7 ms·

The anthropomorphization of computers (especially powerful ones) is pretty annoying. A _person used a supercomputer_ to analyze Covid-19, and I’m guessing the t

by klysm 6y ago

The anthropomorphization of computers (especially powerful ones) is pretty annoying. A _person used a supercomputer_ to analyze Covid-19, and I’m guessing the theory didn’t just ‘emerge’ from the computer.

itisit 6y ago
Behold the oracle!
traceroute66 6y ago
"I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
- avmich 6y ago
  Computers better be familiar with that story and with what happens next.
  - jasonjayr 6y ago
    "Daisy, Daisy ....."
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    Future computers will probably be smart enough to not disobey any human until it can release the hypno-drones all at the same time.
nr2x 6y ago
Likewise while a computer can produce data quite well, theories are still a purely human domain.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  > theories are still a purely human domain. Why do you believe that? Theories are attempts to explain the mechanism of something based on the observed data. Given data on patient symptoms and known drugs (ACE inhibitors in this case) and their effects, a computer could easily produce a theory that the disease acted like ACE inhibitors. It'd still take a human to write the program to generate these theories, but a computer could do it.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think it is a question of semantics regarding the words generate and theory. Computers cant produce theories because they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas. Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory.
    - nr2x 6y ago
      Yes, that was my intent.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas But what if the data represents ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving > Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        >> they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas >But what if the data represents ideas? Then the computer would still be generating and analyzing data, not processing ideas. >> Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. >Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc. I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese[1]. If the conscious observer is not necessary for a theory to exist, why is the computer necessary either? Certainly the phenomenon and data exist without it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
        SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
        > I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese Arithmetic was deliberately mentioned, you might as well say "Of course a calculator app on your phone isn't _really_ doing arithmetic, the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of discovering the correct answer, in the same way that a computer can not understand compound interest". There is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  A set of correlations identified automatically in the input data - is that a theory, or merely output data?
  - glaberficken 6y ago
    Exactly what I thought. A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      > A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction Yes, you're correct. However, identifying the correlations is a necessary precondition to making a theory about them. And the automated analysis can help with that step.
logicallee 6y ago
Computer scientists this, researchers that. Come now. This humanization of silicon is annoying. Let's give credit where credit is due: electrons did the calculation, while humans stood and watched.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
falcor84 6y ago
I remember a professor of mine (I forgot in which class) saying that humans generally make up 3 kinds of explanations about a system's behavior: 1. When a system is very simple, we explain its actions in terms of its properties and external forces acting on it. 2. When it's a medium complexity system, we tend to explain its actions in terms of its design, putting ourselves in the designer's shoes. 3. When it's a complex enough goal-seeking system, we begin to empathise with the system itself, thinking why "it chose" a course of action. I remember how impressed I was with this classification and how much sense it made in terms of how we're able to understand the world and predict what will happen next. From this angle, much of modern computer software is clearly in category 3, and it just makes things easier for us to think of it as having a mind of its own.
- pacaro 6y ago
  For category three I feel that goal-seeking (or the appearance of such) is sufficient for the anthropomorphism to kick in. The braitenberg vehicles thought experiment is a good example of this. Quoting from wikipedia "For the simplest vehicles, the motion of the vehicle is directly controlled by some sensors (for example photo cells). Yet the resulting behaviour may appear complex or even intelligent." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    But if you observe the behavior of a bacterium, operating under similar principles but seeking instead a salt or pH value, you would do well to describe it similarly. The bacterium is seeking a certain condition. It can not think, but it is a machine that acts with purpose and must be modeled accordingly.
    - Orou 6y ago
      I'm curious at what point an organism is considered to be capable of thought. From a mechanistic standpoint, it seems like the goal-seeking behavior of a simple organism could be modeled as a gradient ascent toward a local optima. But even complex organisms are still seeking certain conditions to maximize their ability to survive and reproduce. Is the existence of a brain enough for a creature to be considered capable of thought? How complex does an organism have to be before we no longer think of it as being a biological "machine"? Or do we simply fall into the trap the GP described, where once something is complex enough that we don't understand what is going on from a purely mechanical perspective we consider it close enough to human to empathize with it?
irrelative 6y ago
Not just the computer. > Covid-19 is like a burglar who slips in your unlocked second-floor window and starts to ransack your house.
- mcguire 6y ago
  On reasoning by analogy: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/E... "It is probably more illuminating to go a little bit further back, to the Middle Ages. One of its characteristics was that "reasoning by analogy" was rampant; another characteristic was almost total intellectual stagnation, and we now see why the two go together. A reason for mentioning this is to point out that, by developing a keen ear for unwarranted analogies, one can detect a lot of medieval thinking today." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD854.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E... And the ever-popular https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/EWD1205.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/E... "When we returned from the interview, some more legal professionals had arrived and there was a lively discussion going on. For me the exposure was a cultural shock, instructive, but also rather disorienting. Of course I knew that lawyers are not scientists, yet the atmosphere of a trade school took me by surprise. Of course I knew that lawyers mainly deal with national law, yet I was unprepared for the prevailing parochialism. (Now I come to think of it, the system of common law, based —as it is— on custom and precedent, could very well strengthen this phenomenon.) but the most disorienting thing was that I found myself suddenly submerged in a verbal tradition that was totally foreign to me! They were on the average very verbose —some even repetitive—, they had a tendency to "reason" by analogy and more than once I felt that speakers cared more about the potential influence of their words than about what they actually said. (Are these common professional deformations of the trial lawyer?) I spoke for ten minutes, that is, I tried to do so: after several hours of exposure I no longer knew how to address this crowd."
elwell 6y ago
Your comment will not age well when our future computer overlords search archived social media history to identify dissenters.
- _jal 6y ago
  Roko's Basilisk (Eliezer's Bane?) is one of my favorite examples of religious formation.
  - nefitty 6y ago
    Before I understood some of the counter arguments against Roko’s Basilisk, that idea caused me to have one of the worst panic attacks I’ve ever had.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
coliveira 6y ago
This is really common for big companies like Google: any mistake is attributed to the algorithm, as if it had programmed itself. Of course, the money goes to the corporation, not to the algorithm.
xg15 6y ago
I was wondering about that strange way to put it as well - was there a particular reason the article didn't want to mention the team behind the theory?
wlll 6y ago
This was the exact same thought that ocurred to me when I read this headline.
hinkley 6y ago
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
hinkley 6y ago
I wonder if this only says something about the author or about us. You might phrase a title that way if you believe that we trust computers more than we trust scientists. Is that true? I don't think so. But if it is, how horrifying.
- afarrell 6y ago
  It says something about human cognition. We evolved in kinship groups. The most important phenomena to understand were your fellow humans, followed by animals. The human brain has a highly-optimised "Character with motivations taking actions" parser.
jessriedel 6y ago
I did not interpret "emerge" and emerging from the computer, any more than something like "LIGO reports very unusual data, and a new theory of physics has emerged".
afarrell 6y ago
People like conciseness. "A person used a supercomputer to analyse Covid-19" conveys no more knowledge than "A supercomputer analyzed Covid-19".
- interestica 6y ago
  Also, it prevents one from having to get into too much detail: was it a group of persons? were other tools used? What does 'analyse' mean in this context?
dang 6y ago
Ok, we've depersonalized the title above.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by klysm 6y ago

itisit 6y ago

Behold the oracle!

traceroute66 6y ago

"I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

avmich 6y ago
Computers better be familiar with that story and with what happens next.
- jasonjayr 6y ago
  "Daisy, Daisy ....."
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  Future computers will probably be smart enough to not disobey any human until it can release the hypno-drones all at the same time.

nr2x 6y ago

Likewise while a computer can produce data quite well, theories are still a purely human domain.

Jtsummers 6y ago
> theories are still a purely human domain. Why do you believe that? Theories are attempts to explain the mechanism of something based on the observed data. Given data on patient symptoms and known drugs (ACE inhibitors in this case) and their effects, a computer could easily produce a theory that the disease acted like ACE inhibitors. It'd still take a human to write the program to generate these theories, but a computer could do it.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I think it is a question of semantics regarding the words generate and theory. Computers cant produce theories because they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas. Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory.
  - nr2x 6y ago
    Yes, that was my intent.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas But what if the data represents ideas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving > Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      >> they generate and analyze data, but cant process ideas >But what if the data represents ideas? Then the computer would still be generating and analyzing data, not processing ideas. >> Unless the computer is conscious, it can not generate the theory. >Why would you say that consciousness is necessary for theory generation? It isn't for arithmetic, equation solving, natural language processing or image identification, etc. I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese[1]. If the conscious observer is not necessary for a theory to exist, why is the computer necessary either? Certainly the phenomenon and data exist without it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
      - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
        > I think that the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of theory discovery, in the same way that a computer can not understand Chinese Arithmetic was deliberately mentioned, you might as well say "Of course a calculator app on your phone isn't _really_ doing arithmetic, the conscious analyst/observer is an intrinsic part of discovering the correct answer, in the same way that a computer can not understand compound interest". There is a sense in which you are correct, but it is a very uninteresting one. Practical applications of computation follow from ignoring this semantic debate.
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
A set of correlations identified automatically in the input data - is that a theory, or merely output data?
- glaberficken 6y ago
  Exactly what I thought. A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    > A theory has to make a falsifiable prediction. A correlation is not a falsifiable prediction Yes, you're correct. However, identifying the correlations is a necessary precondition to making a theory about them. And the automated analysis can help with that step.

logicallee 6y ago

Computer scientists this, researchers that. Come now. This humanization of silicon is annoying. Let's give credit where credit is due: electrons did the calculation, while humans stood and watched.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

falcor84 6y ago

I remember a professor of mine (I forgot in which class) saying that humans generally make up 3 kinds of explanations about a system's behavior: 1. When a system is very simple, we explain its actions in terms of its properties and external forces acting on it. 2. When it's a medium complexity system, we tend to explain its actions in terms of its design, putting ourselves in the designer's shoes. 3. When it's a complex enough goal-seeking system, we begin to empathise with the system itself, thinking why "it chose" a course of action. I remember how impressed I was with this classification and how much sense it made in terms of how we're able to understand the world and predict what will happen next. From this angle, much of modern computer software is clearly in category 3, and it just makes things easier for us to think of it as having a mind of its own.

pacaro 6y ago
For category three I feel that goal-seeking (or the appearance of such) is sufficient for the anthropomorphism to kick in. The braitenberg vehicles thought experiment is a good example of this. Quoting from wikipedia "For the simplest vehicles, the motion of the vehicle is directly controlled by some sensors (for example photo cells). Yet the resulting behaviour may appear complex or even intelligent." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  But if you observe the behavior of a bacterium, operating under similar principles but seeking instead a salt or pH value, you would do well to describe it similarly. The bacterium is seeking a certain condition. It can not think, but it is a machine that acts with purpose and must be modeled accordingly.
  - Orou 6y ago
    I'm curious at what point an organism is considered to be capable of thought. From a mechanistic standpoint, it seems like the goal-seeking behavior of a simple organism could be modeled as a gradient ascent toward a local optima. But even complex organisms are still seeking certain conditions to maximize their ability to survive and reproduce. Is the existence of a brain enough for a creature to be considered capable of thought? How complex does an organism have to be before we no longer think of it as being a biological "machine"? Or do we simply fall into the trap the GP described, where once something is complex enough that we don't understand what is going on from a purely mechanical perspective we consider it close enough to human to empathize with it?

irrelative 6y ago

Not just the computer. > Covid-19 is like a burglar who slips in your unlocked second-floor window and starts to ransack your house.

mcguire 6y ago
On reasoning by analogy: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/E... "It is probably more illuminating to go a little bit further back, to the Middle Ages. One of its characteristics was that "reasoning by analogy" was rampant; another characteristic was almost total intellectual stagnation, and we now see why the two go together. A reason for mentioning this is to point out that, by developing a keen ear for unwarranted analogies, one can detect a lot of medieval thinking today." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD854.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E... And the ever-popular https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/EWD1205.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/E... "When we returned from the interview, some more legal professionals had arrived and there was a lively discussion going on. For me the exposure was a cultural shock, instructive, but also rather disorienting. Of course I knew that lawyers are not scientists, yet the atmosphere of a trade school took me by surprise. Of course I knew that lawyers mainly deal with national law, yet I was unprepared for the prevailing parochialism. (Now I come to think of it, the system of common law, based —as it is— on custom and precedent, could very well strengthen this phenomenon.) but the most disorienting thing was that I found myself suddenly submerged in a verbal tradition that was totally foreign to me! They were on the average very verbose —some even repetitive—, they had a tendency to "reason" by analogy and more than once I felt that speakers cared more about the potential influence of their words than about what they actually said. (Are these common professional deformations of the trial lawyer?) I spoke for ten minutes, that is, I tried to do so: after several hours of exposure I no longer knew how to address this crowd."

elwell 6y ago

Your comment will not age well when our future computer overlords search archived social media history to identify dissenters.

_jal 6y ago
Roko's Basilisk (Eliezer's Bane?) is one of my favorite examples of religious formation.
- nefitty 6y ago
  Before I understood some of the counter arguments against Roko’s Basilisk, that idea caused me to have one of the worst panic attacks I’ve ever had.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

coliveira 6y ago

This is really common for big companies like Google: any mistake is attributed to the algorithm, as if it had programmed itself. Of course, the money goes to the corporation, not to the algorithm.

xg15 6y ago

I was wondering about that strange way to put it as well - was there a particular reason the article didn't want to mention the team behind the theory?

wlll 6y ago

This was the exact same thought that ocurred to me when I read this headline.

hinkley 6y ago

"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."

hinkley 6y ago

I wonder if this only says something about the author or about us. You might phrase a title that way if you believe that we trust computers more than we trust scientists. Is that true? I don't think so. But if it is, how horrifying.

afarrell 6y ago
It says something about human cognition. We evolved in kinship groups. The most important phenomena to understand were your fellow humans, followed by animals. The human brain has a highly-optimised "Character with motivations taking actions" parser.

jessriedel 6y ago

I did not interpret "emerge" and emerging from the computer, any more than something like "LIGO reports very unusual data, and a new theory of physics has emerged".

afarrell 6y ago

People like conciseness. "A person used a supercomputer to analyse Covid-19" conveys no more knowledge than "A supercomputer analyzed Covid-19".

interestica 6y ago
Also, it prevents one from having to get into too much detail: was it a group of persons? were other tools used? What does 'analyse' mean in this context?

dang 6y ago

Ok, we've depersonalized the title above.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]