3 ms·

(Note: Disregarding the possible negative outcomes of general AI on humanity for the sake of this comment) While I completely agree with you that we don't want

by alehul 7y ago

(Note: Disregarding the possible negative outcomes of general AI on humanity for the sake of this comment) While I completely agree with you that we don't want machines to make these human-like mistakes, wouldn't you agree that it would be ideal for a machine, when it makes mistakes, to do so in a human-like manner, rather than not? One thing that appears to separate humans from AI is that, even as an AI may increasingly become better on average than humans at problems, games, etc., an AI seems to always occasionally make some absolutely terrible decision that we can hardly even understand the rationale behind. This is a huge flaw. In the rare instance an AI makes a mistake, it's completely out of its mind (at least to our knowledge) and off-base. When a human makes a mistake, it's one that's closer to the mark. Is this not a valid reason to make AI more human-like in its mistakes, assuming it will have mistakes of some kind?

Datenstrom 7y ago
This is discussed in the introductory chapter of "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach"[1]. There are four schools of thought about building intelligent agents: 1. Thinking Rationally: Use logic 2. Thinking Humanly: Solve problems like humans would 3. Acting Rationally: Attempt to maximize performance 4. Acting Humanly: Turing test I agree with their conclusion that rational agents are what we should design. Humans after all try to be rational agents and we still fail to be rational a lot of the time. [1]: http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/ http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/
losteric 7y ago
> an AI seems to always occasionally make some absolutely terrible decision that we can hardly even understand the rationale behind. This is a huge flaw. In the rare instance an AI makes a mistake, it's completely out of its mind (at least to our knowledge) and off-base. Some of the game-playing bots have made moves which seem like garbage in the moment, only for a novel strategy to unfold in later moves. Is it possible to achieve the novelty without the true garbage? So I guess it depends on the work being automated. AI cars should not have novel strategies, "just" follow the rules, while a strategic battle AI working with a human might be better with out-of-the-box thinking (and transparency of reasoning for the human to check).

by alehul 7y ago

Datenstrom 7y ago

This is discussed in the introductory chapter of "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach"[1]. There are four schools of thought about building intelligent agents: 1. Thinking Rationally: Use logic 2. Thinking Humanly: Solve problems like humans would 3. Acting Rationally: Attempt to maximize performance 4. Acting Humanly: Turing test I agree with their conclusion that rational agents are what we should design. Humans after all try to be rational agents and we still fail to be rational a lot of the time. [1]: http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/ http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/

losteric 7y ago

> an AI seems to always occasionally make some absolutely terrible decision that we can hardly even understand the rationale behind. This is a huge flaw. In the rare instance an AI makes a mistake, it's completely out of its mind (at least to our knowledge) and off-base. Some of the game-playing bots have made moves which seem like garbage in the moment, only for a novel strategy to unfold in later moves. Is it possible to achieve the novelty without the true garbage? So I guess it depends on the work being automated. AI cars should not have novel strategies, "just" follow the rules, while a strategic battle AI working with a human might be better with out-of-the-box thinking (and transparency of reasoning for the human to check).