7 ms·

what if the AI is smarter than humans? even if narrowly, only within the sw dev domain?

by inter_netuser 5y ago

moltar 5y ago
I think same logic applies. AI is developed by humans to be better than a human. But how can you test it?
- manojlds 5y ago
  By having known activities that humans have done and asking it to repeat them?
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    Let us say we have 1000 activities humans have done, the AI does them all correctly and of course in seconds instead of days. You then conclude that the AI is better than the humans - but you cannot prove that there is not some slight change in inputs that humans would consider inessential that would cause the AI to fail at a particular batch of tasks.
    - strbean 5y ago
      Is there any point to such speculation? Just as much as that is true, so too could the AI succeed in similar scenarios where humans would fail. The same question could be asked about two humans being contrasted against each other, and just as fruitlessly.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170410-how-to-fool-artificial-intelligence https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170410-how-to-fool-arti... AI and humans fail in different ways.
        ithkuil 5y ago
        Our own psychology and moral intuition will cause us to attribute a higher responsibility to the AI failures even of we can prove numerically that humans would have done more harm in average; all it takes is a few cases where a human would/could have saved the day
        ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        We understand human failure and how to guard against it - we dont let drunk people drive, we require multiple authorisations to move a billion dollar or launch nukes, etc. We don't understand AI failure, so it can cause collosal damage at the worst possible time
        catlifeonmars 5y ago
        And yet, drunk people drive and kill themselves and other people every day. We may understand human failure, but we’re still really bad at mitigating it.
        ithkuil 5y ago
        Here is where our moral instincts make the difference. When mitigation fails we fallback on taking solace in a mechanism that plays a role in the mitigation aspect but its psychological effect takes a life of its own: punishment. When a human makes a fatal mistake it bears the responsibility of that mistake and we have protocols to put in place to deal with that (including having somebody to blame and direct our anger against). When a machine does a mistake it becomes much much unclear against whom direct our anger. The engineers who built it? The corporation that profited from it and could have invested more?
    - luckylion 5y ago
      You can also not prove that a human would consider that change the same way another human would. An AI doesn't have to be better than a focused human with lots of experience, great education, at peak health, with a good night of sleep and no distractions. It just has to be better than the average human to be useful, and that's a very, very different scenario.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        >You can also not prove that a human would consider that change the same way another human would. actually by the condition of my predicate I can - I postulated a 'slight change in inputs that humans would consider inessential' if a human considers it essential it is not a change that is allowed into our reasoning here. Now of course I said this because in the past, as noted by the article I linked in another response, AIs have failed because of changes in inputs that people discussing the matter thought inessential. So while the logic of my statement does not allow for humans considering the changes essential, the actual examples I was thinking of when I made my statement might very well have had changes that humans would consider essential. So perhaps we should consider the actual rather than the theoretical. What I cannot prove is whether or not there is any person anywhere that would consider these actual changes essential - I suspect that such a person does not exist but the inductive gap being what it is I might be wrong. Bayesian analysis was originally formulated as a way to bridge the inductive gap, although that is not the way it is generally used, still I wonder at this point what the chance is that some of the data variances that have led to differences in AI conclusions are variances that any human would find inessential.
      - satisfice 5y ago
        But you can never know, so no sensible person would ever trust such an AI. AI stands for "automated irresponsibility." Didn't you know that? Maybe AI's are really being created to serve a special class of gullible human who don't understand basic epistemology.
- tomerv 5y ago
  Eventually - when the field is mature enough - it might be tested like you would test any new hire. At first you keep a close eye on it/them, and eventually you trust them to do the job.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    You cannot tell how good is your lawyer untill its too late, or your bank, or the AI. It is also prone to sudden and unexpected failures, like tesla that was driving fine on the same road for 400 days and one day decided turns ito a barrier and kills the driver
    - inter_netuser 5y ago
      was that an actual tesla incident? links? interested to learn more about it, tia.
magpi3 5y ago
Defining the sw dev domain is a problem. Because I would argue that includes the social/human interaction domain as well.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  and why can't AI outperform here as well?
satisfice 5y ago
"What if...?" My answer is you could never know, because that is a testing problem, not an AI problem, and there is no test or set of tests that could settle this. We certainly can have AI that seems to claim it is smarter than humans. But we also have idiot humans who claim they are smarter than humans, too. So what? Anyone or anything can make any claim, however untrue. Imagine an AI that is smarter than most humans in terms of some technical ability but is stupider than most humans in terms of moral judgment. In other words, and automated sociopath. Please don't give automated sociopaths any power.

what if the AI is smarter than humans? even if narrowly, only within the sw dev domain?

moltar 5y ago

I think same logic applies. AI is developed by humans to be better than a human. But how can you test it?

manojlds 5y ago
By having known activities that humans have done and asking it to repeat them?
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  Let us say we have 1000 activities humans have done, the AI does them all correctly and of course in seconds instead of days. You then conclude that the AI is better than the humans - but you cannot prove that there is not some slight change in inputs that humans would consider inessential that would cause the AI to fail at a particular batch of tasks.
  - strbean 5y ago
    Is there any point to such speculation? Just as much as that is true, so too could the AI succeed in similar scenarios where humans would fail. The same question could be asked about two humans being contrasted against each other, and just as fruitlessly.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170410-how-to-fool-artificial-intelligence https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170410-how-to-fool-arti... AI and humans fail in different ways.
      - ithkuil 5y ago
        Our own psychology and moral intuition will cause us to attribute a higher responsibility to the AI failures even of we can prove numerically that humans would have done more harm in average; all it takes is a few cases where a human would/could have saved the day
        ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        We understand human failure and how to guard against it - we dont let drunk people drive, we require multiple authorisations to move a billion dollar or launch nukes, etc. We don't understand AI failure, so it can cause collosal damage at the worst possible time
        catlifeonmars 5y ago
        And yet, drunk people drive and kill themselves and other people every day. We may understand human failure, but we’re still really bad at mitigating it.
        ithkuil 5y ago
        Here is where our moral instincts make the difference. When mitigation fails we fallback on taking solace in a mechanism that plays a role in the mitigation aspect but its psychological effect takes a life of its own: punishment. When a human makes a fatal mistake it bears the responsibility of that mistake and we have protocols to put in place to deal with that (including having somebody to blame and direct our anger against). When a machine does a mistake it becomes much much unclear against whom direct our anger. The engineers who built it? The corporation that profited from it and could have invested more?
  - luckylion 5y ago
    You can also not prove that a human would consider that change the same way another human would. An AI doesn't have to be better than a focused human with lots of experience, great education, at peak health, with a good night of sleep and no distractions. It just has to be better than the average human to be useful, and that's a very, very different scenario.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      >You can also not prove that a human would consider that change the same way another human would. actually by the condition of my predicate I can - I postulated a 'slight change in inputs that humans would consider inessential' if a human considers it essential it is not a change that is allowed into our reasoning here. Now of course I said this because in the past, as noted by the article I linked in another response, AIs have failed because of changes in inputs that people discussing the matter thought inessential. So while the logic of my statement does not allow for humans considering the changes essential, the actual examples I was thinking of when I made my statement might very well have had changes that humans would consider essential. So perhaps we should consider the actual rather than the theoretical. What I cannot prove is whether or not there is any person anywhere that would consider these actual changes essential - I suspect that such a person does not exist but the inductive gap being what it is I might be wrong. Bayesian analysis was originally formulated as a way to bridge the inductive gap, although that is not the way it is generally used, still I wonder at this point what the chance is that some of the data variances that have led to differences in AI conclusions are variances that any human would find inessential.
    - satisfice 5y ago
      But you can never know, so no sensible person would ever trust such an AI. AI stands for "automated irresponsibility." Didn't you know that? Maybe AI's are really being created to serve a special class of gullible human who don't understand basic epistemology.
tomerv 5y ago
Eventually - when the field is mature enough - it might be tested like you would test any new hire. At first you keep a close eye on it/them, and eventually you trust them to do the job.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  You cannot tell how good is your lawyer untill its too late, or your bank, or the AI. It is also prone to sudden and unexpected failures, like tesla that was driving fine on the same road for 400 days and one day decided turns ito a barrier and kills the driver
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    was that an actual tesla incident? links? interested to learn more about it, tia.

magpi3 5y ago

Defining the sw dev domain is a problem. Because I would argue that includes the social/human interaction domain as well.

inter_netuser 5y ago
and why can't AI outperform here as well?

satisfice 5y ago

"What if...?" My answer is you could never know, because that is a testing problem, not an AI problem, and there is no test or set of tests that could settle this. We certainly can have AI that seems to claim it is smarter than humans. But we also have idiot humans who claim they are smarter than humans, too. So what? Anyone or anything can make any claim, however untrue. Imagine an AI that is smarter than most humans in terms of some technical ability but is stupider than most humans in terms of moral judgment. In other words, and automated sociopath. Please don't give automated sociopaths any power.