3 ms·
Interesting article. Some things are weird. I don't know why a support vector machine is ranked better than Bayesian nets, or why they are both worse than ensem
by MrQuincle 10y ago
Interesting article. Some things are weird. I don't know why a support vector machine is ranked better than Bayesian nets, or why they are both worse than ensemble methods w.r.t. interpretability.
However, I think the human should not be in the loop. The network should have another semantic layer that serves communication. It can be done from the ground up like Steels or Vogt have been doing.
In other words, yes we need insight, but I prefer it through introspective networks. The network should be able to explain itself.
- wlievens 10y agoIs that Luc Steels you are referring to? I took a couple classes from him at uni a little over tem years ago. What is he doing lately that you refer to?
- MrQuincle 10y agoYes, definitely. I don't think there has been much progress in his work though. :-) I asked him a few months ago if he saw some promising inroads to embodied cognition, but it didn't seem like it. Still it's a part of AI that's neglected on the moment. PS: Of course there is research, just not mainstream. Der, Parisi, Tani, Bongard, Prokopenko.
- sgt101 10y agoSome people, for example medics and civil engineers, are held legally liable for the decisions that they make. If they are to use machines that help them make those decisions (and mostly they would like to due to the terrible business of killing people) then they have to be able to understand what they are being told to do, or they have to trust it enough to bet their futures on it. If the machine is literally infallible then you can imagine option b being exercised, but being honest, if you were being threatened with five years of jail and you didn't understand why it was telling you to do something would you sign it off?
- dboreham 10y agoNote the same logic applies to a self-driving car.