by Tucker Davey
The Future of Life
Originally posted October 26, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
As Google and other tech companies continue to improve their intelligent machines with each evaluation, the human trainers will fulfill a smaller role. Eventually, Christiano explains, “it’s effectively just one machine evaluating another machine’s behavior.”
Ideally, “each time you build a more powerful machine, it effectively models human values and does what humans would like,” says Christiano. But he worries that these machines may stray from human values as they surpass human intelligence. To put this in human terms: a complex intelligent machine would resemble a large organization of humans. If the organization does tasks that are too complex for any individual human to understand, it may pursue goals that humans wouldn’t like.
In order to address these control issues, Christiano is working on an “end-to-end description of this machine learning process, fleshing out key technical problems that seem most relevant.” His research will help bolster the understanding of how humans can use AI systems to evaluate the behavior of more advanced AI systems. If his work succeeds, it will be a significant step in building trustworthy artificial intelligence.
The article is here.
Showing posts with label Comprehension. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comprehension. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
There’s Argument, and there’s Disputation
by Iain Brassington
British Medical Journal Blogs
Originally posted June 6, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Basically, the problem is this: that the model for debating contests is, presumably, based around the idea that debate is an effective way to whittle bad ideas away from good; if each participant is a doughty falsificationist, and equally able in debate as his opponent, then at the end of a process of debate, we’ll be closer to the truth of the matter than we were at the start. So far, so good. But there’s a handful of fairly obvious problems with that model. First, that doesn’t lend itself to the idea that there is a winner and a loser in any particular debate. Second, a shoddy argument presented by a good speaker might win a competitive debate over a good argument presented by a diffident speaker. We might hope that a competent judge would account for that, but it’d be better if there wasn’t any need to solve what looks to be a structural problem to begin with. Third – which is related, but probably more importantly when it comes to ethics – someone with a good understanding of the moral arguments and who is a decent orator might stand a fair chance of winning an argument; but it doesn’t follow that a good orator who’s won an argument has any particular understanding of the moral arguments. Debating contests reward people for being good at debate; but that’s presumably not the true end of ethics education. Fourth, this kind of strategy is possibly OK in politics, in which the point of oratory is to persuade people to adopt a certain cause; and so debating competitions might provide training for that. (I suspect that that’s something like the rationale behind things like the IofI’s competition in schools: it’s directed at developing a certain set of skills, with one eye on a vivacious public debate. Whatever my private suspicions of the IofI generally, that doesn’t seem like a bad idea.) But ethical debate is qualitatively different. It isn’t really about winning converts. Or, at least: one might hope that a convincing argument would have moral gravity and attract agreement, but the mood of the thing is different.
The article is here.
British Medical Journal Blogs
Originally posted June 6, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Basically, the problem is this: that the model for debating contests is, presumably, based around the idea that debate is an effective way to whittle bad ideas away from good; if each participant is a doughty falsificationist, and equally able in debate as his opponent, then at the end of a process of debate, we’ll be closer to the truth of the matter than we were at the start. So far, so good. But there’s a handful of fairly obvious problems with that model. First, that doesn’t lend itself to the idea that there is a winner and a loser in any particular debate. Second, a shoddy argument presented by a good speaker might win a competitive debate over a good argument presented by a diffident speaker. We might hope that a competent judge would account for that, but it’d be better if there wasn’t any need to solve what looks to be a structural problem to begin with. Third – which is related, but probably more importantly when it comes to ethics – someone with a good understanding of the moral arguments and who is a decent orator might stand a fair chance of winning an argument; but it doesn’t follow that a good orator who’s won an argument has any particular understanding of the moral arguments. Debating contests reward people for being good at debate; but that’s presumably not the true end of ethics education. Fourth, this kind of strategy is possibly OK in politics, in which the point of oratory is to persuade people to adopt a certain cause; and so debating competitions might provide training for that. (I suspect that that’s something like the rationale behind things like the IofI’s competition in schools: it’s directed at developing a certain set of skills, with one eye on a vivacious public debate. Whatever my private suspicions of the IofI generally, that doesn’t seem like a bad idea.) But ethical debate is qualitatively different. It isn’t really about winning converts. Or, at least: one might hope that a convincing argument would have moral gravity and attract agreement, but the mood of the thing is different.
The article is here.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Competence in chronic mental illness: the relevance of practical wisdom
Guy A M Widdershoven, Andrea Ruissen, Anton J L M van Balkom, & Gerben Meynen
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102575
Abstract
The concept of competence is central to healthcare because informed consent can only be obtained from a competent patient. The standard approach to competence focuses on cognitive abilities. Several authors have challenged this approach by emphasising the role of emotions and values. Combining cognition, emotion and values, we suggest an approach which is based on the notion of practical wisdom. This focuses on knowledge and on determining what is important in a specific situation and finding a balance between various values, which are enacted in an individual's personal life. Our approach is illustrated by two cases of patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder.
The article is here.
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102575
Abstract
The concept of competence is central to healthcare because informed consent can only be obtained from a competent patient. The standard approach to competence focuses on cognitive abilities. Several authors have challenged this approach by emphasising the role of emotions and values. Combining cognition, emotion and values, we suggest an approach which is based on the notion of practical wisdom. This focuses on knowledge and on determining what is important in a specific situation and finding a balance between various values, which are enacted in an individual's personal life. Our approach is illustrated by two cases of patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)