> adopt a set of research priorities Try this explanation on for size: Have the whole group, with a lot of signatures, etc., come out with a big statement, a

> adopt a set of research priorities Try this explanation on for size: Have the whole group, with a lot of signatures, etc., come out with a big statement, a paper, a position, policy paper, on what the AI research priorities are. Then, presto, bingo, any prof looking for grant money can pick one or a few of those priorities, adjust the direction of his work, and claim to both the granting agency writing the check and the journals to publish his papers that his work is on the priorities. And just what is the solid basis for the priorities? Sure, that paper. And, reading that paper, it looks solid, right? I mean, it very much looks like the right stuff, right? Or, maybe an AI researcher wants to do something else. So, they can claim that their work is leading edge, disruptive, original, crashes through old barriers, is better than the conventional, etc., right? And maybe that approach will get grant money, accepted papers, tenure, etc. Sounds to me like a way to help get grants and get papers published and, thus, to keep the parade, party, whatever going. Meanwhile, back to good engineering, etc.! That is, if the paper looks weak for its claimed, obvious purpose, then maybe look for the most promising non-obvious purpose! E.g., some people are good at manipulation, and some people are gullible. Or, "Always look for the hidden agenda."! Or, don't be too easy to manipulate!