/* ---- Google Analytics Code Below */

Monday, October 24, 2016

Considering the Correctness of AI

More from Cambridge University and the newly formed Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI):    Artificial intelligence: computer says YES (but is it right?)

My comments:

As long as we measure business results, and statistically measure results that are significantly better, we will be OK.   This is similar to the argument of better vs best.    Best, also called optimal,  almost always exists under some context that can be difficult to repeat, but assuring you get better can still provide real value.   All my experiences have dealt with this.

True there are scenarios where we want perfection,  correctness, optimal or best solutions.   But humans cannot always achieve that, and neither can AI.  So we add layers of checking, constraints, regulation and even ethics to both humans and machines to protect ourselves from this ultimate liability.   Which is why we further add risk understanding and analysis.  The integration with the use of smarter machines is no different.

(update)  And related, in Nature:  http://www.nature.com/news/there-is-a-blind-spot-in-ai-research-1.20805

No comments: