Specialized microchips that manage signals at the cutting edge of wireless technology are astounding works of miniaturization and engineering. They're also difficult and expensive to design.
And yet, this AI expert stated that we don’t know why the AI designed the chip in specific ways. There’s a difference between understanding the rough mechanism for something, and understanding why something happened.
Imagine hiring an engineer to design something, they hand you a finished design; they cannot explain what it is, how they actually designed it, how it works, or why they made the specific choices they did.
I never made the false equivalency you claimed I did, and you also never addressed my second criticism, which is telling.
Well, if an alien entity did give us some new technology that we didn’t have the science to build or would be an epistemological break and didn’t explain it, it would still exist and it would be the product of something we don’t understand.
I don’t get your point, are you trying to say that if we don’t know how it works, then the entity that created it is magical or something?
An engineer would have been restricted by our current knowledge and processes. An “AI” doesn’t have that kind of hindrance.
Because your point is that it was a fluke, my point is that it was the product of a new kind of way of “thinking” and resolving problems. And compared it to how the human brain solves and resolved problems. We know the parts that are activated, we know how they communicate and transfer data but we have no way to explain how it all produces thoughts and dreams and whatever other processes our brains use to create new things. Or we would have recreated it already.
What I’m saying is that we might have created something new that we don’t know how it does what it does, except is - very crudely explained - the product of probabilities and that’s ok. We don’t have to know how it does what it does, it will still do it.
We also know how “AI” works and how it creates its outputs in the same way we know the brain.
Don’t try to equate having fields of study and experts is definitive knowledge of something, that’s being fallacious.
And yet, this AI expert stated that we don’t know why the AI designed the chip in specific ways. There’s a difference between understanding the rough mechanism for something, and understanding why something happened.
Imagine hiring an engineer to design something, they hand you a finished design; they cannot explain what it is, how they actually designed it, how it works, or why they made the specific choices they did.
I never made the false equivalency you claimed I did, and you also never addressed my second criticism, which is telling.
Well, if an alien entity did give us some new technology that we didn’t have the science to build or would be an epistemological break and didn’t explain it, it would still exist and it would be the product of something we don’t understand.
I don’t get your point, are you trying to say that if we don’t know how it works, then the entity that created it is magical or something?
An engineer would have been restricted by our current knowledge and processes. An “AI” doesn’t have that kind of hindrance.
Because your point is that it was a fluke, my point is that it was the product of a new kind of way of “thinking” and resolving problems. And compared it to how the human brain solves and resolved problems. We know the parts that are activated, we know how they communicate and transfer data but we have no way to explain how it all produces thoughts and dreams and whatever other processes our brains use to create new things. Or we would have recreated it already.
What I’m saying is that we might have created something new that we don’t know how it does what it does, except is - very crudely explained - the product of probabilities and that’s ok. We don’t have to know how it does what it does, it will still do it.