6 ms·

For the most part, approximating symbolic AI with LLMs is way more powerful than approximating LLMs with symbolic AI. There may be more power still in keeping t

For the most part, approximating symbolic AI with LLMs is way more powerful than approximating LLMs with symbolic AI. There may be more power still in keeping the "logic" inside fuzzy weights instead of complicating things by merging two paradigms.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Until you want to be able to show exactly how and why your system arrived at a result... Completely depends on the thing you're trying to do, but if you're running an autonomous vehicle or a factory system or something similar, relying on mysterious weights and fuzziness to make critical decisions sounds like a disaster. But being able to point to a pile of Horn clauses that were vetted by PMs and legal, and a graph of every piece of knowledge that was used to make those decisions... that sounds valuable. Yes, I'm sure the stuff we call symbolic AI isn't great for making chat bots and assistants... But there are plenty of other senses of AI where a more deterministic and explicit approach makes sense? That's my admittedly naive take, anyways.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "but if you're running an autonomous vehicle or a factory system or something similar, relying on mysterious weights and fuzziness to make critical decisions sounds like a disaster." When your brain messes up and you have an accident, isn't that a pretty similar scenario? Sometimes people make misstakes - some more than others and we do tests to determine whether a human can do a job good enough by its results, without examining their brains. With autonomous cars it can be the same. Lots of tests - and if it safely can handle complex situations reliable - that would be good enough for me. (But I think we are currently pretty far from it)
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > When your brain messes up and you have an accident, isn't that a pretty similar scenario? When LLM's start going to jail for killing people then we can consider them equivalent. Until that happens, they must be held to a higher standard specifically because the incentives aren't there otherwise.
    - chii 3y ago
      It's an interesting discussion point for autonomous driving: we set the bar quite high for it, but accept really shitty human drivers without question. What could be changed to make autonomous driving more acceptable without improving the underlying tech, but improving the blame game in law and civil liability?
      - Exoristos 3y ago
        No, we have traffic laws.
        ben_w 3y ago
        AI cars are on par with average of all humans. AI cars are not considered good enough. Many humans who are worse drivers than the AI are still on the roads despite the traffic laws.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Many humans who are worse drivers than the AI are still on the roads despite the traffic laws." Instead of letting AI in alpha state on the streets, I rather vote for consequently removing the worse humans, by making regular tests for everyone mandatory. Not discriminate by age, but by skill. And AI can come, after we stop seeing all those fails of them on youtube.
        ben_w 3y ago
        Great. Now, care to guess why this isn't already the case?
        chii 3y ago
        It's hard to prove that they are a bad driver, since they did pass the existing driving test (at least once). The fact that they're a bad driver is only provable after they're in an accident from their own fault. And even then, it's only grievious fault that they get banned from driving (such as drunk driving). However, this standard is not applied to autonomous driving, since they can pass the human driving test and yet is not accepted as capable.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Until you want to be able to show exactly how and why your system arrived at a result... Completely depends on the thing you're trying to do, but if you're running an autonomous vehicle or a factory system or something similar, relying on mysterious weights and fuzziness to make critical decisions sounds like a disaster. But being able to point to a pile of Horn clauses that were vetted by PMs and legal, and a graph of every piece of knowledge that was used to make those decisions... that sounds valuable. Yes, I'm sure the stuff we call symbolic AI isn't great for making chat bots and assistants... But there are plenty of other senses of AI where a more deterministic and explicit approach makes sense? That's my admittedly naive take, anyways.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"but if you're running an autonomous vehicle or a factory system or something similar, relying on mysterious weights and fuzziness to make critical decisions sounds like a disaster." When your brain messes up and you have an accident, isn't that a pretty similar scenario? Sometimes people make misstakes - some more than others and we do tests to determine whether a human can do a job good enough by its results, without examining their brains. With autonomous cars it can be the same. Lots of tests - and if it safely can handle complex situations reliable - that would be good enough for me. (But I think we are currently pretty far from it)
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > When your brain messes up and you have an accident, isn't that a pretty similar scenario? When LLM's start going to jail for killing people then we can consider them equivalent. Until that happens, they must be held to a higher standard specifically because the incentives aren't there otherwise.
  - chii 3y ago
    It's an interesting discussion point for autonomous driving: we set the bar quite high for it, but accept really shitty human drivers without question. What could be changed to make autonomous driving more acceptable without improving the underlying tech, but improving the blame game in law and civil liability?
    - Exoristos 3y ago
      No, we have traffic laws.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        AI cars are on par with average of all humans. AI cars are not considered good enough. Many humans who are worse drivers than the AI are still on the roads despite the traffic laws.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Many humans who are worse drivers than the AI are still on the roads despite the traffic laws." Instead of letting AI in alpha state on the streets, I rather vote for consequently removing the worse humans, by making regular tests for everyone mandatory. Not discriminate by age, but by skill. And AI can come, after we stop seeing all those fails of them on youtube.
        ben_w 3y ago
        Great. Now, care to guess why this isn't already the case?
        chii 3y ago
        It's hard to prove that they are a bad driver, since they did pass the existing driving test (at least once). The fact that they're a bad driver is only provable after they're in an accident from their own fault. And even then, it's only grievious fault that they get banned from driving (such as drunk driving). However, this standard is not applied to autonomous driving, since they can pass the human driving test and yet is not accepted as capable.