5 ms·

Abstraction isn't the silver bullet. Not everything is abstractable. "This program generates the most likely outputs" isn't a scientific explanation, it's tele

by ajuc 2y ago

Abstraction 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 ago
    Why 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)
      - d0mine 2y ago
        Looking at Navier-Stokes equations tells you very little about the weather tomorrow.
        drdeca 2y ago
        Sure. It does tell you things about fluids though.
mistermann 2y ago
What is an example of something that isn't abstractable?
- ajuc 2y ago
  Stuff that we can't program directly, but can program using machine learning. Speech recognition. OCR. Reccomendation engines. You don't write OCR by going "if there's a line at this angle going for this long and it crosses another line at this angle then it's an A". There's too many variables and influence of each of them is too small and too tightly coupled with others to be able to abstract it into something that is understandeable to a human brain.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    AI arguably accomplishes this using some form of abstraction though does it not? Or, consider the art word broadly, artists routinely engage in various forms of unusual abstraction.
    - ajuc 2y ago
      > AI arguably accomplishes this using some form of abstraction though does it not? It's unabstractable for people, because the most abstract model that works still has far too many variables for our puny brains. > artists routinely engage in various forms of unusual abstraction Abstraction in art is just another, unrelated meaning of the word. Like execution of a program vs execution of a person. You could argue executing the journalist for his opinions isn't bad, because execution of mspaint.exe is perfectly fine, but it won't get you far :)
      - mistermann 2y ago
        > It's unabstractable for people, because the most abstract model that works still has far too many variables for our puny brains. Abstraction doesn't have to be perfect, just as "logic" doesn't have to be. > Abstraction in art is just another, unrelated meaning of the word. Speaking of art: have you seen the movie The Matrix? It's rather relevant here.

by ajuc 2y ago

Abstraction 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 ago
  Why 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)
    - d0mine 2y ago
      Looking at Navier-Stokes equations tells you very little about the weather tomorrow.
      - drdeca 2y ago
        Sure. It does tell you things about fluids though.

mistermann 2y ago

What is an example of something that isn't abstractable?

ajuc 2y ago
Stuff that we can't program directly, but can program using machine learning. Speech recognition. OCR. Reccomendation engines. You don't write OCR by going "if there's a line at this angle going for this long and it crosses another line at this angle then it's an A". There's too many variables and influence of each of them is too small and too tightly coupled with others to be able to abstract it into something that is understandeable to a human brain.
- mistermann 2y ago
  AI arguably accomplishes this using some form of abstraction though does it not? Or, consider the art word broadly, artists routinely engage in various forms of unusual abstraction.
  - ajuc 2y ago
    > AI arguably accomplishes this using some form of abstraction though does it not? It's unabstractable for people, because the most abstract model that works still has far too many variables for our puny brains. > artists routinely engage in various forms of unusual abstraction Abstraction in art is just another, unrelated meaning of the word. Like execution of a program vs execution of a person. You could argue executing the journalist for his opinions isn't bad, because execution of mspaint.exe is perfectly fine, but it won't get you far :)
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > It's unabstractable for people, because the most abstract model that works still has far too many variables for our puny brains. Abstraction doesn't have to be perfect, just as "logic" doesn't have to be. > Abstraction in art is just another, unrelated meaning of the word. Speaking of art: have you seen the movie The Matrix? It's rather relevant here.