There is a blind spot in AI research • Hacker News Board

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#11

Post by Mz » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:13 PM UTC

ChoHag wrote: post #8

Mz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is rooted in the fact that humans don't really do intelligence all that well themselves. Most of us raise kids in a manner that assumes chuldren aren't independent thinking beings and we have a lot of social "rules" that fail to take into account actual independent thought and then humans bring these big blind spots to AI work. Until we overcome such issues in humans, they probably are not solvable in AI…

If you're going to go down that path then your entire argument is moot because the definition of "intelligence" is so unclear.

I may have been unclear about how I am defining this, but it is not unclear to me and I don't see how "going down that path" automatically makes it unclear.

Humans are pretty bad about imposing third party points of view on behavior and reasoning. Until we get better at understanding reasoning from a first person point of view for humans, we are going to have trouble figuring out how to write effective algorithms for AI.

Is that any clearer? If not, what is unclear?

Thanks.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#12

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:16 PM UTC

ChoHag wrote: post #8

Mz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is rooted in the fact that humans don't really do intelligence all that well themselves. Most of us raise kids in a manner that assumes chuldren aren't independent thinking beings and we have a lot of social "rules" that fail to take into account actual independent thought and then humans bring these big blind spots to AI work. Until we overcome such issues in humans, they probably are not solvable in AI…

If you're going to go down that path then your entire argument is moot because the definition of "intelligence" is so unclear.

[deleted]

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#13

Post by mcguire » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #5

Systematic analysis of AI biases is certainly needed. We train models on data, but how is the data collected, and how biased is it? At least in AI we can compensate for biases, but in human society they are much harder to counter. There's hope for a better future if we can make fair AI.

AI biases come in new and unique varieties.

"As another example, a 2015 study9 showed that a machine-learning technique used to predict which hospital patients would develop pneumonia complications worked well in most situations. But it made one serious error: it instructed doctors to send patients with asthma home even though such people are in a high-risk category. Because the hospital automatically sent patients with asthma to intensive care, these people were rarely on the ‘required further care’ records on which the system was trained."

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#14

Post by ChoHag » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #11

ChoHag wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to go down that path then your entire argument is moot because the definition of "intelligence" is so unclear.

I may have been unclear about how I am defining this, but it is not unclear to me and I don't see how "going down that path" automatically makes it unclear. Humans are pretty bad about imposing third party points of view on behavior and reasoning. Until we get better at understanding reasoning from a first person point of view for humans, we are going to have trouble figuring out how to write effective algorithms for…

In your previous reply you used the word "intelligence" in a manner which had assumptions in it (this is, after all, how humans communicate). "AI" uses the same word with an overlapping but different set of assumptions.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#15

Post by Mz » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

ChoHag wrote: post #14

Mz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may have been unclear about how I am defining this, but it is not unclear to me and I don't see how "going down that path" automatically makes it unclear. Humans are pretty bad about imposing third party points of view on behavior and reasoning. Until we get better at understanding reasoning from a first person point of view for humans, we are going to have trouble figuring out how to write effective algorithms for…

In your previous reply you used the word "intelligence" in a manner which had assumptions in it (this is, after all, how humans communicate). "AI" uses the same word with an overlapping but different set of assumptions.

Not that your reply answers my actual question, but I would be interested in knowing what you believe my assumptions were and how these differ from those used in AI.

Thanks.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#16

Post by ChoHag » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:46 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #15

ChoHag wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your previous reply you used the word "intelligence" in a manner which had assumptions in it (this is, after all, how humans communicate). "AI" uses the same word with an overlapping but different set of assumptions.

Not that your reply answers my actual question, but I would be interested in knowing what you believe my assumptions were and how these differ from those used in AI. Thanks.

I try to avoid making assumptions, including what your assumptions in your definitions of your two uses of the word "intelligence" were. If you used them coherently then that's wonderful but their definitions are not distinct outside your head. Their general (ie. dictionary/scientific) definitions are not absolute.

I'm an intelligent person. I know lots of intelligent people who are stupid and I know lots of stupid people who are intelligent. And I'm one of them, and I don't even know which one.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#17

Post by posterboy » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #6

ggchappell wrote: post #2

Key quote: “People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world.” -- Pedro Domingos, in The Master Algorithm (2015)

I think this is rooted in the fact that humans don't really do intelligence all that well themselves. Most of us raise kids in a manner that assumes chuldren aren't independent thinking beings and we have a lot of social "rules" that fail to take into account actual independent thought and then humans bring these big blind spots to AI work. Until we overcome such issues in humans, they probably are not solvable in AI…

children aren't independent from their parents pretty much by definition. They do have individual thoughts, but if their thoughts are concerned with their dependence, are those thoughts really independent?

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#18

Post by Mz » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

ChoHag wrote: post #16

Mz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that your reply answers my actual question, but I would be interested in knowing what you believe my assumptions were and how these differ from those used in AI. Thanks.

I try to avoid making assumptions, including what your assumptions in your definitions of your two uses of the word "intelligence" were. If you used them coherently then that's wonderful but their definitions are not distinct outside your head. Their general (ie. dictionary/scientific) definitions are not absolute. I'm an intelligent person. I know lots of intelligent people who are stupid and I know lots of stupid p…

Well, that's a rather weasel-y non-answer answer, but it sounds to me like you think I am calling people "stupid" and that isn't what I am doing. I do know something about the background of intelligence testing and what not for humans. That definition of intelligence is inherently problematic.

Again: My point is that people frame things far too often from a third party point of view. This inherently causes problems in decision-making. Sometimes, humans can kind of muddle through anyway, in spite of that default standard. But AI is much less likely to muddle through anyway when coded that way.

If you (or anyone) would like to engage that point, awesome! Otherwise, I think I am done here.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#19

Post by Mz » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 9:58 PM UTC

posterboy wrote: post #17

Mz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is rooted in the fact that humans don't really do intelligence all that well themselves. Most of us raise kids in a manner that assumes chuldren aren't independent thinking beings and we have a lot of social "rules" that fail to take into account actual independent thought and then humans bring these big blind spots to AI work. Until we overcome such issues in humans, they probably are not solvable in AI…

children aren't independent from their parents pretty much by definition. They do have individual thoughts, but if their thoughts are concerned with their dependence, are those thoughts really independent?

I have raised two children. They are now in their twenties. From the get go, I dealt with them as beings who did things for a reason, and that reason was generally assumed to be about dealing with their needs, not "doing" something to me. Many parents expect kids to "behave" and that definition of "behaving" is rooted very much in what adults see and think about the child, not what the child is experiencing. This is inherently problematic.

Children may be dependent in many ways on their parents, but once they are outside the womb, if the parent dies, the child does not automatically die. They are a separate being. They have separate experiences. Their reasons for doing things come from their first person experiences.

Then parents very often try to impose third person motivations -- people-pleasing expectations -- that frequently interfere with the child pursuing its own needs.

We need to get better at dealing with kids as separate entities if we want to have any hope of dealing with machines functioning independently.

Your remark just reinforces my opinion that people do this badly. You think dependence is a given and I am not even sure how to go forward with this conversation because of this stated assumption.

Thank you for replying.

Re: There is a blind spot in AI research

#20

Post by Itsdijital » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 10:00 PM UTC

Look at Tesla with it's "autopilot" feature. It's not really a true autopilot, more just a driving assist, but people treat it like such. I think it's easy for people to fall into the trap of relying really hard on something that is shiny, new, and works well despite being imperfect - even if it is explicitly stated to be.

Nano tech has a similar problem at hand. There are indications that nanoparticles could have serious health related issues. Despite this researches are pushing ahead full steam with bringing nanotech to market. The money going to development far exceeds whats going to test safety. In an AMA with a nano materials researcher I asked if he ever has concerns about the safety of what he is making. His response was along the lines of "Sure I do, but it's not my job to deal with that. I just get paid to develop the tech."

Tech development has always had a shoot first ask questions later approach.