Timeline for The application of logic to knowledge seems problematic
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31 at 16:25 | comment | added | J D | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| May 31 at 15:59 | comment | added | SystemTheory | @J D In 1991 I wrote a paper for Hugh Gibbons, my professor of Legal Philosophy, on the subject of how an artificial intelligence would be recognized as a person under the law? I said we must recognize the AI as a subject, not an object, and its knowledge must be implicit in some structure performing the knowledge-function, it could not be an explicit programmed machine. Anyway the point is when AI decides to kill someone human experts will have to testify and courts will hold some person or corporation accountable not the AI until we recognize AI as a person with rights and responsibilities. | |
| May 31 at 15:53 | comment | added | SystemTheory | @J D AI can hallucinate knowledge just like a child, adult, or crazy person and only humans can evaluate the quality of such knowledge in a specified expert domain. I think you are out of your mind making such arguments! This does not mean there are no useful AI, it means we may be at the mercy of machine experts if we defer to the all-knowing capabilities of such black box inference engines. Study the problems humans have with developing and applying expert skill in the context of law and legal disputes and then try to think about the problems AI will unleash on our societies. | |
| May 31 at 15:36 | comment | added | J D | @SystemTheory The problem is a function of the domain of discourse. Any knowledge that lends itself to easy encoding in formal systems such as mathematics and formal logic or permits empirical evaluation, such as the medical domain, can be shown to produce reliable knowledge with statistical certainty. There's a reason mathematicians use calculators and CASes rather than do everything by hand. | |
| May 31 at 15:34 | comment | added | J D | @SystemTheory And automated mathematical proofs are, if the systems have been validated for production of correctness, 100% reliable. | |
| May 31 at 15:32 | comment | added | J D | @SystemTheory I think you misapprehend the state of AI. Right now, with ML and ES, epistemic systems can be built that outperform seasoned professionals. medium.com/@navarai/… See also research.google/blog/… | |
| May 31 at 15:20 | comment | added | SystemTheory | This answer is optimistic concerning automation of reliable knowledge. Experts disagree every day and court disputes turn on the disagreement of expert witnesses. Government, State, or Public licensing of experts is a perpetual problem in terms of how to test for expert knowledge and talent without excluding people who are otherwise at liberty to play the role of expert or professional. Thomas Szasz argues so-called mental health experts imitate medical doctors but do not apply the expert skills of a medical professional! They impersonate medical professionals while inventing mental disease. | |
| May 31 at 15:07 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 31 at 15:02 | history | answered | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |