undefined | Better HN

0 pointstravisjungroth2y ago0 comments

It’s suspect until it’s demonstrated. Once someone has demonstrated it, counterexamples are meaningless.

I claim I can juggle. I pick up three tennis balls and juggle them. You hand me three basketballs. I try and fail. My original claim, that I can juggle, still stands.

0 comments

physPop2y ago

I disagree -- that would disprove your claim, as your claim was too broad. Same if they handed you chainsaws or elephants, or seventy-two tennis balls.

The more correct claim is you can juggle [some small number of items with particular properties].

travisjungrothOP2y ago

Normal English implies that you can do something, not everything. It’s an any versus all distinction, and all is totally unreasonable except for the most formal circumstances.

“Can you ride a bike?”

“Yeah.”

“Prove it. Here I have the world’s smallest bicycle.” <- this person is not worth your time and attention.

alienicecream2y ago

It can't even count reliably. And this is a computer, not a human. That is one of the simplest things a computer should be able to do. It can't count because it doesn't know what counting is, not because it's unreliable in the way a human would be when counting. You cannot reason if you do not understand the concepts you are working with. The result is not the measure of success here, because it is good at mimicking, but when it fails at such a basic computing task, you can reasonably conclude it has no idea what it's doing.

travisjungrothOP2y ago

Think about it step by step. There are people not able to count. We still say they can reason. A low ability to count does not disprove reasoning.

1 more reply

pxc2y ago

That's because

> I can juggle

is here shorthand for

> I can juggle at all; I can juggle at least some things

and the basketball case is only a counterexample to the much stronger claim

> I can juggle anything

But the argument about AIs reasoning has little to do with such examples, because juggling is about the ability to complete the task alone. When it comes to reasoning there are questions about authenticity that don't have analogs I'm determine whether a person can juggle.

travisjungrothOP2y ago

This thread is exactly such examples.

What would “not alone” mean? Do you think someone is passing it the answers? Of course it was trained, but that’s like cheating on a test by reading the material so you can keep a cheat sheet in your brain.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

physPop2y ago

I disagree -- that would disprove your claim, as your claim was too broad. Same if they handed you chainsaws or elephants, or seventy-two tennis balls.

The more correct claim is you can juggle [some small number of items with particular properties].

travisjungrothOP2y ago

Normal English implies that you can do something, not everything. It’s an any versus all distinction, and all is totally unreasonable except for the most formal circumstances.

“Can you ride a bike?”

“Yeah.”

“Prove it. Here I have the world’s smallest bicycle.” <- this person is not worth your time and attention.

alienicecream2y ago

travisjungrothOP2y ago

Think about it step by step. There are people not able to count. We still say they can reason. A low ability to count does not disprove reasoning.

1 more reply

pxc2y ago

That's because

> I can juggle

is here shorthand for

> I can juggle at all; I can juggle at least some things

and the basketball case is only a counterexample to the much stronger claim

> I can juggle anything

travisjungrothOP2y ago

This thread is exactly such examples.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse