http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/07/technology-we-havent-seen-anything-yet/
Is an interesting discussion of where the digital age is heading and how
the new digital age will affect the balance between human and machine tasks. (01)
On 09/02/2014 10:34 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Pat C, Kingsley, and Ron,
>
> We have been debating the word *all* in the following claim for years:
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> I partially agree, but with Kingsley's reservations:
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
> I very strongly agree.
>
> RW
>> [That] does not take into account systems like Google, Watson or
>> the BI capabilities available today.
> 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. (02)
I am not sure that this is true.
I am not sure that even best research librarian can come anywhere close
to Google for 99% of the requests. (03)
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
Most medical deaths are not emergencies or sudden.
They are error in diagnosis of a condition that persists long enough to
kill you.
We are not talking about dying from what you were admitted to the
hospital to cure. (04)
> RW
>> the relationship between concepts can best be discerned by seeking
>> patterns in large amounts of data (BIG data)
> 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.
>
> 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.
Good point but unrelated to anything to do with BIG data.
Humans have difficulty in finding subtle patterns buried in data stores
containing millions of records.
I don't see how that applies to landing a plane. (05)
> 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. (06)
Is that a moral argument or a scientific one?
Should this still be true when we get to a point where it is clear that
machines consistently make a better choice in a particular application.
When we have cars directly communicating, if some car is following my
car and I have to stop suddenly , I want the car behind me to stop, not
get into a long discussion with the driver about it.
We accept huge multi-car pile-up and chain reaction collisions everyday
but will expect that computers will prevent every accident and never
make a bad judgment before adopting the technology. (07)
Machines have to be better in every case but humans only have to handle
one case better to be the default.
This is going to cost millions of lives by slowing the adoption of
lifesaving technologies in health, transportation and other areas. (08)
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (09)
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (011)
|