Befriend.

Maybe you have some tips of your own?

Did you compile this list on your own? It is extremely perceptive yet still manages to be quite tactful. Well done!

The only potential omission would be those in search of a compliant sex toy, but that may pertain more to the folks who are merely end users, as many chatbot masters can testify.

PS Please hook me up with one of those billionaires that you mentioned.

I’m missing:

The engineer.
Has done his/her research to be sure to work from a solid foundation, and is now developing something that fulfills the defined blueprint of ideas and accumulated knowledge. Can see a ‘plan’ and has a planning to get there. Does regular checks on beliefs and assumptions, mainly by continued study but also by discussing ideas with peers. Doesn’t like to go head-to-head with nay-sayers because that is wasted energy. Because of that not that common to find on public fora.
Best action: Try to follow at a distance (they are easily spooked).

The pure geek

Generally found working in a small room where the only illumination comes from various LCD screens. Minimum of ten machines running at all time.  Spends at least 18 hurs a day coding, despises people who actually read WIRED, has a human to machine interaction ratio of 98% macnine to 2% human. Wardrobe consists of various t-shirts prominently displaying slogans such as I HEART UNIX or FREE BSD ME, primary diet is Pizza and various caffeinated beverages. Works in AI because….well if you have to ask they probably wont talk to you anyway.

Don Patrick - Apr 9, 2014:

“I figured out the secret to intelligence! It’s so simple!”
The outsider.
A layman with a passing interest in psychology. Has no AI knowledge but recently came to a generic revelation. His theory, or rather idea, typically consists of one word, e.g. “associations”. Instead of explaining methods, this person will only continue to essay common knowledge examples to prove how right he is. This person is oblivious to the fact that his idea is so obvious and general to everyone else that it is of no practical application.
Best action: Encourage programming. Person will either disengage immediately or change interests after two weeks into the attempt.

Guys like this are annoying. 99% of the time, their ‘idea’ is some incoherent mess that has nothing to do with AI. The real secret to intelligence is the ability to understand things in terms of processes, that is input and output. All the current approaches based on neural networks and statistics etc. are fundamentally flawed. Only my way will work. When the field finally wraps its collective head around this fact, AI will be just around the corner (that is, true AI, that can do all the things that current ‘AI’ can’t). I’ve been working on it myself for a while, and have been making real progress, unlike the rest of the field (sorry, you can’t see it). The singularity is near, trust me.

</parody>
(In case there was any confusion)

Cool stuff, guys
Hans, I detect a little bias in those first few sentences , otherwise nice to know.
Thank you for the compliment Andrew, I wrote this last evening in a fit of fruspiration, the culmination of years of raised eyebrows.

I’m sure I’ve left out the less abundant and normal people, probably a lot of decent AI folk as well who are too busy working to be discussing theories online. If I were to extend the scope I could also write about the immature, the fearful, the crazy, the normal, the skeptic and the religious, all which take very distinctive approaches that many fail to take.

My personal frustrations about “the outsider” is that they seem to be on to something reasonable, and then it takes so much effort to learn that they got nothing. Still, one of these days a genius might just pop up. Speaking of which, I was recently referred to the one who says the brain is like a sandpile (skip 5 paragraphs for supporting evidence, but still take it with a grain of… sand).

“Grain of sand”, indeed.

First off, love this thread. I had harbored more than a little fear that it would become a virtual “powder-keg” of emotionally charged retorts and counter-retorts (we ARE a passionate bunch, after all), I’m gratified to see that my fears did not materialize. Overall, very informative, and entertaining. Good show!

I’m not sure that I properly fit into any of the above stereotypes, which may well be a good thing. I couldn’t even begin to outline one that would best describe me, really, but that’s not my area of expertise. Oh well.

I quickly skimmed the article you linked, and I have to admit that I cannot envision the mind functioning in that manner, even in the abstract. I’ve observed the physics involved (with sand piles) many times, mainly through spending hours watching hourglasses operate or making my own little piles of dirt/sand, so I’m familiar with the principle, but I just can’t see it as applied to the mind (save, perhaps, for describing “Eureka! moments”, but even that fosters a poor analogy); but then again, it’s not as if I had a great deal of education in the area, so take my thoughts with a grain of sand, too.

Implementors
People who implement original chatbots.

Modders
People who write modifications (mods) for implemented chatbots.

Builders
People who setup implemented chatbots.

_______________________
37bcb027b549d697406f724b772f2671
_______________________

Don,

I’m writing this after reading the article and after having my second glass of whiskey so take what I say with the proverbial grain of sand.

The article contents resonate with something I feel instinctively.

I tried to think of an example. We all have to contend with the question “What is your name?” and cope magnificently.

Then comes the question “How many letters are there in your name?” and realise that half way through dealing with what is ostensibly a simple question we have a problem! We need to ALSO deal simultaneously with a second question.

Only when we realise that there is a need to reiterate and ask OUSELVES the question “What is my name?” do we see the
answer and the lessons that can be learnt from this paper.

It teaches us that the chatbot needs to hold a conversation with itself(!) and also that the ability to reiterate is a precondition of intelligence. Here is a case where the sand dune has reached a point of instability and collapses but once stability is regained and the lessons learnt it is a more intelligent sand dune.

Jim.

I’ll have what Jim’s having.

@Dave

“I’m not sure that I properly fit into any of the above stereotypes”
Really?  I thought for sure you probably had a I HEART UNIX t-shirt somewhere

BWAHAHAHA

&%$$#*!

Now I dropped coffee and pizza everywhere

Dave Morton - Apr 10, 2014:

I had harbored more than a little fear that it would become a virtual “powder-keg” of emotionally charged retorts and counter-retorts (we ARE a passionate bunch, after all), I’m gratified to see that my fears did not materialize.

Be patient, it’ll get there.

Don Patrick - Apr 10, 2014:

Hans, I detect a little bias in those first few sentences , otherwise nice to know.

Obviously there (the bias), but not by intention

I actually know several people that fit nicely into that category. If you hook me up on LinkedIn you might be able to spot them in my network

Thanks for the subtle invite, but as I’m not a professional, I don’t do LinkedIn. I will however take your word for it

I had you figured for a wise man, Dave. Of course, being wise, you would deny this.

The pile of sand, a classic case of an outsider with an unrefined generic concept, might as well be a Rorschach test. He stresses the brain’s behaviour as a “critical system” (physics term) that constantly alternates between states of order and disorder. I would interpret this as trains of thought (“cascade”) and idle thought (“disorder”). Biologically you might imagine neurons alternately connecting and adrift, as analogy more a lightning storm than a sandslide, but then this guy dealt in physics. The only potential use I can see in this concept is that an alternating “disorderly” phase may aid in simulating creativity in AI, as it adds a factor of randomness that a linearly focused mind would not have. Personally I can’t see this being “the key to AI”.
James, you seem to be talking about self-reflection and self-awareness, and there are a fair few who believe this is a prerequisite to intelligence. I however am not one of them.

I may not necessarily deny the moniker, but I will qualify it, as I also see within me part outsider and part “dilettante”. Which reminds me…

Dilettante

One whose interest in AI is not much more than a passing fancy, and one in a very long line of other past interests. As such, the dilettante knows a little about a lot of things, but never enough of one area of research to provide any real insights. The broad spectrum of limited knowledge, however, can sometimes provide that “tiny spark”, or “gentle nudge” that could form the catalyst for someone else’s future breakthroughs.

Best action: Listen, observe, and file any unintentional nuggets of wisdom away for future use, but take most of what they say with a grain of sand.