Can any other data scientists attest to this? They pretend like we are clueless about what's going on inside our own algorithms and it's just silly at this point.
It IS hard to track back any specific output through it's exact path but a lot of life is like that.
It would be like saying Jackson Pollock didn't understand how his paintings are even being made because he doesn't understand every step of the physics of the paint
Well it's true.
>They pretend like we are clueless about what's going on inside our own algorithms and it's just silly at this point.
Nobody is pretending about anything. They're not "our own algorithms". The entire point of neural networks is that we don't know much or really anything about how to teach intelligence to a machine and so we figured out a way to get the machine to teach itself given data, structure and an objective. Nobody knows what algorithms, processes or constructs neural networks employ to perform their objective once trained.
>It would be like saying Jackson Pollock didn't understand how his paintings are even being made because he doesn't understand every step of the physics of the paint
No it would be like saying we understood how human intelligence worked because we know how neurons communicate.
And when some lab somewhere starts up the AI that is going to kill us all, they're probably not even going to consider that outcome to be in the set of possibilities.
But yeah, AI researchers know their subject well enough that it wasn't just an accident that GPT-4 turned out more capable than any language model that had come before, and I'm sure AI researchers will continue to find ways to make AIs more capable, more powerful.
It's stupid
I've been working in A.I. and analytics for over 30 years and agree that throwing up one's hands, complaining about how "we can't understand" what A.I. is doing is a bit theatrical.