Furthermore, why would an AI researcher need to have intricate understandings of the inner workings of modern CPUs?
Lex is not a software engineer. Lex is not an electrical engineer.
I know people actively working in the AI/ML field who don't even have a B.A./B.S. - they're literally self-taught from watching YouTube videos; reading books, textbooks, articles; and listening to podcasts. And after all, wasn't that supposed to be the ultimate end-goal of all this high technology we've created for ourselves? To smash the Ivory Tower? To democratize knowledge for anyone who's willing to pursue it? These people don't understand the finer points of programming and they damn sure don't understand the finer points of CPU design... why should they? You have finite time in your day, and every hour you spend understanding the intricacies of one thing, that's an hour you've lost to understanding something else.
The promise of the Internet was supposed to be something to interconnect humanity so we could share amongst each other. Well part of that promise is relying on the expertise of others to help us, instead of having to acquire that expertise for ourselves.
I am entirely self-taught in CS and I know what I know, I'm not inflicting it on anyone else I'm just saying Jim Keller doesn't do these very often and I want to hear him in more depth.
For example, I really liked these two approaches regarding Moore's Law (Jim Keller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01BlUDIlK4 , and David Patterson : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01BlUDIlK4 )
I have no reason to believe he isn't a good AI researcher, but he doesn't seem to know much about programming - that a branch predictor that just predicts what happened last time next time gets it right about 80% of the time is pretty obvious if you imagine that 90% or more of instructions executed happen in loops.