Comment on OpenAI admits AI hallucinations are mathematically inevitable, not just engineering flaws

• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  While technically correct, there is a steep hand-wave gradient between “just” and “near-impossible.” Neural networks can presumably turn an accelerometer into a damn good position tracker. You can try filtering and double-integrating that data, using human code. Many humans have. Most wind up disappointed. None of our clever theories compete with beating the machine until it makes better guesses.

  It’s like, ‘as soon as humans can photosynthesize, the food industry is cooked.’

  If we knew what neural networks were doing, we wouldn’t need them.

  source

  • 87Six@lemmy.zip ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    But…we do know what they are doing…AI is based completely on calculations at the low level, that are well defined. And just because we didn’t find an algorithm for your example yet that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

    source

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Knowing it exists doesn’t mean you’ll ever find it.

      Meanwhile: we can come pretty close, immediately, using data alone. Listing all the math a program performs doesn’t mean you know what it’s doing. Decompiling human-authored programs is hard enough. Putting words to the algorithms wrenched out by backpropagation is a research project unto itself.

      source

      • 87Six@lemmy.zip ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I really don’t know where you’re coming from with this…I took classes on AI that went into detail and we even made our own functional AI neural networks of different varieties…and I doubt we are the most knowledgeable about this in university. This tech isn’t some mistery. If we knew how it worked enough to make one from nothing else except a working IDE, AI engineers must know pretty damn well what it does…

        source