YouSaid · the spoken record

David Ferrucci

lines on the record: 179
first: 2019-10-11
most recent: 2019-10-11
sittings or episodes: 1
sources: podcast

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“It's good because, again, this goes back to how does the human behavior like how does the human brain respond to things of that too, which is that if you're searching for certain kinds of things, you've already reasoned that you need them. And these algorithms are saying, look, that's up to you to reason whether you need something or not. That's your job. You may have an unhealthy addiction to this stuff, or you may have a reasoned and thoughtful...”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I mean, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It works to get your attention and it works to get you to buy stuff. And when you think about algorithms that look at the patterns of features that you seem to be spending your money on and say, I'm going to give you something with a similar pattern. So I'm going to learn that function because the objective is to get you to click on it or get you to buy it or whatever it is. I don't know. I mean, it is like it is what it is. I mean, that's what the algorithm does. You can argue whether it's good or bad. It depends what your goal is.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“You know, so you call it emotional manipulation, but more objectively is essentially saying there are certain features of things that seem to attract your attention. I mean, it kind of give you more of that stuff.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And my point is that how do you train someone to do that? And that's what I mean by it's hard. How do you, what's the process of training people to do that well? That's a hard process. We work as a society. We work pretty hard to get other people to understand our thinking and to convince them of things. Now we could weigh them. Obviously, you talked about this. human flaws or weaknesses we can Persuade them through emotional means, but to get them to understand and connect to and follow a logical argument is difficult. We try it, we do it, we do it as scientists, we try to do it as journalists, we try to do it as even artists in many forms, as writers, as teachers. We go through a fairly significant training process to do that. And then we could ask, well, why is that so hard? It's hard, and for humans, it takes a lot of work.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And what judgments we use to learn that well. And so what I mean by that is if you look at the entire enterprise of science, sciences supposed to be at about objective reason, right? So we think about who's the most intelligent person or group of people in the world. Do we think about the savants who can close their eyes and give you a number? We think about the think tanks or the scientists or the philosophers who kind of work through the details and write the papers and come up with the thoughtful logical proofs and use the scientific method. And I think it's the latter.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I think it's hard for computers. And the reason why I related to saying that it's also hard for humans is because I think when we step back and we say we want to design computers to do that. Of the things we have to recognize is we're not sure how to do it well. I'm not sure we have a recipe for that. And even if you wanted to learn it, it's not clear exactly what data we use.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“It's ultimately got to be convinced, and that's why I'm saying we're bound together, right? Our intelligences are bound together in that sense. We have to understand each other. And if, for example, you're giving me an explanation, I mean, this is a very important point, right? You're giving me an explanation. And I'm not good. And then I'm not good at reasoning well and being objective and following logical paths and consistent paths. And I'm not good at measuring and sort of computing probabilities across those paths. What happens is collectively, we're not going to do well.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And someone says, Well, I think you should buy, and I think you should buy this much or whatever, or sell or whatever it is, or I think you should launch the product today or tomorrow or launch this product versus that product, whatever decision may be. And you ask why, and the person said, I just have a good feeling about it. And you're not very satisfied Person could be, you know, you might say, Well, you've been right before, but I'm going to put the company on the line. Can you explain to me why I should believe this?”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Like a savant. I think it is. It doesn't mean it's not useful. It could be incredibly useful. It could be solving a problem we can't otherwise solve and can solve it more reliably than we can. But then there's this notion of can humans take Responsibility for the decision that you're making, can we make those decisions ourselves can relate to the process that you're going through? And now you as an agent, whether you're a machine or another human, frankly, are now obliged to make me understand how it is that you're arriving at that answer and allow me, me or obviously a community or a judge of people to decide whether or not that makes sense. And by the way, that happens with humans as well. Sitting down with your staff, for example, and you ask for suggestions about what to do next.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So I think. I'm making tube statements. I'm saying we can try to define intelligence in a super objective way that says here's this data. I want to predict this type of thing, learn this function, and then if you get it right often enough, we consider you intelligent.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, there have been several proofs out there where mathematicians would study for a long time before they were convinced that it actually proved anything. You never know if it proved anything until the community of mathematicians. So, I mean, so, but it's a real thing. And that's sort of the point, right? Is that ultimately this notion of understanding us understanding something is ultimately a social concept. In other words, I have to convince enough people that I did this in a reasonable way. I could do this in a way that other people can understand and replicate that makes sense to them. So human intelligence is bound together in that way. We're bound up in that sense. We sort of never really get away with it until we can sort of convince others that our thinking process makes sense.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Ultimately, that's what a proof is. I mean, even a mathematical proof is that, because ultimately the other mathematicians have to be convinced by your proof. Otherwise, in fact, there have been”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“My appreciation, my ability to relate to you starts to change. So now you're not an alien intelligence anymore. You're a human intelligence now because you and I can communicate. And so I think when we look at animals, for example, animals can do things we can't quite comprehend. We don't quite know how they do them, but they can't really communicate with us. They can't put what they're going through in our terms. And so we think of them as sort of, oh, there are these alien intelligences and they're not really worth necessarily what we're worth. We don't treat them the same way as a result of that. But it's hard because who knows what's going on.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“You're right, you're right more times than I am. You're doing something interesting. That's a form of intelligence. But then what happens is if I say, how are you doing that and you can't communicate with me and you can't describe that to me, now I may label you a savant. I may say, well, you're doing something weird. And it's just not very interesting to me because you and I can't really communicate. And so now this is interesting, right? Because now this is, you're in this weird place where for you to be recognized as intelligent the way I'm intelligent. Then you and I sort of have to be able to communicate. And then we start to understand each other. And then my respect and my”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, it's not oppressing you that I'm intelligent. In other words, you may be convinced that I'm intelligent in some form. Of my ability to predict”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And be able to predict what's going to happen. And that's a form of intelligence that doesn't really require anything specific other than the ability to find that function and predict that right answer is certainly a form of intelligence. But then when we say We understand each other, in other words, would you perceive me as intelligent beyond that ability to predict? So now I can predict, but I can't really articulate how I'm going through that process, what my underlying theory is for predicting, and I can't get you to understand what I'm doing so that you can follow, you can figure out how to do this yourself if you hadn't, if you did not have, for example, the right pattern magic machinery that I did. And now we potentially have this breakdown where in effect Intelligent, but I'm sort of an alien intelligence relative to you.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Well, that's interesting about picking a goal sort of an interesting thing. I think that's where you bring in what do you pre-programmed to do? You talk about humans and humans are pre-programmed to survive. So it's sort of their primary driving goal. What do they have to do to do that? And that could be very complex, right? So it's not just figuring out that you need to run away from the ferocious tiger, but we survive in a social context as an example. So understanding the subtleties of social dynamics becomes something that's important for surviving, finding a mate, reproducing, right? So we're continually challenged with complex sets of variables, complex constraints, rules, if you will, that we, or patterns, and we learn how to find the functions and predict the things, in other words, represent those patterns efficiently.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“What What you mean by understanding, I need to be able to find that function, and this is very much what. Deep learning does and machine learning does is if you give me enough prior data and you tell me what the output variable is that matters, I'm going to sit there and be able to predict it. And if I can predict it accurately so that I can get it right more often than not, I'm smart. If I do that with less data and less training time, I'm even smarter. I can figure out what's even worse predicting. I'm smarter, meaning I'm figuring out what path is going to get me toward a goal.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“The more variables, the more complex. More possibilities, the more complex, but can I take a small amount of prior data and learn the pattern and then predict what's going to happen next accurately and consistently? That's certainly a form of intelligence.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“So I think of intelligence too primarily two ways. One is the ability to predict. So in other words, if I have a problem, can I predict what's going to happen next, whether it's to predict the answer of a question or to say, look, I'm looking at all the market dynamics and I'm going to tell you what's going to happen next or you're in a room and somebody walks in and you're going to predict what they're going to do next or what they're going to say next.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“In the world, for example, but then we've learned to reason through logic. We've developed science. We train people to do that Think that's harder for the individual to do. I think it requires training and teaching. I think human mind certainly is capable of it, but we find it more difficult. And then there are other weaknesses, if you will, as you mentioned earlier, just memory capacity and how many chains of inference can you actually go through without losing your way. focus and”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“And it's largely an inductive process, meaning it takes past data, uses that to predict the future, very advantageous in some cases, but fundamentally biased and prejudicial in other cases because it's going to be strongly influenced by its priors, whether they're right or wrong from some objective reasoning perspective. you're going to favor them because those are the decisions or those are the paths that exceeded in the past. And I think that mode of intelligence makes a lot of sense for when your primary goal is to act quickly and survive and make fast decisions. And I think those create problems. When you want to think more deeply and make more objective and reasoned decisions. Of course, humans capable of doing both. They do sort of one more naturally than they do the other, but they're capable of doing both.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Again, if you go back and you define intelligence as being able to sort of accurately, precisely, rigorously reason, develop answers, and justify those answers in an objective way, yeah, then human intelligence has these flaws in that it tends to be more influenced by some of the things you said.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, I mean, I think that flaws that human intelligence has is extremely prejudicial and biased in the way it draws many inferences.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“How do we want to communicate with that intelligence? How do we want it to behave? How do we want it to perform? Now, of course, it's somewhat of an interesting argument because I'm sitting here as a human with a biological brain and I'm critiquing the strengths and weaknesses of human intelligence and saying that we have the capacity to step back and say, gee, what is intelligence and what do we really want out of it? And that in and of itself suggests that Human intelligence is something quite enviable that it can introspect that it could introspect that way.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Both intellectual, psychological, and physical, so neuroscience and understanding the brain from that perspective, there's a clear goal there. From the perspective of saying, I want to mimic human intelligence, that one's a little bit more interesting. Human intelligence certainly has a lot of things we envy. It's also got a lot of problems too. So I think we're capable of sort of stepping back and saying, what do we want out of an intelligence?”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, so your question presupposes that there's this goal to recreate. What we perceive as biological intelligence. I'm not sure that's how I would state the goal. I mean, I think that studying the Good. So I think there are a few goals. I think that understanding the human brain and how it works is important for us to Be able to diagnose and treat issues for us to understand our own strengths and weaknesses.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“and physical perspective, I'm not sure there is. Clearly, there are different implementations. But if you were to say, as a biological information processing system fundamentally more capable than one we might be able to build out of silicon or some other substrate I don't know that there is.”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source
“I often wonder whether or not there is a substantive difference. I mean, I think the thing that got me into computer science and into artificial intelligence was exactly this presupposition that if we can get machines to think, or I should say this question, this philosophical question, if we can get machines to think, to understand, to process information the way we do, so if we can describe a procedure or describe a process, even if that process were the intelligence process itself, then what would be the difference? So from a philosophical standpoint, I'm not sure I'm convinced that there is. I mean, you can go in the direction of spirituality, you can go in the direction of a soul, but in terms of what we can experience from an intellectual”
2019-10-11 · Lex Fridman Podcast · David Ferrucci: IBM Watson, Jeopardy & Deep Conversations with AI · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT · source