Submitted by mossadnik t3_10sw51o in technology
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j749lhc wrote
Reply to comment by FacelessFellow in ChatGPT: Use of AI chatbot in Congress and court rooms raises ethical questions by mossadnik
>If we can program ai to be nothing but truthful, then it cannot be corrupted.
It can be useful. It can be checked. But saying something "cannot be corrupted" is the wrong way to approach this.
FacelessFellow t1_j74dpzg wrote
It’s like saying a math equation can be corrupted. It can be wrong(human error), but if it’s correct, it cannot be corrupted. 2+2=4 cannot be corrupted. Can it?
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j74fi55 wrote
No, it isn't like saying that.
With 2+2 you already KNOW the answer. It's 4. You already know the inputted data is perfect.
Creating an AI to make decisions is drawing from HUMAN sources.
And, I think your idea that "objective reality" and "facts" are certain is not really a good take. We don't even observe all of reality. Or perceptions and what we choose to pay attention to are framed by our biases. And programming an AI requires we know what those are and know what data to feed it to learn from.
FACTS are just data. The are interpreted. "TRUTH" is based on the viewer's priorities and understanding of the world. The facts can be proven, but, which facts to use? And TRUTH is a variable and different for everyone who says they know it.
FacelessFellow t1_j74vfea wrote
You don’t think there’s an objective truth/reality?
That’s a mind blowing concept for me.
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j76u03l wrote
You can't really join the ranks of the wise people until you understand this. You don't think people with different perspectives and life histories and fortunes see a different "reality?"
If you get depressed -- doesn't that change what you see? If you take hallucinogenics, that alters your perspective. Your state of mind will interpret and experience life. Do you know if you are rich or poor until you have knowledge of what other people have or don't have?
Can you see the phone signals in the air, or do you ONLY get the phone call intended for you? You answer a call, and speak to someone -- you now have a different perspective and slice of reality than other people. Without the phone with that one number -- you walk around as if nothing was there. But, that data is there and ONLY affects some people.
Do you see in all of the EM spectrum? No. Visible light is a very small slice of it. If you had infrared or ultraviolet goggles, you would suddenly have information about your environment other people don't. Profoundly color blind people -- don't see the Green or the Red traffic lights except by position. Someone who sees colors might forget if the Red light is on the bottom or the top - -they take it for granted that they can tell. And the blind now have auditory signals at the street level -- their "knowledge" of the reality sighted people have of the same environment has changed for the better in that regard.
That's the challenge of data and science and especially statistics; what do you measure? What is significant to evaluate is a choice. And your view of reality is always in context of the framework you have from society, your situation, your "luck", your state of mind.
A nice sunny day, and one person gets a phone call that their mother has died -- it's a different reality and "truth."
So, I hope you continue experimenting with this notion that there is not and never has been one reality because we all have a different perspective and we can't all look at the entire thing. We can't all hear it. We can't all feel it. We interpret the data differently and choose different parts to evaluate.
FacelessFellow t1_j770iej wrote
So atomic mass is subjective? The table of elements is subjective?
Your comment just made it sound like a perspective thing. It’s sounds like it’s all about people and their subjective reality.
Objectively, an atom has so many electrons. Or does the number of electrons change depending on who is observing?
If I put 3 eggs on the table, it will be 3 eggs for someone else. Even if they’re blind, they can touch the eggs. Or be told by someone that it’s 3 eggs. I don’t see what can change the fact that there’s 3 eggs on the counter.
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j77sjzw wrote
>So atomic mass is subjective? The table of elements is subjective?
So you can't compare SOCIAL ENGINEERING to something that is subjective -- you want to compare it to atomic mass?
There's no point discussing things with a person who breaks so many rules of logic.
>It’s sounds like it’s all about people and their subjective reality.
Yes. Like your reality where you think Atomic mass being a stable number everyone can determine ALSO covers whether they think their outfit makes them look fat.
There is "objective reality" -- well, as far as you know, so far, with humanity's limited perception of the Universe. But, people interpret everything. Some people do not eat eggs because they are Vegan. 3 Eggs is objective fact. The "Truth" that what you gave me is a good thing, is an interpretation. And you assume how other people think based on your experience.
Reality and truth are subjective as hell. Facts are data points and can be accurate, but WHICH FACTS are we considering? "FACT; there are three eggs -- I win!" Okay, what were the rules? "That's a secret."
FacelessFellow t1_j74dgpw wrote
If there’s only ONE objective/factually reality, then we can program AI to perceive only ONE objective/factual reality.
The sun is hot. Agree? You think a good AI would be able to say, “no, the sun is cold.”?
The gasses we release into the atmosphere effect climate. Agree? You think a good AI would be able to say, “no, humans cannot effect climate.”?
Science aims to be as factual and accurate as possible. I imagine a true AI would know the scientific method and execute it perfectly.
Yes, some scientists are wrong, but the truth/facts usually prevail.
I don’t know if I’m making sense haha
Outrageous_Apricot42 t1_j74jacv wrote
This is not how it works. Check out papers how chat gpt was trained. If you use biased training data you will get biased model. This is known since inception of machine learning.
FacelessFellow t1_j74nqc6 wrote
Is AI not gonna change or improve in the near future?
Is all AI going to be the same?
Sad-Combination78 t1_j74y7wa wrote
Think about it like this: Anything which learns based on its environment is susceptible to bias.
Humans have biases themselves. Each person has different life experiences and weighs their own lived experiences above hypothetical situations they can't verify themselves. We create models of perception to interpret the world based on our past experiences, and then use these models to further interpret our experiences into the future.
Racism, for example, can be a model taught by others, or a conclusion arrived at by bad data (poor experiences due to individual circumstance). I'm still talking about humans here, but all of this is true for AI too.
AI is not different. AI still needs to learn, and it still needs training data. This data can always be biased. This is just part of reality. We have no objective book to pull from. We make it up as we go. Evaluate, analyze, and expand. That is all we can do. We will never be perfect. Neither will AI.
Of course one advantage of AI is that it won't have to reset every 100 years and hope to pass on enough knowledge to its children as it can. Still, this advantage will be one seen only in age.
FacelessFellow t1_j75215s wrote
So if a human makes an AI the AI will have the humans biases. What about when the AI start making AI. Once that snowball starts rolling, won’t future generations of AI be far enough removed from human biases?
Will no AI ever be able to perceive all of reality instantaneously and objectively? When computational powers grow so immensely that they can track every atom in the universe, won’t that help AI see objective truth?
Perfection is a human construct, but flawlessness may be obtainable by future AI. With enough computational power it can check and double check and triple check and so on, to infinity. Will that not be enough to weed out all true reality?
Sad-Combination78 t1_j75312i wrote
you missed the point
the problem isn't humans, it's the concept of "learning"
you don't know something, and from your environment, you use logic to figure it out
the problem is you cannot be everywhere all at once and have every experience ever, so you will always be drawing conclusions from limited knowledge.
AI does not and cannot solve this, it is fundamental to learning
FacelessFellow t1_j757skq wrote
But I thought AI was computers. And I thought computers could communicate at the speed of light. Wouldn’t that mean the AI could have input from billions of devices? Scientific instruments nowadays can connect to the web. Is it far fetched to imagine future where all collectible data from all devices could be perceived simultaneously by the AI?
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j74g1qn wrote
>If there’s only ONE objective/factually reality,
There isn't though.
There can be objective facts. But there are SO MANY facts. Sometimes people lie. Sometimes they get bad data. Sometimes the look at the wrong things.
Your simplification to a binary choice of a social issue isn't really helping. And, there is no "binary choice" what AI produces writing and art at the moment. There is no OBVIOUS answer and no right or wrong answer -- just people saying "I like this one better."
>I imagine a true AI would know the scientific method and execute it perfectly.
You don't seem to understand how current AI works. It throws in a lot of random noise and data so it can come up with INTERESTING results. An expert system, is one that is more predictable. A neural net adapts, but needs a mechanism to change after it adapts -- and what are the priorities? What does success look like?
Science is a bit easier than social planning I'd assume.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments