• pezhore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does anyone else start freaking out when we have such complex programs that researchers don’t fully understand how they work?

    • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      For what is worth a lot of medicine works this way. I’m fairly certain this isn’t the only field, either. I’d imagine studying ecology or space feels similar

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does make me vaguely curious what happens if you try to make one of these on the more powerful end explain step by step how its own program works. I dont really expect it to be accurate, given that if people dont know how the thing works, it probably wont find much about that in it’s training data, but if what it learns ultimately enables it to make connections about how the real world works to some degree, could it figure out enough to give even marginally useful hints?

    • Czorio@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We know how they work, otherwise we couldn’t design and implement them. What we don’t really know, and we don’t really have to know is the exact parameters the model trains to.

      The issue you’re thinking of is that any one parameter does not necessarily map to one aspect, but they are a coherent collection that makes the whole work. Some interesting insights can be gleaned from trying to figure out these relationships, but due to the massive amount of parameters (billions!) it gets a little much to get your head around.

    • PlatinumPangolin@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole “we don’t know how they work” thing is a bit overblown. We have all the formulas, we know exactly how the math and code works. You can go and look at the weights for every node, you’re just not going to derive any meaning or necessarily explain why one number works better than another.

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is the definition of complexity, isn’t it? The fact here is that we can’t scale up our understanding at a small level to make sense of the bigger picture. Having worked myself with (much simpler) artificial neural networks, I think it’s very much correct and to the point to say that “we don’t know how it works”. I would even go further and claim that we will never know how it works fully: the weights in the network in essence form structures that do what they do, that we can recognize by analogy (e.g. logic gates, contour extractors, …), but this is an anthropomorphic approximation which moreover only works in a certain range of values/set of conditions. Had we a formal definition of what the weights represent, we would then be dealing with a (much simpler and efficient) algorithm in the traditional sense (with cleanly delineated and rigorously defined specialized functions).

  • bron@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So fully explaining how these systems work will be a huge project that humanity is unlikely to complete any time soon.

    Great read. This quote really stuck out to me and gave me chills. Reading about AI is so fascinating. Feels like we’re on the cusp of something big.

    • PenguinTD@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      cause in the end it’s all statistics and math, human are full of mistakes(intentional or not), living language evolve over time(even the grammar), so whatever we are building “now” is a contemporary “good enough” representation.