|
|
|
|
|
|
by itishappy
772 days ago
|
|
|
I think this is a gross mischaracterization of AI and humans are only slightly better. Truth is way harder than people give credit. It can depend on time, space, and context. What's true for a preschooler might not be true for an astronomer. Here's a pile of facts; they get weird: * The Sun revolves around the Earth * The Earth is a sphere * Energy can never be created or destroyed * Jesus was the son of God * Pluto is a planet * Epstein didn't kill himself * The ocean is blue * The election was stolen * Entropy always increases * Santa delivers presents to good boys and girls * The sun is shining I have strong opinions on how true all these statements are, and I bet you do too. Think we agree? Think we can all agree where to set the AI? |
|
|
To the extent that facts are defined as today and stated as such, that is what AI is today. AI, as it is today, is never going to create a fact that refutes any currently existing facts.
It may give you context on the theories against the facts that we have today, but it will always reiterate the notion of the existing fact. I don't know how much I can emphasize this... AI is trained on the current body of human knowledge. The facts it knows are the facts that we have, it may derive another fact but whatever fact that is founded on the facts that we already have. So if that AI is trained on the fact that 1+1=2 or that the earth is flat, do not expect it to respond otherwise. At best, it will give you theories that suggest otherwise but for its own worth, it will always bring you back to the facts that it has.
Do you really want AI to just ignore the fundamental facts and principles that form its foundation and just make up stuff because you asked it to? Do you realize how much chaos that can bring?