25 ms·
I'm totally lost as to how any of that is relevant to anything I've said. The claim I am rebutting is that we can't expect to say anything about AI causality be
by ryanklee 3y ago
I'm totally lost as to how any of that is relevant to anything I've said. The claim I am rebutting is that we can't expect to say anything about AI causality because we can't even say anything about human causality.
- troupo 3y agoContext of the discussion matters. "When AI is used, its decisions must be explicable in human terms. No 'AI said so, so it's true'". Somehow the whole discussion is about how human mind cannot be explained either. Yea, the decisions made by the human mind can be explained in human terms for the vast majority of relevant cases.
- RandomLensman 3y agoBecause (1) it holds AI to higher standard than humans, (2) it means that even if AI makes better decisions (name your metric), we would deny the use if those decisions if we could not sufficiently explain them. I note, that with certain things we do not do that. For example, with certain pharmaceuticals we were and are quite happy to take the effect even if we do not fully understand how it works.
- ryanklee 3y agoI'm super confused at how we are disagreeing. Because I agree with all of that.
- RandomLensman 3y agoNice. Maybe we just talked past each other.
- troupo 3y ago> Because (1) it holds AI to higher standard than humans, It doesn't > it means that even if AI makes better decisions (name your metric), we would deny the use if those decisions if we could not sufficiently explain them. Ah yes, better decisions for racial profiling, social credit, housing permissions etc. Because we all know that AI will never be used for that. Again: 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. etc.
- RandomLensman 3y agoIf you claim AI will only be used for evil then sure.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- RandomLensman 3y agoI made no such claim. My claim is that it might not be useful to hold AI to a higher standard as humans. With humans we accept certain "whims" in decisions, which is the same as having some unexplainable bit in an AI decision. EDIT: it might not even be useful to insist on explainability if the results are better. We did not and do not do that in other areas.
- ryanklee 3y agoI noted this elsewhere, but I'll reiterate. I'm confused as to where our disagreement is, because all of that, I agree with. Did I misread your original claims? If so, my apologies for dragging us through the mud.
- RandomLensman 3y agoAll good, I think we managed to talk past each other somehow.
- ryanklee 3y agoNice, cheers.