4 ms·
Machines don't learn. Living things learn. Machines don't understand. Living things understand. Machines 'do' algorithms. Living things 'do' use-cases. Algorit
by chrischapman 5y ago
Machines don't learn. Living things learn. Machines don't understand. Living things understand. Machines 'do' algorithms. Living things 'do' use-cases.
Algorithm Definition:
A sequence of actions that yields a result.
Use-case Definition:
A sequence of actions that yields a result of value to a user.
The difference between the two is 'of value to a user'. To me, the line between algorithm and use-case is the line between unconsciousness and consciousness. That line pivots around the ability to 'value' something. I doubt we will ever see the I in AI until we build something that can value a result in the same way that you and I do.
We need new words to describe what machines do. Using 'learn' or 'understand' seems like anthropomorphism. It's weird that we glibly anthropomorphise when talking about machines but prohibit it when talking about living things. Almost all of our qualities have been inherited from other living things. It seems to me that we should always anthropomorphise when talking about living things and never anthropomorphise when talking about machines. And yet, we always seem to do the opposite.
Until we can explain how a machine can 'value' something in the same sense that humans do (or chimps or ducks or caterpillars do), we should avoid anthropomorphic words like 'learn' and 'understand' as it misdirects our efforts. However, I have no idea what else to suggest other than to try to explain how a machine can 'value' something.
> IBM’s Watson was found to propose “multiple examples of unsafe and incorrect treatment recommendations.”
That won't stop until Watson has the ability to 'value' the result of what it is doing. Watson 'does' algorithms. Watson needs to 'do' use-cases. Once it can 'value' a result in the same way we do, it will correct its mistakes.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoSounds like a bunch of unsubstantiated claims? So if something does learn, then its a living thing? My AI can learn (see a pattern and repeat it); now its a living thing? Not sure what to do with that.
- chrischapman 5y agoYep. Totally unsubstantiated. Back of the envelope theory at best. > learn (see a pattern and repeat it) How did your AI 'see' and is 'see a pattern and repeat it' a good enough definition of 'learn'? Surely to 'learn' also means to 'understand'. What did your AI 'understand'? I doubt your AI actually learned anything. It attained zero knowledge in the way a living thing obtains knowledge. It may have stored a result in a database but did it actually understand anything? These are genuine questions as I have no professional knowledge of AI.
- md2020 5y agoThis just sounds like you defined “value” to mean “something only living things do and that machines don’t do”, and then said the reason machines can’t learn is because they can’t value. Seems like circular reasoning. I think if you’re putting humans, chimps, ducks, and caterpillars in the category “can value”, machines still belong on that axis. They’re far below caterpillar for now, but they’re there.
- chrischapman 5y agoThe ability to 'value a result' seems to me to be linked to consciousness. How do machines belong to that axis? Do you really think machines can value something in the same way you and I do? I would assume they can't (and may never). You could probably code an algorithm that simulates 'valuing a result', but I'm sceptical that the machine would actually value the result in the way you and I would. If it did, that would be astonishing as it would indicate (to me) that it's alive!