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" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
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: <v2d90q$22of$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> <v2bm3g$7tj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v2chkc$3anli$1@dont-email.me>
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" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> 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 ==========