4 ms·
But the human brain has limited working memory and experience. Even in software development we are often teetering at the edge of the mental power to grasp and
by visarga 2y ago
But the human brain has limited working memory and experience. Even in software development we are often teetering at the edge of the mental power to grasp and relate ideas. We have tried so much to manage complexity, but real world complexity doesn't care about human capabilities. So there might be high dimensional problems where we simply can't use our brains directly.
- jvanderbot 2y agoA human mind is perfectly capable of following the same instructions as the computer did. Computers are stupidly simple and completely deterministic. The concern is about "holding it all in your head", and depending on your preferred level of abstraction, "all" can perfectly reasonably be held in your head. For example: "This program generates the most likely outputs" makes perfect sense to me, even if I don't understand some of the code. I understand the system. Programmers went through this decades ago. Physicists had to do it too. Now, chemists I suppose.
- GenerocUsername 2y agoThis is just wrong. While computer operations in solutions are computable by humans, the billions of rapid computations are unachievable by humans. In just a few seconds, a computer can perform more basic arithmetic operations than a human could in a lifetime.
- jvanderbot 2y agoI'm not saying it's achievable, I'm saying it's not magic. A chemist who wishes to understand what the model is doing can get as far as anyone else, and can reach a level of "this prediction machine works well and I understand how to use and change it". Even if it requires another PhD in CS. That the tools became complex is not a reason to fret in science. No more than statistical physics or quantum mechanics or CNN for image processing - it's complex and opaque and hard to explain but perfectly reproduceable. "It works better than my intuition" is a level of sophistication that most methods are probably doomed to achieve.
- ajuc 2y agoAbstraction isn't the silver bullet. Not everything is abstractable. "This program generates the most likely outputs" isn't a scientific explanation, it's teleology.
- jvanderbot 2y ago"this tool works better than my intuition" absolutely is science. "be quiet and calculate" is a well worn mantra in physics is it not?
- drdeca 2y ago“calculate” in that phrase, refers to doing the math, and the understanding that that entails, not pressing the “=“ button on a calculator.
- d0mine 2y agoWhy do you think systems of partial differential equations (common in physics) are somehow provide more understanding than the corresponding ML math (at the end of the day both can produce results using a lots of matrix multiplications).
- drdeca 2y ago... because people understand things about what is described when dealing with such systems in physics, and people don't understand how the weights in ML learned NNs produce the overall behavior? (For one thing, the number of parameters is much greater with the NNs)