This is a very good post that helps clarify a lot. I think it gets to the heart of where we might not be seeing eye-to-eye: I'm guessing my umbrella of 'philoso

This is a very good post that helps clarify a lot. I think it gets to the heart of where we might not be seeing eye-to-eye: I'm guessing my umbrella of 'philosophy' is much broader than yours. I can certainly agree that much of philosophical debate, particularly in some academic circles, may devolve into being overly pedantic. I personally think philosophy is more value when it's an applied science; i.e., that which helps one "live a better life". I think that's really the point and without it, the study just comes across as an obsession with smelling one's own farts. To that end, I think I would disagree with the claim that it's of no value to "non-philosophers". Rather than just applied law which helps determine if something is legal or not, "philosophy of law" helps determine if a law is just or not. I think there's probably a good reason many lawyers study philosophy (I've seen studies that Classics majors had the highest LSAT scores). I'm glad the authors of the U.S. Constitution studied philosophy; I think it helps make better policy. I may have no knowledge of philosophy myself, but benefit from the policies framed by those who study philosophy to create robust systems. But I think that's all predicated on my larger umbrella of what constitutes philosophy. To circle back to the discussion AI, I cringe a bit at the thought of an overly technocratic approach because I worry the policy could be overly focused on building the best technology and not necessarily with the best ethics. Go back a hundred years to the eugenics movement and I would have the same concerns. One of the points made by the AI Now Inst. that you linked to is that "the current framing of AI ethics are failing." To me, the domain of ethics is philosophy, not tech. But that's not to mean there's a natural dichotomy, I think what we really need are "technologist philosophers".