3 ms·
His comment about statistics (not formal logic?) is mainly about usefulness. It's not useful to have a pure causality representation because with the real worl
by timf 17y ago
His comment about statistics (not formal logic?) is mainly about usefulness.
It's not useful to have a pure causality representation because with the real world and other complex systems, you don't know all the variables. Your variable 'A' in 10 years might be shown to be a combination of variables.
I, for example, only 99.99% believe in gravity. One day we might float off the planet. Lack of 100% proof about observations was one of Hume's basic arguments and I think the point of the "do-calculus" for AI that is discussed in this link. We all have an internal "do-calculus" for operating in the world: work with current held beliefs/rules until they're proven to work differently, etc.
- darkxanthos 17y agoI'm not convinced of this "truth". Do-calculus might help AI in its current state, but really they may just be making up for fundamental flaws in their neural simulations. I normally hate to hear people say no one knows how certain things work but in this instance it seems apt. No one has created a self autonomous consciousness yet and so no one really knows exactly what goes into it. I guess there's also a difference in advancing the study of robots and advancing the study of artificial intelligence.
- jey 17y ago> neural simulations huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.