Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: smart people doing stupid things
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 21:53:50 -0400
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Lines: 321
Message-ID: <v2bm3g$7tj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <bk9f4j5689jbmg8af3ha53t3kcgiq0vbut@4ax.com> <v28fi7$286e$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v28rap$2e811$3@dont-email.me> <v292p9$18cb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v29aso$2kjfs$1@dont-email.me> <v29bqi$14iv$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v29fi8$2l9d8$1@dont-email.me> <v2af21$14mr$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v2baf7$308d7$1@dont-email.me> <v2bdpp$1b5n$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v2bhs4$31hh9$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 01:53:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com; logging-data="8115"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JaexbngRulcrh2DZXXpQ69Me1vQ= sha256:qqNacUtWAedChkupkwOAr5jvLqY4RbOeI/De8WOtwok= sha1:+stc/bPdV6ByGACSNA7BKgqLZUE= sha256:F697vCqztBFlcfChEX8YGdzpNlHPO+pejX9+3Ij3uc4=
X-Priority: 3
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 14480

"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message 
news:v2bhs4$31hh9$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/18/2024 4:32 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>>> But then the decision has already been made so why bother with such an
>>>> examination?
>>>
>>> So you can update your assessment of the party's decision making
>>> capabilities/strategies.
>>
>> But it is still the case that the decision has already been made.
>
> That doesn't mean that YOU have to abide by it.  Or, even that
> the other party has ACTED on the decision.  I.e., decisions are
> not immutable.
>
>>> When a child is "learning", the parent is continually refining the
>>> "knowledge" the child is accumulating; correcting faulty
>>> "conclusions" that the child may have gleaned from its examination
>>> of the "facts" it encounters.
>>
>> The quality of parenting varies a lot.
>
> Wouldn't you expect the training for AIs to similarly vary
> in capability?

Sure.

>
....
>>>
>>> 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.

>
>> 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.

>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
>> 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.

> 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.

>
> 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!)

I don't agree. Learning something like that does not depend on the plumber 
explaining his decisions.

>
>> A human chess player may be able to give detailed reasons for making a
>> specific move but would not usually be aske to do this.
>
> If the human was expected to TEACH then those explanations would be
> essential TO that teaching!
>
> If the student was wanting to LEARN, then he would select a player that
> was capable of teaching!

Sure but so what. Most chess games between humans are not about teaching.

>
>>>> Just like humans do.
>>>> Human treatment of other animals tends not to be of the best, except in 
>>>> a
>>>> minority of cases.
>>>> How do we know that AI will treat us in a way we consider to be
>>>> reasonable?
>>>
>>> The AI doesn't care about you, one way or the other.  Any "bias" in
>>> its conclusions has been baked in from the training data/process.
>>
>> Same with humans.
>
> That's not universally true.  If it was, then all decisions would
> be completely motivated for personal gain.

Humans generally don't care much for people they have no personal knowledge 
of.

>
>>> Do you know what that data was?  Can you assess its bias?  Do the folks
>>> who *compiled* the training data know?  Can they "tease" the bias out
>>> of the data -- or, are they oblivious to its presence?
>>
>> Humans have the same issue. You can't see into another person's brain to 
>> see
>> what bias they may have.
>
> Exactly.  But, you can pose questions of them and otherwise observe their
> behaviors in unrelated areas and form an opinion.

If they are, say, a doctor then yes you can ask questions about your 
treatment but you can't otherwise observe their behavior.

>
> I've a neighbor who loudly claims NOT to be racist.  But, if you take the
> whole of your experiences with him and the various comments he has made,
> over the years (e.g., not shopping at a particular store because there
> are lots of blacks living in the apartment complex across the street
> from said store -- meaning lots of them SHOP in that store!), it's
> not hard to come to that conclusion.
>
> He also is very vocal about The Border (an hour from here).  Yet,
> ALWAYS hires mexicans.  Does he ever check to see if they are here
> legally?  Entitled to work?  Or, is he really only concerned with
> the price they charge?
>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========