Re:If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t...
by Radim on Friday June 16, 2017 @02:08AM
(#14566975)
Another example, even more bare-bones, is AI.
We now have programs that "understand" certain domains better than humans. And yet there are no "simple terms" to explain their understanding, reduce it to a neat closed-form formula.
Isn't it a mistake to assume a nice, elegant explanation, a cute human "narrative", must always exist?
"But Radim, the computers don't really understand the domain!". Sorry, a cop out, No True Scotsman fallacy. In what way do they not?
This is crystal clear with Go: the little stories humans have built to deepen their understanding of the game over 2,000 years are irrelevant to a game's outcome. The details and variations are all that matters, and there is no way to reach the computer's level of understanding of the game without understanding the details.
We now have programs that "understand" certain domains better than humans. And yet there are no "simple terms" to explain their understanding, reduce it to a neat closed-form formula.
Isn't it a mistake to assume a nice, elegant explanation, a cute human "narrative", must always exist?
"But Radim, the computers don't really understand the domain!". Sorry, a cop out, No True Scotsman fallacy. In what way do they not?
This is crystal clear with Go: the little stories humans have built to deepen their understanding of the game over 2,000 years are irrelevant to a game's outcome. The details and variations are all that matters, and there is no way to reach the computer's level of understanding of the game without understanding the details.