5 ms·

Humans are notoriously good at coming up with bullshit explanations for both random/statistical & deterministic phenomena. Why do we want AI to do the same? "Tr

Humans are notoriously good at coming up with bullshit explanations for both random/statistical & deterministic phenomena. Why do we want AI to do the same? "Trust"? Please. I work in finance (investment strategy; ensemble trading models) and I trust my algorithms more than I'd trust 99% of the portfolio managers out there. And these PMs are incredibly capable at coming up with bullshit explanations for market moves on short notice.

esquire_900 7y ago
You are right. In that sense, the AI that puts out the best bullshit will eventually "win", as in general with humanity. Your perspective (and most readers here) is very different then those of the general population though. The creator of an AI has a deep understanding of how it came to live (even if it does not fully grasp the current learned decision making). But for the average Joe, it's impossible to correctly decide to trust an AI or not. So even though you're completely right, it's the direction we'll go in anyway. Either humans or other AI's vouch for an algorithm, and 99% of the population will just go with it. It's crap stacked on other crap, and some entities in the right place hugely abuse their position, but it's the only way.
hos234 7y ago
> Humans are notoriously good at coming up with bullshit explanations This is true, but bullshit stories have benefit not just to one side but both sides of the relationship more often than not, which is why evolution hasn't got ride of lying - its not a bug its a feature (for certain class of problems)- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-hoax-false-fibs-science/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-ho...
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Uh, could you point out what part of that article you think supports your claim that "bullshit stories have benefit not just to one side but both sides of the relationship more often than not"? I just read it and didn't see anything that indicated that. In the past few years I've worked pretty hard on building habits of honesty. Not from an ethical perspective--I'm an atheist and don't see any inherent reason to follow any prescriptive ideology--but from a self-benefit perspective. Cooperation is highly beneficial, moreso perhaps than at any time in history, and honesty allows a deeper level of cooperation with my peers. It's surprisingly difficult, as someone who viewed themselves initially as an already-honest person, but it yields major benefits. In the long term, I'm not even convinced that lying benefits the liar, let alone the person being lied to.
  - blackflame 7y ago
    Warning: Do not try this advice when your wife asks if the pants make her butt look fat. The benefits of lying have been proven over and over again in this scenario.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      That's simply not true in my experience. I suspect you haven't actually tried what you're saying over any significant period of time to make the claim you're making. You're lying to avoid a conflict which is simply not that large in the grand scheme of a lifelong relationship. If I think pants make her butt look fat, that's not necessarily even a problem: it doesn't mean I'm not attracted to her in those pants, or that you even need to be attracted to her in any specific pants, or that she should even base her clothing choices on your opinions. And in a more general sense, why is she asking questions she doesn't want an answer to? If your relationship can't handle communicating honestly about very minor things like this, you're totally screwed when it comes to real issues, like the changing nature of attraction as you age, or asking for what you need to feel fulfilled in a relationship, or concern for the person's health at their weight. If you can't communicate in a really insignificant situation like this, how are you going to communicate when there's anything of actual significance? Honesty with kindness is a skill, and it's certainly not trivial, but lying isn't the kinder option, even in this case. Coming at it from the other side of things: when someone lies to me to spare my feelings, there's a lot of times where I know they're lying, and that means I can't trust them to give me honest feedback when I really don't know. If I can't trust someone to tell me something negative, then I can't trust them when they tell me something positive either.
    - ysavir 7y ago
      It was probably lying that got you in this situation in the first place.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        True. I'm honest much earlier in relationships about much more significant things, so it's highly unlikely that I'll end up married to someone who couldn't handle honest in this situation.
- _0ffh 7y ago
  I'd like to point out that these "bullshit stories" are not necessarily lies. They could just be the post hoc rationalisation of hunches.
im3w1l 7y ago
This is a perspective I have not heard before. Iiuc, you are saying that there is a risk that the AI will come up with plausibly deniable things and just give us the rationalizations.
- Kalium 7y ago
  There are two ideas here, I think. First is that humans aren't actually very good at plausible explanations of decisions or causes. We're very good at providing acceptable justifications after the fact. So good at it, that when combined with the deep-seated human need for the world to have order, that people readily confuse the two. Second, it may not be desirable to have AI that replicates this. Teaching a machine to give us post-hoc justifications the way we do to one another may not be as helpful as it sounds.
grabbalacious 7y ago
One of the issues is that humans don't reason what the current situation is prior to emotional response and action. Rather their emotions about the situation are inputs into the reasoning process. e.g. The fear elicited upon perceiving a particular person causes the conclusion that he is dangerous, not vice versa. The multifarious causes of emotions are notoriously difficult to trace, and can indeed be somewhat noisy. Thus most people are effectively just rationalising when asked why they behaved as they did.

esquire_900 7y ago

You are right. In that sense, the AI that puts out the best bullshit will eventually "win", as in general with humanity. Your perspective (and most readers here) is very different then those of the general population though. The creator of an AI has a deep understanding of how it came to live (even if it does not fully grasp the current learned decision making). But for the average Joe, it's impossible to correctly decide to trust an AI or not. So even though you're completely right, it's the direction we'll go in anyway. Either humans or other AI's vouch for an algorithm, and 99% of the population will just go with it. It's crap stacked on other crap, and some entities in the right place hugely abuse their position, but it's the only way.

hos234 7y ago

> Humans are notoriously good at coming up with bullshit explanations This is true, but bullshit stories have benefit not just to one side but both sides of the relationship more often than not, which is why evolution hasn't got ride of lying - its not a bug its a feature (for certain class of problems)- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-hoax-false-fibs-science/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-ho...

kerkeslager 7y ago
Uh, could you point out what part of that article you think supports your claim that "bullshit stories have benefit not just to one side but both sides of the relationship more often than not"? I just read it and didn't see anything that indicated that. In the past few years I've worked pretty hard on building habits of honesty. Not from an ethical perspective--I'm an atheist and don't see any inherent reason to follow any prescriptive ideology--but from a self-benefit perspective. Cooperation is highly beneficial, moreso perhaps than at any time in history, and honesty allows a deeper level of cooperation with my peers. It's surprisingly difficult, as someone who viewed themselves initially as an already-honest person, but it yields major benefits. In the long term, I'm not even convinced that lying benefits the liar, let alone the person being lied to.
- blackflame 7y ago
  Warning: Do not try this advice when your wife asks if the pants make her butt look fat. The benefits of lying have been proven over and over again in this scenario.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    That's simply not true in my experience. I suspect you haven't actually tried what you're saying over any significant period of time to make the claim you're making. You're lying to avoid a conflict which is simply not that large in the grand scheme of a lifelong relationship. If I think pants make her butt look fat, that's not necessarily even a problem: it doesn't mean I'm not attracted to her in those pants, or that you even need to be attracted to her in any specific pants, or that she should even base her clothing choices on your opinions. And in a more general sense, why is she asking questions she doesn't want an answer to? If your relationship can't handle communicating honestly about very minor things like this, you're totally screwed when it comes to real issues, like the changing nature of attraction as you age, or asking for what you need to feel fulfilled in a relationship, or concern for the person's health at their weight. If you can't communicate in a really insignificant situation like this, how are you going to communicate when there's anything of actual significance? Honesty with kindness is a skill, and it's certainly not trivial, but lying isn't the kinder option, even in this case. Coming at it from the other side of things: when someone lies to me to spare my feelings, there's a lot of times where I know they're lying, and that means I can't trust them to give me honest feedback when I really don't know. If I can't trust someone to tell me something negative, then I can't trust them when they tell me something positive either.
  - ysavir 7y ago
    It was probably lying that got you in this situation in the first place.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      True. I'm honest much earlier in relationships about much more significant things, so it's highly unlikely that I'll end up married to someone who couldn't handle honest in this situation.
_0ffh 7y ago
I'd like to point out that these "bullshit stories" are not necessarily lies. They could just be the post hoc rationalisation of hunches.

im3w1l 7y ago

This is a perspective I have not heard before. Iiuc, you are saying that there is a risk that the AI will come up with plausibly deniable things and just give us the rationalizations.

Kalium 7y ago
There are two ideas here, I think. First is that humans aren't actually very good at plausible explanations of decisions or causes. We're very good at providing acceptable justifications after the fact. So good at it, that when combined with the deep-seated human need for the world to have order, that people readily confuse the two. Second, it may not be desirable to have AI that replicates this. Teaching a machine to give us post-hoc justifications the way we do to one another may not be as helpful as it sounds.

grabbalacious 7y ago

One of the issues is that humans don't reason what the current situation is prior to emotional response and action. Rather their emotions about the situation are inputs into the reasoning process. e.g. The fear elicited upon perceiving a particular person causes the conclusion that he is dangerous, not vice versa. The multifarious causes of emotions are notoriously difficult to trace, and can indeed be somewhat noisy. Thus most people are effectively just rationalising when asked why they behaved as they did.