Comment on Oops

• floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  What makes an expert is the ability to say “this is unequivocally safe to eat, because I can positively identify it based on this and this feature”, as well as “it is not possible/I am not able to confidently identify this mushroom as safe”

  source

  • ignotum@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So an AI that can identify mushrooms and also tell the user if a mushroom is too similar to a different dangerous mushroom to be identified with a high enough certanity for it to be safe, would be ethical?

    Then how can anyone claim that no such system can ever be created? That makes no sense

    source

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      A 2D visual representation is not the same as the real thing

      source

      • ignotum@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        So experts cannot identify mushrooms at all by looking at it?

        They might turn it around and look at it from different angles, but then just make an AI that takes in multiple images from different angles, maybe have it ask for different angles if it cannot see everything it needs to see.

        And if the experts use other senses besides vision, like smell and touch, just make an AI that says “it might be X or Y, only way to tell them apart is through the smell, so i can’t be sure”

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      It’s just anti-AI hate. They’re like flat-earthers

      source

      • FosterMolasses@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        This is the most pot calling the kettle black statement I have ever seen lmao

        source
      • ignotum@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Yeah, over the top AI hype is annoying, and there are many valid criticisms to be had with regard to how AI is being trained and used (mainly generative AI),
        but all this absolutist anti-AI nonsense beats everything

        source
• manualoverride@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Now I don’t profess to remember the entire paper, but one section was certainly “Human factors” the difference between an expert is a human can place emphasis on the dangers above all else which an AI is often incapable of portraying, and the car will still have a human driver.

  The whole point was this was a very limited and narrow language model, with AI image recognition with the assumption that the thing the human was describing and picturing is a mushroom and it’s still fallible. Specifically a mushroom identification program is a really bad idea and absolutely unethical to create, a system that answers any question you ask it where you sort out the guardrails as you go… that’s dangerous.

  source

  • ignotum@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So the argument is that you tried an AI once and it didn’t do a thing, therefore it is impossible to create an AI that is able to do it?

    Let’s say we reach the point where we can scan and then simulate the entire brain of a mushroom expert, then you’d have an AI that would give the same responses as a human expert would, is it ethical now? (Ignoring the ethics of simulating a person like that)

    Simple classification problems are relatively trivial, just train an image classifier to take in a picture of a mushroom and have it predict the type, as well as whether or not the mushroom is similar to a dangerous one, and for good measure whether the picture is good enough to give reliable results. Train it based on feedback from experts and it should end up as reliable as the experts it was based on

    source

    • manualoverride@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Well I did study for 5 years, code the AI myself and spent 4 months training it using screensaver processing on ~800 computers. Not like I downloaded an AI from the play store and declared it to be rubbish. 😀

      Even with reinforcement learning from human feedback, this is still a neural network where not every pathway leads to the correct outcome.

      Regardless of all the complexities people are still far more accepting of human error than AI error in extreme situations.

      source

      • ignotum@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Oh are you walking back the “it would be unethical” claim, and the claim that AI model cannot give nuanced responses like a human can?

        Sounds like you are now saying that a model can be made that is far better than any human expert, but since it can never be perfect and because people are far less forgiving when machines make mistakes, therefore what exactly?

        If we could make something that would reduce the absolute amount of yearly mushroom poisonings, then i would view that as an ethically good thing, not doing so would be like not making a medicine because it can give side effects, if the benefits outweigh the risks then i view it as a good thing

        source

        • -> View More Comments