82,891
edits
Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions
→Infinite fidelity is impossible
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
===Infinite fidelity is impossible=== | ===Infinite fidelity is impossible=== | ||
There is a popular "reductionist" movement at the moment which seeks to atomise concepts with a view that | There is a popular "reductionist" movement at the moment which seeks to atomise concepts with a view that untangling bundled concepts - by separating them into their elemental parts you can ultimately dispel all ambiguity. A similar attitude influences contemporary markets regulation. This programme aspires to ultimate certainty; a single set of axioms from which all propositions can be derived. From this perspective shortcomings in machine understanding of legal information are purely a function of a lack of sufficient detail the surmounting of which is a matter of time, given the collaborative power of the world wide internet. The singularity is near: look at the incredible strides made in natural language processing (Google translate), self-driving cars, computers beating grandmasters at Chess and Go. | ||
But you can split these into two categories: those which are the product of obvious (however impressive) computational feats - like Chess, Go, Self-driving cars, and those that are the product of statistical analysis, so are rendered as matters of probability (like Google translate). | But you can split these into two categories: those which are the product of obvious (however impressive) computational feats - like Chess, Go, Self-driving cars, and those that are the product of statistical analysis, so are rendered as matters of probability (like Google translate). | ||
If their continued existence depended on its Chess-playing we might commend our souls to the hands of a computer (well - I would). It won't be long before we do a similar thing by getting into an AI-controlled self-driving car - we give ourselves absolutely over to the machine and let it make decisions which, if wrong, may kill us. But its range of actions are limited and the possible outcomes it must follow are obviously conscribed - a single slim volume can comprehensively describe the rules with which it must comply (the Highway Code). Outside machine failure, the main risk we run is presented not by non-machines (folks like you and me) behaving outside the norms the machine has been programmed to expect. I think we'd be less inclined to trust a translation. | If their continued existence depended on its Chess-playing we might commend our souls to the hands of a computer (well - I would). It won't be long before we do a similar thing by getting into an AI-controlled self-driving car - we give ourselves absolutely over to the machine and let it make decisions which, if wrong, may kill us. But its range of actions are limited and the possible outcomes it must follow are obviously conscribed - a single slim volume can comprehensively describe the rules with which it must comply (the Highway Code). Outside machine failure, the main risk we run is presented not by non-machines (folks like you and me) behaving outside the norms the machine has been programmed to expect. I think we'd be less inclined to trust a translation. | ||
*there is an inherent ambiguity in language (which legal drafting is designed to minimize, but which it can't eliminated. | *there is an inherent ambiguity in language (which legal drafting is designed to minimize, but which it can't eliminated. | ||