3 ms·

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

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.

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.