4 ms·

"...if we want computers to do the things brains can do..." That's my point though. I don't want computers to do what my brain does, mainly because I have no i

"...if we want computers to do the things brains can do..." That's my point though. I don't want computers to do what my brain does, mainly because I have no idea what my brain does, nor does anyone. Sure, some people think we do, but we don't. It also seems silly to try to engineer something that we know may fail (by design), on the probability that it may haphazardly produce better results (even if this is most of the time). That may be useful for things like search results, where the outcome is not critically important. Please excuse the example, but I would be happier passing away in an aircraft accident knowing it was because although the system was designed not to fail, we did our best in terms of understanding the systems in place. That would be my definition of "sh&t happens". If I passed away because the aircraft "AI" took an untested path of execution (there are too many to verify, unlike most regular "dumb" software), I would be less happy. Maybe there is a balance, Eg verifiable software for the important stuff, AI fluffery for the less so. But in that case, we should not get carried away (eg. self driving cars). Remember, planes could fly themselves completely for a long time, and we still have 2 pilots for a reason. Computers are a human's tool, not replacement.

modeless 8y ago
> I don't want computers to do what my brain does OK, that's a valid position to take, and I'm sure some people agree, but I and many other people do want computers to do what our brains do. And it is pretty likely to happen. > I would be happier passing away in an aircraft accident knowing it was [not AI] If I was in an aircraft accident caused by human pilot error while pilot AIs with 1/100 the error rate of humans were blocked from deployment because they don't meet your "zero errors" requirement, I would not be happy.
- laythea 8y ago
  "...I and many other people do want computers to do what our brains do" (emphasis, mine). I hear you, but my point is "what do our brains do?" In the case of driving, if the answer is "drive a car", then that is a bit like "brexit means brexit" :) The definition of the thing is the outcome of the thing. Instead, if you try to can decompose the question into a more useful form, one that can drive a specification of software, then progress can be made. However, all that has done, in that case, is a description of the outcome, not the process. (And incomplete, due to the complexity). It is at this point where my problem with all this AI stuff starts :) The lack of understanding of the process, rather than the outcome is why I call it voodoo, and anyone talking different is trying to impress, in my opinion.
  - Jarwain 8y ago
    Generally our brain is composed of a bunch of different subsystems and networks that accomplish varying tasks or objectives, and communicate the results with each other. There's a lot of data sharing going on, as well as reinforcement of known successes thanks to one subsystem known as the reward center. While we don't understand how our brain works to the bits and bytes, our knowledge and understanding of how our brain functions is Growing. A fuller understanding of how our neurotransmitters work on a chemical/biological level, and an effective way to model it, will likely result in interesting advances in the field of AI I chat with my neuroscience friend a lot, and the overlap I see between how he describes how the brain works, and general computer science concepts is surprising.
- nradov 8y ago
  How many passengers died in the USA last year on Part 121 flights due to aircraft accidents caused by human pilot error? When do we expect to develop pilot AIs with 1/100 the error rate of humans? How will those pilot AIs cope with unexpected environment conditions or mechanical failures which aren't programmed in advance?
  - modeless 8y ago
    Obviously this is a hypothetical example and I cannot predict the future. If you want to talk seriously then take self-driving cars, where humans kill over a million people per year and we are very likely to have AIs that would kill less than that, but still a nonzero amount, within 20 years. In my view it would be unethical to stop the deployment of such AIs on the grounds that we don't "understand" them well enough or can't predict their behavior in every hypothetical circumstance, because we can still test them well enough to know with statistical certainty that they will save many, many lives.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Let's first see a prototype of such an AI for level 4+ autonomous driving on the majority of roads worldwide. Then we can quantify the potential benefits and have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of deployment. Until then it's premature and pointless since we don't know what the actual parameters will be. Estimates about availability have consistently been overly optimistic. This may be a case where the first 99% of the work takes 99% of the effort, and the last 1% takes the other 99% of the effort.

modeless 8y ago

> I don't want computers to do what my brain does OK, that's a valid position to take, and I'm sure some people agree, but I and many other people do want computers to do what our brains do. And it is pretty likely to happen. > I would be happier passing away in an aircraft accident knowing it was [not AI] If I was in an aircraft accident caused by human pilot error while pilot AIs with 1/100 the error rate of humans were blocked from deployment because they don't meet your "zero errors" requirement, I would not be happy.

laythea 8y ago
"...I and many other people do want computers to do what our brains do" (emphasis, mine). I hear you, but my point is "what do our brains do?" In the case of driving, if the answer is "drive a car", then that is a bit like "brexit means brexit" :) The definition of the thing is the outcome of the thing. Instead, if you try to can decompose the question into a more useful form, one that can drive a specification of software, then progress can be made. However, all that has done, in that case, is a description of the outcome, not the process. (And incomplete, due to the complexity). It is at this point where my problem with all this AI stuff starts :) The lack of understanding of the process, rather than the outcome is why I call it voodoo, and anyone talking different is trying to impress, in my opinion.
- Jarwain 8y ago
  Generally our brain is composed of a bunch of different subsystems and networks that accomplish varying tasks or objectives, and communicate the results with each other. There's a lot of data sharing going on, as well as reinforcement of known successes thanks to one subsystem known as the reward center. While we don't understand how our brain works to the bits and bytes, our knowledge and understanding of how our brain functions is Growing. A fuller understanding of how our neurotransmitters work on a chemical/biological level, and an effective way to model it, will likely result in interesting advances in the field of AI I chat with my neuroscience friend a lot, and the overlap I see between how he describes how the brain works, and general computer science concepts is surprising.
nradov 8y ago
How many passengers died in the USA last year on Part 121 flights due to aircraft accidents caused by human pilot error? When do we expect to develop pilot AIs with 1/100 the error rate of humans? How will those pilot AIs cope with unexpected environment conditions or mechanical failures which aren't programmed in advance?
- modeless 8y ago
  Obviously this is a hypothetical example and I cannot predict the future. If you want to talk seriously then take self-driving cars, where humans kill over a million people per year and we are very likely to have AIs that would kill less than that, but still a nonzero amount, within 20 years. In my view it would be unethical to stop the deployment of such AIs on the grounds that we don't "understand" them well enough or can't predict their behavior in every hypothetical circumstance, because we can still test them well enough to know with statistical certainty that they will save many, many lives.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Let's first see a prototype of such an AI for level 4+ autonomous driving on the majority of roads worldwide. Then we can quantify the potential benefits and have a meaningful discussion about the ethics of deployment. Until then it's premature and pointless since we don't know what the actual parameters will be. Estimates about availability have consistently been overly optimistic. This may be a case where the first 99% of the work takes 99% of the effort, and the last 1% takes the other 99% of the effort.