|
|
|
|
|
|
by FrustratedMonky
978 days ago
|
|
|
Maybe it is just an engineering problem. Humans aren't strictly math computations that can arrive at a absolute 0 or 1. Maybe humans have a bit of a random number generator that kicks in some noise to avoid reaching absolute 0 or 1. Allows some re-evaluation. Maybe that would be option in AI to avoid the problem.
During one of the games with AlphaGo it seemed to get stuck and was treading water making really 'plain or lackluster' moves. Until it kind of got unstuck. It seems to be similar? |
|
|
Yes
> Humans aren't strictly math computations that can arrive at a absolute 0 or 1.
Actually, I think it's the other way around. Humans will arrive at a 0 or 1 (being convinced they know the truth), often with quite little support by evidence/data.
Rather, I think this is biology's "engineering solution" to having limited compute power.
> Allows some re-evaluation.
When you do get P=0 or P=1, you stop re-evaluating (when using basically Bayesian logic).
> Maybe that would be option in AI to avoid the problem.
AI can definitely be made to avoid this problem. It's a lot better at doing webs of Bayesian logic than humans are, if we tell it to, and can probably do that even if not explicitly designed for Bayesian logic.
My concern is more about humans.
The common word for people that evaluate P=0 or 1 AND draw the consequences from that, is fundamentalist. If anything, more intelligent people have a higher risk of becoming a fundementalist than others, since a single wrong absolute belief tends to cascade into a larger web of induced false beliefs, simply to keep their view on reality consistent.
Often it's better when people simply allow themselves to hold mutually exclusive beliefs, without caring so much about the contradiction. Like when people hold religious beliefs (maybe that people that don't belive in their God the way they do will go to hell), while NOT trying convert their souls at gunpoint out of "mercy" to prevent eternal suffering.