In current AI, most of the research work is happening in machine learning. Lot of buzzwords are popping up in this domain.

And most of the experts are into the implementation of new models, algorithms etc.,

It seems to me that it is currently impossible for us to collaborate with the related sites. And it is undeniable fact that we have very few number of active experts.

With this context, I want to propose the following line

Slowly and strategically widen the scope of our site by pushing our boundaries towards coding.

It is well-known that our site started as a science community, but, it cannot be a reason to continue it as a science-only site. We can increase our scope slowly by announcing the encouragement towards selected type of coding questions.

If we push the boundaries strategically, i feel that experts do visit and contribute to our site.

What is stopping us from pushing our boundaries?

Is it impossible to allow such questions in our main site since other two sites allow them? I think no.


2 Answers 2


I am against this idea because there are already other sites (DS SE and Stack Overflow) that cover these programming issues.

If we allowed this type of question, there would be more reasons to merge DS SE, CV SE, and AI SE, which, in my opinion, wouldn't really be a bad solution to the problem of having a limited number of experts, although, now, we cover topics that people that visit those other sites are or should not be really interested in (e.g. AGI) and people interested in AI and, in particular, AGI have a different ultimate goal than people interested only in ML or Statistics: AI is not just ML, that's why we exist.

Other sites do or should not cover certain aspects that we cover, such as AGI, cognitive architectures, or superintelligence. Unfortunately, not many people ask questions about these topics here anymore and we wouldn't also have many people prepared to answer those questions (because there aren't really many people interested in or researching these topics anyway), and most of the questions are just about the regular ML topics, so these questions could also have been answered on CV SE. For example, I was expecting this question to have at least more upvotes (not to say an answer, as I don't believe there aren't many people that could answer this question: maybe I am one of the few that could attempt to answer that question, but I have not done it yet), but, apparently, almost nobody is interested in AGI anymore.

So, in my opinion, we should keep focusing on the theoretical, philosophical, and social aspects of Artificial Intelligence. In my view, it's fine to have a small community, provided that we can be self-sustained and we provide good-quality answers and ask good questions that can be useful in the future for anyone interested in AI and AGI. Moreover, it's also normal that we have many unanswered questions, as some of them are not trivial to answer or may not even have a definitive answer right now: there are still unsolved problems in AI, the first one being that we still don't know how to really create an AGI.

(Personally, I don't really want to see questions of the form "Why am I getting this IndexErrror in this ML program" here on AI SE. Generally, I am not interested in solving other people's programming issues/bugs (although occasionally I may do that on Stack Overflow). I am interested in the theoretical aspects of AI, I am interested in RL, AGI, explainable AI, evolutionary algorithms, and computational learning theory. Of course, these are just my personal tastes, but this is the main reason why I decided to stick to this site.)

So, if you're interested in programming, you should visit Stack Overflow. If you're interested in reinforcement learning, AGI (e.g. AIXI, Godel Machines, etc.), cognitive architectures, superintelligence, evolutionary algorithms, you should visit Artificial Intelligence Stack Exchange.

Having said that, there may still be some room to expand or redefine our scope, but, right now, I don't see many ways to expand our scope other than allowing questions about programming issues here.


Simple answer:

  • Prior to nbro and Dennis, our scope was insanely broad

This was because I was appointed mod by Stack when the prior mods left, knew there were issues, and felt that the community should decide what this stack needed to be.

We had a few years of this, with varied success, but did manage to attract enough committed, expert users, to yield our current form.

  • We worked incredibly hard to narrow the scope to increase utility

I'm all for strategic expansion, at some point in the undetermined future, iff trusted users and mods agree. Presently, I agree with nbro, but I like your energy and enthusiasm, hanugm. Keep it coming!


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .