Re:Nvidia and Audi aim to bring a self-driving AI car to mar...
by nradov on Thursday January 05, 2017 @01:19PM
(#13329736)
Yes I would fly in any large airplane which is properly certified for scheduled commercial airline service, regardless of how it was designed. The FAA has earned our trust and has a good safety record so if they tell me the design is satisfactory then I would believe them. I also wouldn't take the risk of flying in any non-certified experimental aircraft, again regardless of who or what designed it.
We have no way to determine whether an explanation is true, false, or simply a post-hoc rationalization. We like to believe that we can, but we're just fooling ourselves.
Re:Nvidia and Audi aim to bring a self-driving AI car to mar...
by cscurmudgeon on Thursday January 05, 2017 @02:01PM
(#13330236)
> We have no way to determine whether an explanation is true, false, or simply a post-hoc rationalization
If we have no way of determining whether something is true or false, then I can say the same thing about your own statement quoted above. I can just say it is false and go on with my life.
I sincerely hope you realize the obvious self contradiction :D
Logic 101. :)
Re:Nvidia and Audi aim to bring a self-driving AI car to mar...
by nradov on Thursday January 05, 2017 @03:19PM
(#13330969)
There's no self contradiction. I never claimed that we have no way of determining whether something is true or false. I only claimed that we have no way of determining whether the explanation a person gives for how he made a decision actually matches his real mental process or motives. We can't yet install a debugger with break points and variable watches in the human mind; it's very much a black box.
Logic 201. :-)
Re:Nvidia and Audi aim to bring a self-driving AI car to mar...
by cscurmudgeon on Wednesday January 18, 2017 @01:32PM
(#13428895)
Logic 101. :)
> I never claimed that we have no way of determining whether something is true or false
Everything can be cast as a declarative statement.
Matches(givenStatement, actualIntention).
Example: Would you fly on a plane designed ultimately by a human vs an impenetrable black box?
Also there is a spectrum. Let us not pretend otherwise.
1. One end: No explanations.
2. Middle: Seometimes false explanataions and sometimes true explanations.
3. Other end: Always true explanations.
Are we really saying the middle is completely useless?