| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| public:t-713-mers:mers-23:empirical-reasoning-2 [2023/10/29 21:16] – [Guided Experimentation for New Knowledge Generation] thorisson | public:t-713-mers:mers-23:empirical-reasoning-2 [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| | What It Is | The ability of a controller to explain, after the fact or before, why it did something or intends to do it. | | | What It Is | The ability of a controller to explain, after the fact or before, why it did something or intends to do it. | |
| | 'Explainability' \\ ≠ \\ 'self-explanation' | If an intelligence X can explain a phenomenon Y, Y is 'explainable' by Y, through some process chosen by Y. \\ \\ In contrast, if an intelligence X can explain itself, its own actions, knowledge, understanding, beliefs, and reasoning, it is capable of self-explanation. The latter is stronger and subsumes the former. | | | 'Explainability' \\ ≠ \\ 'self-explanation' | If an intelligence X can explain a phenomenon Y, Y is 'explainable' by Y, through some process chosen by Y. \\ \\ In contrast, if an intelligence X can explain itself, its own actions, knowledge, understanding, beliefs, and reasoning, it is capable of self-explanation. The latter is stronger and subsumes the former. | |
| | Why It Is Important | If a controller does something we don't want it to repeat - e.g. crash an airplane full of people (in simulation mode, hopefully!) - it needs to be able to explain why it did what it did. If it can't, it means it - and //we// - can never be sure of why it did what it did, whether it had any other choice, whether it is likely to do it again, whether it's an evil machine that actually meant to do it, or even how likely it is to do it again. | | | \\ Why It Is Important | If a controller does something we don't want it to repeat - e.g. crash an airplane full of people (in simulation mode, hopefully!) - it needs to be able to explain why it did what it did. If it can't, it means it - and //we// - can never be sure of why it did what it did, whether it had any other choice, whether it is likely to do it again, whether it's an evil machine that actually meant to do it, or even how likely it is to do it again. | |
| | \\ Human-Level AI | Even more importantly, to grow and learn and self-inspect the AI system must be able to sort out causal chains. If it can't it will not only be incapable of explaining to others why it is like it is, it will be incapable of explaining to itself why things are the way they are, and thus, it will be incapable of sorting out whether something it did is better for its own growth than something else. Explanation is the big black hole of ANNs: In principle ANNs are black boxes, and thus they are in principle unexplainable - whether to themselves or others. \\ One way to address this is by encapsulating knowledge as hierarchical models that are built up over time, and can be de-constructed at any time (like AERA does). | | | \\ Human-Level AI | Even more importantly, to grow and learn and self-inspect the AI system must be able to sort out causal chains. If it can't it will not only be incapable of explaining to others why it is like it is, it will be incapable of explaining to itself why things are the way they are, and thus, it will be incapable of sorting out whether something it did is better for its own growth than something else. Explanation is the big black hole of ANNs: In principle ANNs are black boxes, and thus they are in principle unexplainable - whether to themselves or others. \\ One way to address this is by encapsulating knowledge as hierarchical models that are built up over time, and can be de-constructed at any time (like AERA does). | |
| |
