Actually Useful AI

2014 readers

7 users here now

Welcome! 🤖

Our community focuses on programming-oriented, hype-free discussion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) topics. We aim to curate content that truly contributes to the understanding and practical application of AI, making it, as the name suggests, "actually useful" for developers and enthusiasts alike.

Be an active member! 🔔

We highly value participation in our community. Whether it's asking questions, sharing insights, or sparking new discussions, your engagement helps us all grow.

What can I post? 📝

In general, anything related to AI is acceptable. However, we encourage you to strive for high-quality content.

What is not allowed? 🚫

🔊 Sensationalism: "How I made $1000 in 30 minutes using ChatGPT - the answer will surprise you!"
♻️ Recycled Content: "Ultimate ChatGPT Prompting Guide" that is the 10,000th variation on "As a (role), explain (thing) in (style)"
🚮 Blogspam: Anything the mods consider crypto/AI bro success porn sigma grindset blogspam

General Rules 📜

Members are expected to engage in on-topic discussions, and exhibit mature, respectful behavior. Those who fail to uphold these standards may find their posts or comments removed, with repeat offenders potentially facing a permanent ban.

While we appreciate focus, a little humor and off-topic banter, when tasteful and relevant, can also add flavor to our discussions.

Related Communities 🌐

General

Chat

[email protected]

Image

Open Source

[email protected]

Please message @[email protected] if you would like us to add a community to this list.

Icon base by Lord Berandas under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

sisyphean

Why artificial intelligence needs to understand consequences (www.nature.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/auai

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is the potential development in AI I'm most interested in. So naturally, I tested this when I first used ChatGPT. In classic ChatGPT fashion, when asked to make a directed acyclic graph representing cause and effect, it could interpret that well enough to make a simple graph...but got the cause and effect flow for something as simple as lighting a fire. Haven't tried it again with ChatGPT-4 though.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sisyphean 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is a thought-provoking article, thank you for sharing it. One paragraph that particularly stood out to me discusses the limitations of AI in dealing with rare events:

The ability to imagine different scenarios could also help to overcome some of the limitations of existing AI, such as the difficulty of reacting to rare events. By definition, Bengio says, rare events show up only sparsely, if at all, in the data that a system is trained on, so the AI can’t learn about them. A person driving a car can imagine an occurrence they’ve never seen, such as a small plane landing on the road, and use their understanding of how things work to devise potential strategies to deal with that specific eventuality. A self-driving car without the capability for causal reasoning, however, could at best default to a generic response for an object in the road. By using counterfactuals to learn rules for how things work, cars could be better prepared for rare events. Working from causal rules rather than a list of previous examples ultimately makes the system more versatile.

On a different note, I asked GPT-4 to visualize the cause and effect flow for lighting a fire. It isn't super detailed but not wrong either:

(Though I think being able to draw a graph like this correctly and actually understanding causality aren't necessarily related.)

If you tell me the original prompts you used, we can test them in GPT-4 and see how well it performs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That's definitely a better graph visually. (The image capability is cool, the graph I got on the earlier model was in text form). But I think it is wrong - "prepare (tinder, kindling, and fuel wood)" are all redundant to each other. Plus there's a direct link from "prepare tinder wood" to "maintain fire" - if this is a causal diagram indicating the sequence of actions a person needs to take, "prepare wood " should link to "light fire". I don't have a record of the exact prompts I was using, but I was working more with the fact that oxygen. fuel, and heat are all necessary but independent preconditions for a fire to start.