Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: smart people doing stupid things
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 02:43:28 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 459
Message-ID: <v2chkc$3anli$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v2bm3g$7tj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 11:43:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2280490cb45f7d091eec621fb3eef257";
	logging-data="3497650"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PcFZ8doYg7XEP2j/ngyv6"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PrQqgfx5WkRYcmzyCxJz6AYWxO0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2bm3g$7tj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Bytes: 23166

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

You have someone SKILLED IN THE ART at hand.  Instead of asking HIM,
you're going to LATER take the initiative to research the cause of
your problem?  Seems highly inefficient.

A neighbor was trying to install some stops and complained that he couldn't
tighten down the nuts sufficiently:  "Should it be THIS difficult?"  I
pulled the work apart and showed him the *tiny* mistake he was making
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========