4 ms·
This seems like a restatement of the argument that if we just code enough 'if..then..else' statements, we'd get a well-behaved general AI. That approach hasn't
by hnick 5y ago
This seems like a restatement of the argument that if we just code enough 'if..then..else' statements, we'd get a well-behaved general AI.
That approach hasn't worked, and complicating rules and procedures to cover all edge cases will fall short too. That's why judges are still humans. The list of edge cases, the number of factors that can go into a decision, is correlated to the number of things possible in reality. It's basically unbounded.
If I've misunderstood and you are arguing instead for a clear and minimal set of rules to flag and trigger a human review, that sounds sensible to me. In my experience though when companies find an exception they update the policy, and before you know it it becomes a tangled mess.
- kjhughes 5y agoSuch a hybrid, automanual system is certainly viable, and your analogy to laws being rules and judges being interpreters is reasonable. In that context, consider that a single law, "do the right thing," might require too many judges and might produce too inconsistent of outcomes to work well. "The right thing" may have to be better defined. Similarly for company policy, it is not the automation used to express bad, ill-defined, or secretive policy that's the problem. The problem is the policy itself.