I define

"a person who knows the AI technology"

as

"a person who have tried to make program codes about the AI by themselves at least once"

Of course, this is just my private definition, so you don't have to accept it.

Even if this definition go unmentioned, all stories of AI will come to disappear in the world, and I will be also trouble in losing R&D budget about AI.

Above all, if this definition is accepted in the world, the terrible restriction of "the persons who don't make codes, they cannot talk AI technologies at all"

-----

Recently, I am studying reinforcement learning and deep learning, as a weekend researcher.

Certainly, the ideas of these technologies are tremendous, and the technologies show us incredible effects, even if they are applicable for an application.

The "incredible" and "applicable" cases are introduced at the Web site or Youtube.

On the other hand, nobody knows that the face that a pile of "un-applicable" cases are left untouched anywhere.

-----

"A person who have tried to make program codes about the AI by themselves at least once"

is a person who make mountains of corpses named "program" and sniff odor, but try to materialize one "AI technology". I don't care of failure or success of it.

I can admit that the person

"knows the AI technology"

with this fact only.

-----

Repeatly, I want to say "this is a dangerous policy"

According to this policy,

"People who never experienced real battlefields where people continue to be killed, do not talk about war greatly"

such a "barbaric field regime" will become justice.

"An amateur who is not a politician should not speak about politics"

such a "denial of democracy" will be accepted.

-----

However, for myself, I have a certain kind of belief about

"Talking about certain AI technologies"

I hope you will remember it.

"to avoid useless troubles each other."