4 ms·
There isn't even agreement on the existence of free will. For non-trivial decisions, let's say some judge's deliberation, to claim it is fully explainable is a
by RandomLensman 3y ago
There isn't even agreement on the existence of free will. For non-trivial decisions, let's say some judge's deliberation, to claim it is fully explainable is a stretch.
- ryanklee 3y agoI didn't say it was fully explainable. And you don't need to settle debates about free will to offer valid causal explanations for human behaviors. Are you saying we don't know at all why anyone does anything they ever do? That every action is totally unpredictable and after the fact that there is no way for us to offer more or less plausible explanations?
- RandomLensman 3y agoWe are getting off track in our discussion. For non-trivial decisions we know we can have ex-post justifications from humans but at the same time we know that those aren't necessarily complete or even true at times: A credit officer not liking someone will have a justification for refusal that does not include that and we might never know - from the outside - the true explanation and that credit officer might not even know their biases themselves! AI being explainable is just going beyond what we demand of humans (we demand a justification, not a real explanation). Also, predictability isn't the same as understanding the full decision process.
- ryanklee 3y agoI don't think we're off track at all. You made the claim that human cognition is a black box. That's not true. We have valid causal explanations for human cognition /and/ human behavior. Just because we don't have explanations at every level of abstraction does not prevent us from having them at some levels of abstraction. We very well may find ourselves in the same situation with regard to AI. It's not going beyond, it would be achieving parity.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI disagree: for anything beyond basal stuff, we have hypotheses for causal explanations of human cognition, not full theories. For example, we cannot explain the mental process how someone came up with a new chess move and check the validity in that case. We can have some ideas how it might happen and that person might also have some ideas how, but then we back to hypotheses.
- ryanklee 3y agoOnce again, you are raising the bar artificially high by pointing to examples where we fail to have reasonable casual accounts. But you are conveniently ignoring the mountain of reasonable accounts that we employ all day long simply to navigate our human world.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI think this is confusing a certain predictability with having a correct explanation (again, we are beyond basal things like being hungry leading to eating). Those two things are not the same.
- troupo 3y agoAll this is demagoguery. If a bank denies you credit, it has to explain why. Not "AI told us so". If police arrests you, they have to explain why, not "AI told us so". If your job fires you, it has to explain why, not "AI told us so". etc.