4 ms·

“Can answer” is doing a lot of work, too. I can write you a program that “can answer“ any question you throw at it. I can assure you the answer won’t be correct

by lumb63 4y ago

“Can answer” is doing a lot of work, too. I can write you a program that “can answer“ any question you throw at it. I can assure you the answer won’t be correct in most cases. This is a hyperbole for ChatGPT, but my point is that designing a system that can answer correctly, rather than can answer, is a far more worthwhile effort than retooling humans to be lie detectors, IMO. We can see from how hard it is to find consensus on trivial topics (are eggs good for you?) amongst experts who study these matters day after day. And the public, who does not, is left confused. A great deal of the problems we face are too complex for the human mind to be able to decide which of several reasonable-sounding options is correct. This is especially true when there is no rationalization for answers given. Look at our media system. How many people on both sides are stuck in “other side bad” simply because the talking heads on television networks tell them that, or someone on the internet wrote something. A lot of the content that drives them to conclusions isn’t even true. We are very poorly equipped to be vetting answers from a fallible machine. Maybe I’m too old school, but I’d rather we learn how to solve the more complex problems so that we can do it and understand it rather than take guesses at which of a number of generated options is correct.

carapace 4y ago
> designing a system that can answer correctly I think the solution is obvious: connect the computers to empirical feedback devices and make them scientists. Humans hallucinate too if they spend too much time in a sensory deprivation tank. Give the computers sensory inputs and they will naturally become scientists. > find consensus on trivial topics (are eggs good for you?) amongst experts who study these matters day after day Leaving aside the question of how reliable current soft science really are, this is exactly the problem that these machines can help with, once they have the data. Consider the modified form of the question: Are eggs good for me? At this stage in my life? At this time of day? Given what I ate for dinner last night? And millions of intricate details about my medical history, and my family, and DNA, and "exposome", etc. (I worked very briefly for a medical sensing startup, our chief Doctor would wax lyrical about the possibilities for personalized medicine and nutrition-- once we have the data.) > the public, who does not [study these matters], is left confused To some extent, being able to do things without understanding how they are carried out "under the hood" is a measure of the advancement of civilization, eh? (But please don't mistake me as arguing in favor of ignorance!) > when there is no rationalization for answers given. We can ask the computers to show their reasoning (soon, if not now), we can ask them to summarize the current state of knowledge, including the grey areas and disputes, eh? > How many people ... are stuck ... I think it's clear that these machines will rapidly become perfect salesmen and perfect therapists. It's less clear to me what we will do with that. > We are very poorly equipped to be vetting answers from a fallible machine. I don't think the machines will be fallible once we connect them to sensory systems, but I do think that lots of people will try to do silly "Dr. Evil" things like try to mass-program their subjects/citizens. And I think lots of people will let them raise their children, that will probably have mixed results. > I’d rather we learn how to solve the more complex problems so that we can do it and understand it rather than take guesses at which of a number of generated options is correct. Selecting from the options the computer generates is the only complex problem left, see "Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework" SRI Summary Report AFOSR-3223 by Douglas C. Engelbart, October 1962 https://dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html https://dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html

by lumb63 4y ago

carapace 4y ago

> designing a system that can answer correctly I think the solution is obvious: connect the computers to empirical feedback devices and make them scientists. Humans hallucinate too if they spend too much time in a sensory deprivation tank. Give the computers sensory inputs and they will naturally become scientists. > find consensus on trivial topics (are eggs good for you?) amongst experts who study these matters day after day Leaving aside the question of how reliable current soft science really are, this is exactly the problem that these machines can help with, once they have the data. Consider the modified form of the question: Are eggs good for me? At this stage in my life? At this time of day? Given what I ate for dinner last night? And millions of intricate details about my medical history, and my family, and DNA, and "exposome", etc. (I worked very briefly for a medical sensing startup, our chief Doctor would wax lyrical about the possibilities for personalized medicine and nutrition-- once we have the data.) > the public, who does not [study these matters], is left confused To some extent, being able to do things without understanding how they are carried out "under the hood" is a measure of the advancement of civilization, eh? (But please don't mistake me as arguing in favor of ignorance!) > when there is no rationalization for answers given. We can ask the computers to show their reasoning (soon, if not now), we can ask them to summarize the current state of knowledge, including the grey areas and disputes, eh? > How many people ... are stuck ... I think it's clear that these machines will rapidly become perfect salesmen and perfect therapists. It's less clear to me what we will do with that. > We are very poorly equipped to be vetting answers from a fallible machine. I don't think the machines will be fallible once we connect them to sensory systems, but I do think that lots of people will try to do silly "Dr. Evil" things like try to mass-program their subjects/citizens. And I think lots of people will let them raise their children, that will probably have mixed results. > I’d rather we learn how to solve the more complex problems so that we can do it and understand it rather than take guesses at which of a number of generated options is correct. Selecting from the options the computer generates is the only complex problem left, see "Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework" SRI Summary Report AFOSR-3223 by Douglas C. Engelbart, October 1962 https://dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html https://dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html