I’m not sure if I just thought this up sitting on the tiles in my shower room or if I dreamt it, but still.
Edit: I’m being cynical and I hate our blind faith in and reliance on LLMs.
Calculating is exactly what AIs don’t do.
I think thats OPs point, Ai doesn’t provide answers, it provides confidence.
So when they get it wrong 99% of the time, it doesn’t actually matter cause we decided pleasing stakeholders is equivalent to actual success.
That depends on if the AI was programmed to calculate or not. Clearly an LLM is not, but there are other forms of AI that are.
This makes no sense.
Neural networks inherently work in a probabilistic latent space. The whole point is that we have a definable problem and we are unable to apply any deterministic mathematical calculations to it. That’s why we call it a “black box problem” - we know what the solution looks like and we have a few examples of input and output data, but we don’t know what the method looks like. In fact, even if we have an AI we don’t know what the method looks like. If you wanna know more about this issue, look up explainable AI and you will find all the ways we have tried to come up with smart solutions like model heat maps to estimate their methodology. But these are all approximations.
Now if you ask an LLM what method it used to get to a solution, it will try to work backwards using its own reasoning and context clues to give you what its best estimation of the methodology is but that’s not the same as its true methodology.
For me (and most people of the machine learning field I am aware of) an AI is inherently worse at calculations. That’s what algorithms are for. And the only things sitting somewhere between an LLM and an algorithm are maybe Markov chains and randomforest. If there’s anything remotely close to an AI model that is good at calculations, I am all ears.
Hell yeah I can be technically correct.
Under some definitions of intelligence, any transformation of information is intelligence, for example even 1+1=2.
So my math super ultra premium vbux AI discovery is the following python script:
print("2")As per all test cases I’ve been able to conceive, this model has achieved a 100% success rate - and is definitively a major stepping stone to AGI (Is it now legally SGI in america?).
I’ll expect my trillion in the mail.
It’ll never be acceptable, but they’re going to shove it down our throats anyway
Have you ever seen this episode of Star Trek voyager?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Care_(Star_Trek%3A_Voyager)
The algorithm will be altered to say poor people don’t deserve healthcare because they are more replaceable and their life has less value to the shareholders and billionaires. They will be denied medical treatment which will cause early death.
So the same, just automated. If you believe capitalism cares about or values poor people right now well I’ve got bad news for you 😂
Even at 10 years old i couldnt believe they allowed that to come out
Why not? It makes some people nod “finally that’s on screen”, feeling a little not of relief, and then nothing changes.
just like real life now
That was an excellent episode of Voyager.
Maybe it’ll be acceptable to you, if you’re a degenerate techbro ghoul…
It won’t calculate the odds of survival. It’ll calculate the revenue that can be extracted from you.
it’ll become acceptable to us
Speak for yourself. This is fully unacceptable.
us ~> US
Your username + instance informs your comment.
More like calculated the cost to the insurance company.
not if will smith has anythihg to say about it.
FINALLY
Estimated Time to Death (ETD) feels like a near future stat used to justify killing terminal patients.
And in a few decades we can start using Estimated Societal Contributions to determine how much a person’s entire life might be worth and at what point it becomes financially irresponsible to continue providing any sort of support.
I think we started that a few decades ago with credit score?
Like we don’t directly kill anyone I suppose, but definitely indirectly increase the odds when they are less helpful monetarily.
Just for example with the gen Z suicide epidemic, by definition people are killing themselves not being killed. But to a company this is financially beneficial, cause a left-wing bias has on average resulted in more restrictive laws and a lower profit margin. It becomes an important business strategy to ensure they remain poor and anxious (and of course this causes some to be suicidal). Vice versa for boomers of course, elder care has never been better funded across human history.
Or another example, credit score companies would be “throwing money away” if they weren’t also doing this for like union-oriented families, ie ensuring those who have statistically unionised (or follow any trends that might be too union-y), they’re marked less valuable.
So they can kill people by letting them starve/OD/get in a car accident, or just shorten their lifespan with cheap housing, all without ever having to see a poor person.
Hadn’t thought of it that way, and you’re absolutely correct. So many things require a good credit score.
So all ded at 65 then.
I think that is a very optimistic number. The first 15 years are already a negative contribution.
It is the perfect tool for the rich, they can influence it, you can’t see how it makes its decisions, and it can’t be held liable.
Yes, because human doctors make a lot of mistakes.
But what if it had calculated that this person who will remain vegetative for the rest of their life, had healthy organs that could be used immediately to save 10 lives?
That’s exactly it. I will never be in a place where I’m comfortable letting an LLM making that decision. No way.
It would take a lot of the emotional pressure off of the doctors and family member who do have to make the call. It’s a lot easier to blame a machine than to blame yourself.
deleted by creator
I vote we should start flipping a coin for all decisions ever, to take the emotional pressure off everyone and blame the coin.
Cause I stg I’d kill god himself before we treat healthcare workers like humans, the only reasonable solution is the coin.
What if it had? Do you think that makes it acceptable for the AI to decide to pull the plug (as per the OP’s scenario)?
Are you going to be the one to tell those other ten people’s families that their loved one is going to die because another family wants to watch their brain dead Uncle breathe for a few more weeks?
Actually, the conversation usually goes something like this:
Patient/family: do you have a kidney yet?
Doctor: no, not yet
(no mention of the family dealing with a difficult, personal decision about their loved one)
The larger question being presented is who gets to decide whether to pull the plug? Do you want such a decision about your spouse or child to be in the hands of another?
Forgive my theatrics, just trying to put you in the mindset of 10 people that died because your human brain chose to state at a vegetable. No, probably not even that. They’ll keep him on life support and go back to their own lives. And more and more people will die as he lays there alone and unaware.
Human emotion makes lots of bad decisions.
You’re not owed someone else’s organs, you sad utilitarian fuck.
It’s ok, he consented to organ donation.
So does AI. So do algorithms.
It sounds like you’re OK with the decision being in something else’s hands. which again brings us back to the point of the OP.
You think that can be accurately encoded in a text predictor?
Like sure eventually computers will be powerful enough to Turing machine an LLM into something useful - a la monkeys on typewriters. But the efficiency of such a system is compatible to natural selection in its probability distribution. When a Dr 40 years ago could have given you the same, and actually describe why without taking another 2^256 years to compute.
I really don’t understand why everyone thinks that chatbots and image generators are the only form of AI out there. AI has been around for decades longer than chatbots. Industrial AI isnt designed to chat. It’s designed to work.
Yeah but in a post about LLMs I think the context clues kinda enforce what AI algorithm is being discussed.
I suppose it is only mentioned in the edit of OP, but still
I thought the spirit of the discussion was ethics of allowing machines to make medical decisions. Which, I think is a valid philosophical discussion that needs to happen soon, because the technology is quickly going to put us there.
Using a digital Magic 8 ball to make those decisions is just nonsense, and there’s nothing to discuss.
You got me there not gonna lie.
I think I have a hard time seeing technological/ethical/philosphical as new cause most of it is just a change in order of magnitude over old mathematical/ethical/philosophical debates, but that is my own bias. Honestly I feel like comparing AI models is closer to that stupid Nazi “skull measuring” bs than a generalisable framework for the universe.
On the medical ethical side, I’d trust a computer to make decisions that require that processing order of magnitude (or sampling frequency/sampling method) - but again I feel like we were already accepting this back in the 40s with early digital sensors, and even more so in the 90s on with microchips.
But I wouldn’t trust them on emotional decisions and interpretation, cause why try to approximate some then when real humans exist.
So TLDR my hot take is Drs have for a while been human machine translator/therapists, which ends up being a pretty damn technical job.
But I wouldn’t trust them on emotional decisions and interpretation, cause why try to approximate some then when real humans exist.
So TLDR my hot take is Drs have for a while been human machine translator/therapists, which ends up being a pretty damn technical job.
This is such a good summary of my thinking process. Thanks! 😀
Yep. I’m so glad I won’t be around for that.
TBH, I’d be surprised if it isn’t happening somewhere already.
