>I can tell good tea from bad tea, but I've never grown it. That's a straw man argument. If you used to grow tea, got famous for some awesome blend, started wr

>I can tell good tea from bad tea, but I've never grown it. That's a straw man argument. If you used to grow tea, got famous for some awesome blend, started writing books about tea, stopped growing it, then joined a panel with a bunch of other former tea growers and said people need to start growing good tea again... then that'd be closer. Even better would be if in the time since you last grew tea, the plant had become endangered and complicated processes had to be undertaken by current manufacturers to extract sufficient quantities for production. You want better tea? You're in luck! You happen to have been an expert tea-grower in the past-- welcome back! Get to work. >Chomsky has hardly "not produced anything of value" Quite the opposite. In fact, all of these guys are brilliant researchers who have made huge impacts on their fields. My point was that they are not actively contributing anything, and haven't been for the last 30+ years. When was the last time Chomsky did any serious investigation that wasn't about how evil governments are? If Geoffrey Hinton, David Fogel, Jonathan Schaeffer, or any of the other "second-wave" pioneers[1] who have remained active in the last 20 years want to form a panel and complain about people not focusing on high-level research topics, then sure. Because I know when they do so, they'll point to their own research being published in the last few years as an example. [1] The guys who got us out of the AI winter.