I said that people whose expertise is in being experts on what others should do are going to not do a good job.
Let's take a concrete recent example.
http://time.com/5209144/google-search-engine-algorithm-bias-... decries how Google search results are racist and are biased against black girls. It is written by someone whose background is clearly not machine learning, but who qualifies as an expert in the ethics of machine learning. She has a PhD, tenure at a well-regarded university, and a book on the subject.
While her article complains about the results of machine learning algorithms, and how horrible they are, she said nothing that showed an understanding of how they actually work. Why they produce the results that they do. Her diagnosis is that Google is a racist and sexist company. Her proposed solution is that Silicon Valley companies should be forced to hire blacks, and particularly black women, for the express purpose of keeping companies accountable for their racist environments.
The truth is that Google's internal environment is neither racist nor sexist - quite the opposite in fact. The actual problem is in the data available to Google of what people click on. How you can modify the algorithm to be slanted towards socially acceptable results is a tricky problem that requires a CS background. How you can modify the incentives so that companies are motivated to produce good results is an even more tricky problem.
Yet if she got to create the regulations, what would happen? We would literally get a requirement to hire politically correct thought police!
How well do you think that would work?