> Before approving construction, I would want communities of humans to understand why the design works and what justifies confidence in its safety. I would hope that we all would.
Until very recently, I pored over every single line of code Claude generated with razor sharp scrutiny. I would usually catch issues with every response. I'm catching fewer problems these days. Maybe the model is just getting better, and maybe I'm being less careful while under pressure to ship more and more often. But model capability is obviously growing. Even back in March, you could tell it "give me a function that adds two numbers" and you could be 100% confident that it would write the correct function. There was almost no point in looking at the code. Since then, the complexity floor of problems in the category "this is so simple that the model couldn't possibly get it wrong" is rising, and with it, my cognitive surrender to the model is increasing too. Why check it? It's obviously going to be correct.
If AI designs a terawatt fusion plant, then of course we're going to meticulously pore over every detail to ensure safety, reliability, efficiency, whatever. If we find no flaws in the design whatsoever, will we be less careful about the second one? The third one? What about the ten thousandth one? Will "a nuclear fusion plant" become something that models couldn't possibly get wrong?
Terence Tao is arguing that the human involvement in research is crucial, but doesn't convincingly justify why, in my opinion. He says that "human agency is a value of fundamental importance" and that we will need to build "thriving human communities that can understand [AI ideas] together" - not for the sake of correctness, which AI may surpass us on, but for, I guess, the possibility of reclaiming human meaning and purpose. I don't disagree with this at all, but it's not an argument, it's a statement of values. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that if AI does surpass humans, it will become the economically dominant strategy to not verify them and not double check them, but to just do whatever they say. This seems like a great way to raise p(doom). But as the models get better and better, and as I'm scrutinizing Claude's output less and less... I just hope that there are more Terence Taos out there than people like me.
The average person doesn't know how the medication they take works, the mechanics of climate and climate change, how the energy they consume is generated, etc.
> The medical field as a whole isn’t generally interested in understanding how medication, only in empirical measuring and qualify the effects.
I don't think this is quite correct. I mean many practitioners of medicine will have the attitude of ... "if it works, it works". And that's perfectly reasonable.
But if you understand the mechanism of action of a drug (or other treatment), it (often) makes it easier to improve a drug.
So ... some sectors of the "medical field" understandably care only about empirical results. But other sectors would prefer to understand what's going on.
>The medical field as a whole isn’t generally interested in understanding how medication, only in empirical measuring and qualify the effects.
This is nonsense. Most, if not all professionals are interested in mechanism of action, but without Ms Frizzle, it is extremely difficult and expensive (time and money wise) to figure that out. So while the labs run the experiments with the very limited funding they have, we make do with using the second best thing we have, which are statistics.
pyridines · · focus · HN ↗
Until very recently, I pored over every single line of code Claude generated with razor sharp scrutiny. I would usually catch issues with every response. I'm catching fewer problems these days. Maybe the model is just getting better, and maybe I'm being less careful while under pressure to ship more and more often. But model capability is obviously growing. Even back in March, you could tell it "give me a function that adds two numbers" and you could be 100% confident that it would write the correct function. There was almost no point in looking at the code. Since then, the complexity floor of problems in the category "this is so simple that the model couldn't possibly get it wrong" is rising, and with it, my cognitive surrender to the model is increasing too. Why check it? It's obviously going to be correct.
If AI designs a terawatt fusion plant, then of course we're going to meticulously pore over every detail to ensure safety, reliability, efficiency, whatever. If we find no flaws in the design whatsoever, will we be less careful about the second one? The third one? What about the ten thousandth one? Will "a nuclear fusion plant" become something that models couldn't possibly get wrong?
Terence Tao is arguing that the human involvement in research is crucial, but doesn't convincingly justify why, in my opinion. He says that "human agency is a value of fundamental importance" and that we will need to build "thriving human communities that can understand [AI ideas] together" - not for the sake of correctness, which AI may surpass us on, but for, I guess, the possibility of reclaiming human meaning and purpose. I don't disagree with this at all, but it's not an argument, it's a statement of values. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that if AI does surpass humans, it will become the economically dominant strategy to not verify them and not double check them, but to just do whatever they say. This seems like a great way to raise p(doom). But as the models get better and better, and as I'm scrutinizing Claude's output less and less... I just hope that there are more Terence Taos out there than people like me.
jazzprogramming · · focus · HN ↗
But suppose some future holy grail AI can do much more than that.
Suppose it could find a cure for cancer, fix the climate, build fusion plants, Dyson spheres and so on.
But nobody can understand anymore how any of it works. We just ask and then trust the AI to deliver (as it always has).
Isn't it fun to imagine how life would look like in that scenario?
We would probably no longer care about code, engineering or even physics and mathematics among other things. We would probably mainly care about
ElProlactin · · focus · HN ↗
The average person doesn't know how the medication they take works, the mechanics of climate and climate change, how the energy they consume is generated, etc.
MaxBarraclough · · focus · HN ↗
orphereus · · focus · HN ↗
Loquebantur · · focus · HN ↗
When you already know that system well, those effects are often just a matter of simple inference.
Just like here: most people are actually perfectly capable to foresee the detrimental effects of abandoning understanding.
Living in a fantasy world of "magic" makes you dependent upon your caretakers, who provide the ingredients.
darkwater · · focus · HN ↗
avianlyric · · focus · HN ↗
The medical field as a whole isn’t generally interested in understanding how medication, only in empirical measuring and qualify the effects.
busyant · · focus · HN ↗
I don't think this is quite correct. I mean many practitioners of medicine will have the attitude of ... "if it works, it works". And that's perfectly reasonable.
But if you understand the mechanism of action of a drug (or other treatment), it (often) makes it easier to improve a drug.
So ... some sectors of the "medical field" understandably care only about empirical results. But other sectors would prefer to understand what's going on.
lotsofpulp · · focus · HN ↗
This is nonsense. Most, if not all professionals are interested in mechanism of action, but without Ms Frizzle, it is extremely difficult and expensive (time and money wise) to figure that out. So while the labs run the experiments with the very limited funding they have, we make do with using the second best thing we have, which are statistics.
eloisant · · focus · HN ↗
That doesn't mean we understand why the medication works.
uwagar · · focus · HN ↗
jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
uwagar · · focus · HN ↗