this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
676 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
2926 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.
Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?
Shall we replace our judges with an AI?
Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?
The problem with the majority of the AI projects I've seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they've significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they've access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with "AI voodoo". Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.