I think the solution is obvious: connect the computers to empirical
feedback devices and make them scientists. Humans hallucinate too if
they spend too much time in a sensory deprivation tank. Give the
computers sensory inputs and they will naturally become scientists.
> find consensus on trivial topics (are eggs good for you?) amongst
experts who study these matters day after day
Leaving aside the question of how reliable current soft science really
are, this is exactly the problem that these machines can help with, once
they have the data. Consider the modified form of the question: Are eggs
good for me? At this stage in my life? At this time of day? Given what
I ate for dinner last night? And millions of intricate details about my
medical history, and my family, and DNA, and "exposome", etc. (I worked
very briefly for a medical sensing startup, our chief Doctor would wax
lyrical about the possibilities for personalized medicine and nutrition--
once we have the data.)
> the public, who does not [study these matters], is left confused
To some extent, being able to do things without understanding how they
are carried out "under the hood" is a measure of the advancement of
civilization, eh? (But please don't mistake me as arguing in favor of
ignorance!)
> when there is no rationalization for answers given.
We can ask the computers to show their reasoning (soon, if not
now), we can ask them to summarize the current state of knowledge,
including the grey areas and disputes, eh?
> How many people ... are stuck ...
I think it's clear that these machines will rapidly become perfect
salesmen and perfect therapists. It's less clear to me what we will do
with that.
> We are very poorly equipped to be vetting answers from a fallible machine.
I don't think the machines will be fallible once we connect them to
sensory systems, but I do think that lots of people will try to do silly
"Dr. Evil" things like try to mass-program their subjects/citizens.
And I think lots of people will let them raise their children, that will
probably have mixed results.
> I’d rather we learn how to solve the more complex problems so that we can do it and understand it rather than take guesses at which of a number of generated options is correct.
Selecting from the options the computer generates is the only complex problem left, see "Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework" SRI Summary Report AFOSR-3223 by Douglas C. Engelbart, October 1962
https://dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html
I think the solution is obvious: connect the computers to empirical feedback devices and make them scientists. Humans hallucinate too if they spend too much time in a sensory deprivation tank. Give the computers sensory inputs and they will naturally become scientists.
> find consensus on trivial topics (are eggs good for you?) amongst experts who study these matters day after day
Leaving aside the question of how reliable current soft science really are, this is exactly the problem that these machines can help with, once they have the data. Consider the modified form of the question: Are eggs good for me? At this stage in my life? At this time of day? Given what I ate for dinner last night? And millions of intricate details about my medical history, and my family, and DNA, and "exposome", etc. (I worked very briefly for a medical sensing startup, our chief Doctor would wax lyrical about the possibilities for personalized medicine and nutrition-- once we have the data.)
> the public, who does not [study these matters], is left confused
To some extent, being able to do things without understanding how they are carried out "under the hood" is a measure of the advancement of civilization, eh? (But please don't mistake me as arguing in favor of ignorance!)
> when there is no rationalization for answers given.
We can ask the computers to show their reasoning (soon, if not now), we can ask them to summarize the current state of knowledge, including the grey areas and disputes, eh?
> How many people ... are stuck ...
I think it's clear that these machines will rapidly become perfect salesmen and perfect therapists. It's less clear to me what we will do with that.
> We are very poorly equipped to be vetting answers from a fallible machine.
I don't think the machines will be fallible once we connect them to sensory systems, but I do think that lots of people will try to do silly "Dr. Evil" things like try to mass-program their subjects/citizens. And I think lots of people will let them raise their children, that will probably have mixed results.
> I’d rather we learn how to solve the more complex problems so that we can do it and understand it rather than take guesses at which of a number of generated options is correct.
Selecting from the options the computer generates is the only complex problem left, see "Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework" SRI Summary Report AFOSR-3223 by Douglas C. Engelbart, October 1962 https://dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html