3 ms·
> We're using these things and we're not even sure how they work. Love it. Similar to the human brain in that respect. Ironic that the human brain used itself
by mastre_ 10y ago
> We're using these things and we're not even sure how they work. Love it.
Similar to the human brain in that respect. Ironic that the human brain used itself without understanding how it works to eventually create something it uses without understanding how it works.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoExcept human brains are validated by other human brains to be capable of performing a given task. The validations come in many forms with varying degrees of accuracy for the task required. Ex: -college degree (Doctor) -employee referral (engineer) -FizzBuzz (engineer again) -licensing exam score (driver) -popular election (supreme commander of the armed forces)
- peterbonney 10y agoThe same validation scheme(s) can be applied to AI as well. That doesn't mean their inner workings are any more or less penetrable, just that they pass some minimal threshold of competence. E.g., AlphaGo is clearly good at Go. Yet it makes moves that can appear inscrutable to a human expert. (NB: I'm not arguing that inscrutability is or is not an issue for AI systems, just suggesting that third-party validations don't meaningfully address the issue one way or the other.)
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoExactly. I think trying to validate end-to-end is tail-chasing. Reminds me of Adam Curtis' BBC documentary "The Trap," whrein people create a limited theory of human behavior based on game theory, but the attractiveness of numbers results in the reformation of society to better fit those numbers, even if they don't fully represent human behavior and leave us worse off than before. It's like trying to create an AI to play chess but the creators focus so hard on keeping it from making moves that result in its losing the queen that they forget that the objective of chess is to win.