3 ms·
> But I would agree that the actual high-level ability to make causal inferences seems to be lacking. That should be expected. Humans also lack the ability to
by darksaints 7y ago
> But I would agree that the actual high-level ability to make causal inferences seems to be lacking.
That should be expected. Humans also lack the ability to make causal inference. The vast majority of us have extremely primitive causal reasoning abilities and get even simple causality wrong. Reasoning about causality in complex systems still isn't a solved problem for humans, and we have entire fields within philosophy trying to make sense of the hundreds of paradoxes within causal reasoning. It's not a solved problem, and it's not clear that it ever will be.
- lowracle 7y agoI am glad to read this, because it really sounds weird to me that so much people blame AI for not being able to do causal reasoning, while us human don't even do in my sense "strict" causal reasoning. I feel like we just learned a small subset of causal rules just like AI algorithms, by having experienced a lot of events that followed those rules.
- Akababa 7y agoI don't quite understand why our ability to teach machines causal reasoning should hinge on the lowest common denominator of human ability. If I interpreted your point correctly, then calculators are an obvious counterexample, and a table of common human arithmetic mistakes doesn't have any bearing on our ability to program calculators. In terms of causal reasoning for computers, it's more of a "common sense" problem than a reasoning one. In nice, closed systems we can do symbolic computation and automated theorem proving without mistakes. The only reason this doesn't work in the real world is the lack of axioms and consistency.