4 ms·

> needs to have the required behavior programmed in explicitly This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly prog

by feoren 4y ago

> needs to have the required behavior programmed in explicitly This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation. Needing to pull over because a fire truck has told you it's coming your way in 2 minutes is pretty easy compared with some of those other "uncountably many" situations these cars need to deal with. > the autonomous machine does not understand the complex world it is driving in Daniel Dennett would like to have a word with you. It's perfectly possible for systems to "understand" things for any useful definition of the word "understand". A calculator absolutely "understands" arithmetic.

hgomersall 4y ago
Yeah, you generally have to hope it effectively interpolates between stuff it has been trained on in ways that make sense.
bowsamic 4y ago
Do driverless cars use ML in the decision making procedure? > A calculator absolutely "understands" arithmetic. That is absurd and obviously false
- feoren 4y ago
  > That is absurd and obviously false It is actually "obviously true" unless you believe that human brains have a special metaphysical magic that makes them "more than just a system". That's literally the only alternative: human brains are magic and only humans are ever capable of "understanding". It's a vacuous definition of the word. Systems can understand things, which is good, because the human brain is nothing more. See: Daniel Dennett's response to Searle's Chinese Room.
  - anyfoo 4y ago
    I did not claim it's about "metaphysical magic" that machines lack. But I do believe that humans usually have a very rich and multifaceted life outside of driving on a road, compared to cars, and are therefore able to integrate "training data" that cars are not. Unless your plan is to make them an active member of society.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    But doing arithmetic and understanding it are different things. The latter is some reflection on the concepts, but the former is just carrying it out. There are many humans that can do arithmetic but don’t understand it Also I do believe there is a metaphysical difference between a human and a calculator, literally magic
defen 4y ago
> This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation. So how do you know how the system will respond to an arbitrary situation? You could easily argue that we don't know how an arbitrary human will respond to an arbitrary situation, but we have systems in place to deal with the consequences if they handle it badly. For example, if a driver handles a situation badly enough, they could lose their license. If an autonomous car does something bad enough that a human would have lost their license, what happens? Do all of that company's cars get pulled off the road until the bug is fixed and validated?
- feoren 4y ago
  > So how do you know how the system will respond to an arbitrary situation? You put them in that situation and see how they respond. If they respond badly, you keep training them until they respond better. I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's exactly what autonomous-car developers been doing all this time.
  - defen 4y ago
    > If they respond badly, you keep training them until they respond better. Right, but what do you do with all the other cars on the road that presumably still have the bad behavior (while the fix is being developed)? Just assume that the situation is rare enough that you'll be able to fix it before it happens again?
  - dreamcompiler 4y ago
    You're basically saying test-driven development can find all problems with software, and it's well-known that that isn't the case. It's very dangerous to assume TDD is all that's needed when lives are at stake.
anyfoo 4y ago
> This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation. I suggest you look up the free lunch theorem of supervised learning. > A calculator absolutely "understands" arithmetic. I'm not sure how that's anything else than proving my point. Let's say a calculator "understands" arithmetic. It does not understand anything I would apply those calculations I make with it to. I cannot tell it "calculator, go do my taxes". Your particular example is not even true: A calculator is able to perform calculations, it does not understand any of the axioms, theorems, and uses around it.
- feoren 4y ago
  > A calculator is able to perform calculations, it does not understand any of the axioms, theorems, and uses around it. It understands the axioms because they've been literally built into its tiny brain. It doesn't understand the uses of arithmetic because nobody programmed it to. Can you provide me a non-vacuous definition of "understand" that doesn't rely on human consciousness being extra-special and magic?
  - anyfoo 4y ago
    > It understands the axioms because they've been literally built into its tiny brain. No they have not. Do you know what an axiom is? Do you know how a calculator is implemented? It’s not about metaphysics, it’s about the difference in the experience of a lifetime compared to a car on a road. „Training data“, if you like.
    - jstanley 4y ago
      I don't think it's a question of knowing what an axiom is or how a calculator is implemented. I think it's a question of disagreeing on what "understanding" means. What does it mean to understand something? Obviously (to me and I presume to you) a calculator doesn't understand anything! It doesn't have the capacity for understanding. Obviously (according to, I presume, feoren and Dennett) "understanding" means something very different, and a calculator is perfectly capable of "understanding" arithmetic.

by feoren 4y ago

hgomersall 4y ago

Yeah, you generally have to hope it effectively interpolates between stuff it has been trained on in ways that make sense.

bowsamic 4y ago

Do driverless cars use ML in the decision making procedure? > A calculator absolutely "understands" arithmetic. That is absurd and obviously false

feoren 4y ago
> That is absurd and obviously false It is actually "obviously true" unless you believe that human brains have a special metaphysical magic that makes them "more than just a system". That's literally the only alternative: human brains are magic and only humans are ever capable of "understanding". It's a vacuous definition of the word. Systems can understand things, which is good, because the human brain is nothing more. See: Daniel Dennett's response to Searle's Chinese Room.
- anyfoo 4y ago
  I did not claim it's about "metaphysical magic" that machines lack. But I do believe that humans usually have a very rich and multifaceted life outside of driving on a road, compared to cars, and are therefore able to integrate "training data" that cars are not. Unless your plan is to make them an active member of society.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  But doing arithmetic and understanding it are different things. The latter is some reflection on the concepts, but the former is just carrying it out. There are many humans that can do arithmetic but don’t understand it Also I do believe there is a metaphysical difference between a human and a calculator, literally magic

defen 4y ago

> This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation. So how do you know how the system will respond to an arbitrary situation? You could easily argue that we don't know how an arbitrary human will respond to an arbitrary situation, but we have systems in place to deal with the consequences if they handle it badly. For example, if a driver handles a situation badly enough, they could lose their license. If an autonomous car does something bad enough that a human would have lost their license, what happens? Do all of that company's cars get pulled off the road until the bug is fixed and validated?

feoren 4y ago
> So how do you know how the system will respond to an arbitrary situation? You put them in that situation and see how they respond. If they respond badly, you keep training them until they respond better. I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's exactly what autonomous-car developers been doing all this time.
- defen 4y ago
  > If they respond badly, you keep training them until they respond better. Right, but what do you do with all the other cars on the road that presumably still have the bad behavior (while the fix is being developed)? Just assume that the situation is rare enough that you'll be able to fix it before it happens again?
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  You're basically saying test-driven development can find all problems with software, and it's well-known that that isn't the case. It's very dangerous to assume TDD is all that's needed when lives are at stake.

anyfoo 4y ago

> This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation. I suggest you look up the free lunch theorem of supervised learning. > A calculator absolutely "understands" arithmetic. I'm not sure how that's anything else than proving my point. Let's say a calculator "understands" arithmetic. It does not understand anything I would apply those calculations I make with it to. I cannot tell it "calculator, go do my taxes". Your particular example is not even true: A calculator is able to perform calculations, it does not understand any of the axioms, theorems, and uses around it.

feoren 4y ago
> A calculator is able to perform calculations, it does not understand any of the axioms, theorems, and uses around it. It understands the axioms because they've been literally built into its tiny brain. It doesn't understand the uses of arithmetic because nobody programmed it to. Can you provide me a non-vacuous definition of "understand" that doesn't rely on human consciousness being extra-special and magic?
- anyfoo 4y ago
  > It understands the axioms because they've been literally built into its tiny brain. No they have not. Do you know what an axiom is? Do you know how a calculator is implemented? It’s not about metaphysics, it’s about the difference in the experience of a lifetime compared to a car on a road. „Training data“, if you like.
  - jstanley 4y ago
    I don't think it's a question of knowing what an axiom is or how a calculator is implemented. I think it's a question of disagreeing on what "understanding" means. What does it mean to understand something? Obviously (to me and I presume to you) a calculator doesn't understand anything! It doesn't have the capacity for understanding. Obviously (according to, I presume, feoren and Dennett) "understanding" means something very different, and a calculator is perfectly capable of "understanding" arithmetic.