Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Edward Rawde" Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: smart people doing stupid things Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 12:22:48 -0400 Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) Lines: 544 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 16:22:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com; logging-data="68367"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com" Cancel-Lock: sha1:HnbDAUmBc4cQeIREQoGHW9AkglY= sha256:DBTO8Y4KoUyvKrrM/AFhGEs6RvLMfSDHnHo9MGti8qk= sha1:J1Yy+ioN7gPDFYInxFcXomUwUvo= sha256:nTZ/O1rlW9Zh1JZ/xJ4gCCtgFo+zg4DsBIimClxcQ/k= X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 Bytes: 25202 "Don Y" wrote in message news:v2chkc$3anli$1@dont-email.me... > On 5/18/2024 6:53 PM, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>> Because the AI can't *explain* its "reasoning" to you, you have no way >>>>> of updating your assessment of its (likely) correctness -- esp in >>>>> THIS instance. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I get why it's so essential to have AI explain its >>>> reasons. >>> >>> Do you ever ask questions of your doctor, plumber, lawyer, spouse, etc.? >>> Why do THEY have to explain their reasons? You /prima facie/ actions >>> suggest you HIRED those folks for their expertise; why do you now need >>> an explanation their actions/decisions instead of just blindly accepting >>> them? >> >> That's the point. I don't. I have to accept a doctor's decision on my >> treatment because I am not medically trained. > > So, that means you can't make sense of anything he would say to you to > justify his decision? Nope. It means I haven't been to medical school and I have no medical training or experience. If I had then I wouldn't need a doctor. That does not mean I have zero medical knowledge. It also does not mean I wouldn't question my doctor about my treatment. > Recall, everyone has bias -- including doctors. > If he assumes you will fail to follow his instructions/recommendations > if he tells you what he would LIKE you to do and, instead, gives you > the recommendation for what he feels you will LIKELY do, you've been > shortchanged. > > I asked my doctor what my ideal weight should be. He told me. > The next time I saw him, I weighed my ideal weight. He was surprised > as few patients actually heeded his advice on that score. > > Another time, he wanted to prescribe a medication for me. I told > him I would fail to take it -- not deliberately but just because > I'm not the sort who remembers to take "pills". Especially if > "ongoing" (not just a two week course for an infection/malady). > He gave me an alternative "solution" which eliminated the need for > the medication, yielding the same result without any "side effects". > > SWMBO has a similar relationship with her doctor. Tell us the > "right" way to solve the problem, not the easy way because you think > we'll behave like your "nominal" patients. > > The same is true of one of our dogs. We made changes that the > vet suggested (to avoid medication) and a month later the vet > was flabbergasted to see the difference. > > Our attitude is that you should EDUCATE us and let US make the > decisions for our care, based on our own value systems, etc. > >>>> If I need some plumbing done I don't expect the plumber to give >>>> detailed >>>> reasons why a specific type of pipe was chosen. I just want it done. >>> >>> If you suspect that he may not be competent -- or may be motivated by >>> greed -- then you would likely want some further information to >>> reinforce >>> your opinion/suspicions. >>> >>> We hired folks to paint the house many years ago. One of the questions >>> that I would ask (already KNOWING the nominal answer) is "How much paint >>> do you think it will take?" This chosen because it sounds innocent >>> enough that a customer would likely ask it. >>> >>> One candidate answered "300 gallons". At which point, I couldn't >>> contain the afront: "We're not painting a f***ing BATTLESHIP!" >> >> I would have said two million gallons just for the pleasure of watching >> you >> go red in the face. > > No "anger" or embarassment, here. We just couldn't contain the fact > that we would NOT be calling him back to do the job! > >>> I.e., his outrageous reply told me: >>> - he's not competent enough to estimate a job's complexity WHEN >>> EVERY ASPECT OF IT IS VISIBLE FOR PRIOR INSPECTION >>> *or* >>> - he's a crook thinking he can take advantage of a "dumb homeowner" >>> >>> In either case, he was disqualified BY his "reasoning". >> >> I would have likely given him the job. Those who are good at painting >> houses >> aren't necessarily good at estimating exactly how much paint they will >> need. >> They just buy more paint as needed. > > One assumes that he has painted OTHER homes and has some recollection of > the amount of paint purchased for the job. And, if this is his > livelihood, > one assumes that such activities would have been *recent* -- not months > ago > (how has he supported himself "without work"?). > > Is my house considerably larger or smaller than the other houses that you > have painted? (likely not) Does it have a different surface texture > that could alter the "coverage" rate? (again, likely not) So, shouldn't > you > be able to ballpark an estimate? "What did the LAST HOUSE you painted > require > by way of paint quantity?" > > Each engineering job that I take on differs from all that preceded it > (by my choice). Yet, I have to come up with a timeframe and a "labor > estimate" within that timeframe as I do only fixed cost jobs. If > I err on either score, I either lose out on the bid *or* lose > "money" on the effort. Yet, despite vastly different designs, I > can still get a good ballpark estimate of the job a priori so that > neither I nor the client are "unhappy". > > I'd not be "off" by an order of magnitude (as the paint estimate was!) > >>> In the cases where AIs are surpassing human abilities (being able >>> to perceive relationships that aren't (yet?) apparent to humans, >>> it seems only natural that you would want to UNDERSTAND their >>> "reasoning". Especially in cases where there is no chaining >>> of facts but, rather, some "hidden pattern" perceived. >> >> It's true that you may want to understand their reasoning but it's likely >> that you might have to accept that you can't. > > The point is that NO ONE can! Even the folks who designed and implemented > the AI are clueless. AND THEY KNOW IT. > > "It *seems* to give correct results when fed the test cases... We > *expected* > this but have no idea WHY a particular result was formulated as it was!" > >>>> If I want to play chess with a computer I don't expect it to give >>>> detailed >>>> reasons why it made each move. I just expect it to win if it's set to >>>> much >>>> above beginner level. >>> >>> Then you don't expect to LEARN from the chess program. >> >> Sure I do, but I'm very slow to get better at chess. I tend to make rash >> decisions when playing chess. > > Then your cost of learning is steep. I want to know how to RECOGNIZE > situations that will give me opportunities OR risks so I can pursue or > avoid them. E.g., I don't advance the King tot he middle of the > board just to "see what happens"! > >>> When I learned to play chess, my neighbor (teacher) would >>> make a point of showing me what I had overlooked in my >>> play and why that led to the consequences that followed. >>> If I had a record of moves made (from which I could incrementally >>> recreate the gameboard configuration), I *might* have spotted >>> my error. >> >> I usually spot my error immediately when the computer makes me look >> stupid. > > But you don't know how you GOT to that point so you don't know how > to avoid that situation in the first place! was it because you > sacrificed too many pieces too early? Or allowed protections to > be drawn out, away from the King? Or... > > You don't learn much from *a* (bad) move. You learn from > bad strategies/sequences of moves. > >>> As the teacher (AI in this case) is ultimately a product of >>> current students (who grow up to become teachers, refined >>> by their experiences as students), we evolve in our >>> capabilities as a society. >>> >>> If the plumber never explains his decisions, then the >>> homeowner never learns (e.g., don't over-tighten the >>> hose bibb lest you ruin the washer inside and need >>> me to come out, again, to replace it!) >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========