3 ms·

Not entirely. A program can be verified[0] to perform according to its specifications. An AI can’t. 0. mostly

by irdc 3mo ago

tcp_handshaker 3mo ago
Who verifies the specification? I can´t stand the intellectual dishonesty of formal methods people.
- sublinear 3mo ago
  > Who verifies the specification? If you know how to prove something without making an initial assumption, let us know. If you think you can reduce those assumptions, also let us know. There should not be a "who" involved at all. That's not proof. That's trust.
  - tcp_handshaker 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
coldtea 3mo ago
A simpler and more rigid program. Not 99% of programs. And even if they could, they never are. Besides AI is a program in the same sense. Fix the seed/temperature, and you can verify it to perform according to its specifications. It's just that its specificactions include returning answers based on a weight model.
- irdc 3mo ago
  Verified in the sense that it is understood that changing its operations isn’t going to be easy.
- PunchyHamster 3mo ago
  > Not 99% of programs. And even if they could, they never are. You misunderstand. Incomplete specification is still useful. You can verify code against a spec and for the range that spec covers it will be "correct" (minus race conditions I guess). You can't verify anything with AI. Safeguards against prompt injection might break with just re-prompting it with same question. Or break when AI vendor updates their model.
fenomas 3mo ago
I disagree! It's easy to check that an AI program meets its specification, which is to process input tokens and generate output tokens. :) If you're talking about verifying whether it produces the correct tokens, that's not generally something you can specify in advance with AI. I mean: if your task is one where you can precisely specify which output tokens are correct for a given input, then the task doesn't need AI, no?

Not entirely. A program can be verified[0] to perform according to its specifications. An AI can’t. 0. mostly

by irdc 3mo ago

Not entirely. A program can be verified[0] to perform according to its specifications. An AI can’t. 0. mostly

tcp_handshaker 3mo ago

Who verifies the specification? I can´t stand the intellectual dishonesty of formal methods people.

sublinear 3mo ago
> Who verifies the specification? If you know how to prove something without making an initial assumption, let us know. If you think you can reduce those assumptions, also let us know. There should not be a "who" involved at all. That's not proof. That's trust.
- tcp_handshaker 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]

coldtea 3mo ago

A simpler and more rigid program. Not 99% of programs. And even if they could, they never are. Besides AI is a program in the same sense. Fix the seed/temperature, and you can verify it to perform according to its specifications. It's just that its specificactions include returning answers based on a weight model.

irdc 3mo ago
Verified in the sense that it is understood that changing its operations isn’t going to be easy.
PunchyHamster 3mo ago
> Not 99% of programs. And even if they could, they never are. You misunderstand. Incomplete specification is still useful. You can verify code against a spec and for the range that spec covers it will be "correct" (minus race conditions I guess). You can't verify anything with AI. Safeguards against prompt injection might break with just re-prompting it with same question. Or break when AI vendor updates their model.

fenomas 3mo ago

I disagree! It's easy to check that an AI program meets its specification, which is to process input tokens and generate output tokens. :) If you're talking about verifying whether it produces the correct tokens, that's not generally something you can specify in advance with AI. I mean: if your task is one where you can precisely specify which output tokens are correct for a given input, then the task doesn't need AI, no?