Glad to find others here who had a negative impression of the article. Wasn’t sure what comments to expect given its association with two influential organizati

Glad to find others here who had a negative impression of the article. Wasn’t sure what comments to expect given its association with two influential organizations. My objections vary somewhat from others, but overall I felt it was at risk of drifting into Not Even Wrong territory. The author suggests hard working middle class people are missing out on millions unfilled job openings ripe for the picking, because we don’t have good enough matching algorithms. One insult is suggesting desperate out of work people may not already be taking the extraordinary measures necessary to find the best positions they can get. I question even the validity of the claim, that “matching” is alone is keeping any significant number people out of work. Another insult is not mentioning a lot of these jobs may not be filled simply because the salary and opportunity for career development are not that great. Other topics like improving the educational system are grossly oversimplified given the competing interests of students, teachers, politics, and government. The biggest problem has been explained here on HN previously: Education doesn’t lack good ideas or innovation as much as it lacks funding to develop and implement the good ideas. Other points about how AI will remove concerns of bias seem naive, or at least not in tune with recent work like that from Facebook, that has faced an uphill battle trying to convince people its easy to create objective policy systems. I can see the benefit of articles that look at the current practical challenges of AI, and also more speculative articles that look at what the future may bring. This argument seems to be stuck in the middle, while not doing particularly well at either.