this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
815 points (96.9% liked)

Science Memes

11111 readers
2351 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
815
answer = sum(n) / len(n) (lemmy.eco.br)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree with your first paragraph, but unwinding that emergent behavior really can be impossible. It's not just a matter of taking spaghetti code and deciphering it, ML usually works by generating weights in something like a decision tree, neural network, or statistical model.

Assigning any sort of human logic to why particular weights ended up where they are is educated guesswork at best.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

You know what we do in engineering when we need to understand a system a lot of the time? We instrument it.

Please explain why this can't be instrumented. Please explain why the trace data could not be analtzed offline at different timescales as a way to start understanding what is happening in the models.

I'm fucking embarassed for CS lately.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

It's not always as simple as measuring an observable system or simulating the parameters the best you can. Lots of parameters + lots of variables = we have a good idea how it should go, we can get close, but don't actually know. That's part of why emergent behavior and chaos theory are so difficult, even in theoretically closed systems.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

... but they just said that it can. You check it, and you will receive gibberish. Congrats, your value is .67845278462 and if you change that by .000000001 in either direction things break. Tell me why it ended up at that number. The numbers, what do they mean?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

That field is called Explainable AI and the answer is because that costs money and the only reason AI is being used is to cut costs

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

☝️

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Thank you. I am fucking exhausted from hearing people claim these things are somehow magically impossible when the real issue is cost.

Computers and technology are amazing, but they are not magic. They are the most direct piece of reality where you can reliably say that every single action taken can be broken into discrete steps, even if that means tracing individual CPU operations on data registers like an insane person.