Pat C, Kingsley, and Ron, (01)
We have been debating the word *all* in the following claim for years: (02)
PC
> but the point is to use a ‘foundation ontology’ (I prefer that term)
> that has **all** of the fundamental (‘primitive’) concept representations
> that are required to logically specify the meanings of all of the domain
> concepts in the communicating domain ontologies. (03)
The word 'all' is appropriate *only* in a mathematical domain. Over
two centuries ago, Kant explicitly said that *no empirical concept*
can ever be completely defined -- because new observations and
discoveries are always possible. (04)
Even Aristotle made similar comments about definitions of empirical
concepts. He said that a definition of biological species by genus
and differentiae is only possible *after* a thorough examination and
description of specimens (i.e., prototypes). He also admitted that
definitions may need to be revised when new observations are made. (05)
PC
> getting computers with increasing ability to perform without humans is,
> I believe one of the goals that motivates many workers with knowledge
> based systems (including myself), and in other fields as well. (06)
I partially agree, but with Kingsley's reservations: (07)
KI
> A computer can perform autonomously, with varying degrees of intelligence,
> while ultimately remaining a productivity tool for human beings. A computer
> cannot replace a human being in ... the realm of cognition. (08)
Yes. On any car I buy, I insist on a manual override. I like many
of the options on new cars. But there are horror stories about
people getting trapped in cars whose doors are computer controlled. (09)
KI
> Computers cannot be left alone to mission-critical decisions for humans.
> What they can do is perform a lot of the grunt work that makes humans
> beings make better decisions, more productively. (010)
I very strongly agree. (011)
RW
> [That] does not take into account systems like Google, Watson or
> the BI capabilities available today. (012)
Watson beat the Jeopardy! champions in a high-pressure situation.
If Watson were given more time, its performance would not improve
very much. But even an average Jeopardy! player with access to
Wikipedia could beat Watson if they both took the same time. (013)
RW
> It is believed that medical errors kill over 400,000 people a year
> in the US... What will be the acceptable loss rates for computers
> making mission-critical decisions? It appears that highly trained
> professionals have a very high rate of error. (014)
I agree with those observations, but they're consistent with Kingsley's
reservations. If I have a medical emergency, I want all the warning
systems operational. But the physicians must have a manual override
for unusual situations. (015)
A flashing light or a siren can cause people to make even worse errors.
We need systems that generate *explanations* that can be spoken calmly
in the professional's native language. But in emergencies, it may be
necessary to *shout* the explanations. (016)
RW
> the relationship between concepts can best be discerned by seeking
> patterns in large amounts of data (BIG data) (017)
I would qualify the word 'best' in the same way that I qualify the word
'all' in Pat's claim. There are *always* observations that have not
been recorded in even the largest corpora. There is no Big Data about
landing a plane in the Hudson River. I want somebody like Sullenberger
to have a manual override. (018)
I admit that some horror stories are the result of a novice overriding
the autopilot. If Sullenbeger had a heart attack, we need systems
that can explain the options to the co-pilot -- *and* understand the
responses by the co-pilot. (019)
Summary: Automated systems are essential for emergency responses
in milliseconds. They can be valuable assistants when there is a
huge amount of data. In any situation where an immediate response
is not required, the human should always have the option of making
the final decision after getting explanations from the system. (020)
John (021)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (022)
|