I have the opportunity to talk with people who have so-called "doctor" or "professor" or "president" titles.

These people are really 'know well' and 'study well'.

And they often present the grand design (the big picture) in their field.

However, I know that they know well analysis tools used in this field, ranging from setting methods to commands.

"really overwhelming"

I feel that whenever I meet them.

-----

However, if you ask these people whether they can correctly predict the future, they may not be able to.

This is because they will have a strong bias due to their knowledge of their field and expectations.

This is evident just by looking at this picture from the "AI series".

-----

Dr., professors, and presidents' opinions about past events are very valuable.

However, when it comes to future events, I would rather not refer to them.

"Use materials from the past (facts and figures) and the methods (logic and algorithms) available at the moment, and think about the future in my own mind and write about it in my own words"

It's much better that way, I think.

It is for this reason that I do not cite any "references to the future by experts" in my columns.

-----

When I find articles that try to "foil" the content by quoting a prominent university professor or the head of a large organization,

I stop reading halfway through.

It's not helpful, and it's not fun to read.

-----

"I (Ebata) want to know what you think!"

There are very few articles that respond to my request.