Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 231 posts

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#211

Post by namaria »

Arrath wrote: post #199
namaria wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm completely stunned that people will compromise safety to avoid taking a few steps. The idea of filling my home network with iffy iot devices and having a single point of failure for things like lighting my home and unlocking my doors is absolutely crazy to me. Not to mention all the meta data these devices might leak about my routine and whereabouts. I have no idea why people think these are reasonable trade-offs…

I'm both with you and understanding the other side. Decades of watching Star Trek have filled me with the urge to be able to say "Home, prepare for away team departure." or something less eye-roll worthy for my girlfriend, to do as the GP says and close curtains, turn off lights, set heat lower, etc as I leave. But, as you point out, the state of security for IoT devices, the specter of surveillance and monitoring, a…

I really don't see the appeal. I want my life to be simple in the way that I have few possessions and few things to keep track of not in the sense that there is a very complex system hiding difficulty from me but if it fails my life gets 10x worse.

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#213

Post by tand22 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #132
FartyMcFarter wrote: post #7

> The people who develop AI are increasingly having problems explaining how it works and determining why it has the outputs it has. I don't think this is anything new. This was already the case 20+ years ago with chess-playing computers. In the mid-90s, Deep Blue was evaluating 200 million chess positions per second. How do you explain the resulting moves? Obviously we know they were the result of a deep minimax-styl…

Older ML techniques are explainable in nice ways. With something like logistic regression you get a very nice "this feature contributed this much to the final classification" breakdown. It just turns out that logistic regression is considerably less effective than RNNs, which have all these synthetic features within the inner layers that aren't easily meaningful to humans.

I implemented an interpretable LSTM from this paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.12034.pdf. It works by segmenting the context for each input variable, and then applying an attention layer to interpret each variables effect.

I applied it to mortality prediction based on ICU data, the prediction/recall was pretty good considering the small size of the dataset used.

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#214

Post by Arrath »

namaria wrote: post #211
Arrath wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm both with you and understanding the other side. Decades of watching Star Trek have filled me with the urge to be able to say "Home, prepare for away team departure." or something less eye-roll worthy for my girlfriend, to do as the GP says and close curtains, turn off lights, set heat lower, etc as I leave. But, as you point out, the state of security for IoT devices, the specter of surveillance and monitoring, a…

I really don't see the appeal. I want my life to be simple in the way that I have few possessions and few things to keep track of not in the sense that there is a very complex system hiding difficulty from me but if it fails my life gets 10x worse.

That's totally fair, to each their own!

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#215

Post by worthless-trash »

kybernetyk wrote: post #83

Who would have guessed that having a highly complex black box means you can't explain what's going on inside that black box... My pet theory is that this is the reason why Siri, Alexa and co. still are shit and haven't moved an inch forward since their inception. I like to play "sleep music" through Alexa when I bring my kid to bed. For his mid day nap it all works perfectly. But in the evening when I say the same ph…

At least google gets that right.

I couldnt add items to my shopping list because I had too many deleted items in keep list.

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#216

Post by 6stringmerc »

belval wrote: post #95
mdp2021 wrote: post #87

Now for a small elephant which entered the room: the article recites that it would be > worth mentioning that the white-box / black-box terminology is in itself part of a long history of racially coded terms in science; researchers have pushed to change "blacklist" to "blocklist," for example Very plainly, the idea of "black-box" comes from the clear, basic and original, notion and experience that "in the dark, you c…

I guess it's the hill I'll die on, but these "white vs black" and "master slave" are inherently racist just make my head turn every time. blacklist came from BEFORE slavery in America. > According to the Henry Holt Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins the word "blacklist" originated with a list England's King Charles II made of fifty-eight judges and court officers who sentenced his father, Charles I, to death in…

The law in Texas that it’s illegal to teach classes was instituted specifically to punish the Germans. Now it’s wielded against native Spanish speakers in a predominantly Spanish speaking large region. Like bigger than Vermont region. Bigotry is kind of a taking turns thing almost it seems. Like the Irish…

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#217

Post by bbstats »

kybernetyk wrote: post #83

Who would have guessed that having a highly complex black box means you can't explain what's going on inside that black box... My pet theory is that this is the reason why Siri, Alexa and co. still are shit and haven't moved an inch forward since their inception. I like to play "sleep music" through Alexa when I bring my kid to bed. For his mid day nap it all works perfectly. But in the evening when I say the same ph…

Google homes works just fine! :)

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#218

Post by magic_hamster »

Arrath wrote: post #199
namaria wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm completely stunned that people will compromise safety to avoid taking a few steps. The idea of filling my home network with iffy iot devices and having a single point of failure for things like lighting my home and unlocking my doors is absolutely crazy to me. Not to mention all the meta data these devices might leak about my routine and whereabouts. I have no idea why people think these are reasonable trade-offs…

I'm both with you and understanding the other side. Decades of watching Star Trek have filled me with the urge to be able to say "Home, prepare for away team departure." or something less eye-roll worthy for my girlfriend, to do as the GP says and close curtains, turn off lights, set heat lower, etc as I leave. But, as you point out, the state of security for IoT devices, the specter of surveillance and monitoring, a…

The star trek angle seems more prevalent than one would imagine. In my experience, every single time this topic comes up, people mention the star trek computer, sometimes kitt from knight rider, or that ai from iron man.

However, people seem to forget these aren't computers, but characters in TV shows or movies and they were "designed" with voice interaction because that's the only way to convey what they are doing to an audience. The entire voice control fantasy comes from limitations of the TV (or film) medium and not at all because it's the most convenient way to do something.

It's not too different from the way hacking or programming is portrayed on TV: it's extremely silly but you need a way to visually explain something to an audience of people who aren't technical. It's entertainment.

While I admit there is a case for disabled people, as stated here in the comments, trying to imitate these things from sci fi shows just feels awkward to me.

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#219

Post by gcanyon »

p0pcult wrote: post #198
zmgsabst wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will FBI crime statistics do? > In 2019, race was reported for 6,406 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders: > 52.5 percent were White. > 23.9 percent were Black or African American. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/offenders White people don’t commit disproportionately many hate crimes — black people do. According to the FBI.

You failed to show evidence that the media is claiming that white people disproportionately commit hate crime.

Thanks, your point exactly. My subjective and N=1 opinion is that whites are dramatically under-reported as criminals in the media.

Re: Scientists Increasingly Can’t Explain How AI Works

#220

Post by mdp2021 »

jjk166 wrote: post #207
mdp2021 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of AI ... patterns No. That is just some model of AI. I think I should advise following the publicly available MIT course of late Prof. Patrick Winston. > as AI has graduated to the level where it can be used for real world applications I am pretty sure we had applications in the '50s. > it is successfully ... figuring out relations which are not only difficult to spot but also difficult to turn into an…

> No. That is just some model of AI. Finding patterns in data without being told explicitly what to look for is the hallmark of AI. Anything that doesn't do that isn't AI. > I am pretty sure we had applications in the '50s. For a different definition of applications than the one I was clearly using, yes. > And we would like to know them, for many reasons. Because in some cases what we are looking for is the full solu…

> Finding patterns in data without being told explicitly

No, really, it isn't. "Automation of solutions" is not equivalent to "pattern recognition". A first factual example that comes to mind are "Expert Systems", which appear far from your idea of AI like something in another continent: please, as already invited, re-check the history of AI.

> that's not the point of a seatbelt

Whereas instead, realiability of solutions and "scientific" progress can be exactly the point of some applications, or a fundamental parallel activity in the enterprise that develops them.

Post reply on HN