One of my most strongly held political beliefs is experts shouldn't rule over non-experts without their consent. I won't try to define for you who exactly the "experts" are because in my world it doesn't matter. Everybody can make that decision for themselves.
Depending on how we define "expert", the intelligent shouldn't rule over the unintelligent. Academics shouldn't rule over non-academics. Intellectuals shouldn't rule over non-intellectuals. The old and wise shouldn't rule over the young and foolish. I mean all of these things.
I believe in expertise without authority. For this reason, I don't really want to be associated with forcing people to wear masks. I'd prefer people do it because they trust health experts and if they don't, it's something between them and the governments which they elected.
I don't want the fact that me and my academic community believe something to become yet another justification for state coercion. As a black man, I'm suspicious of coercive power.
In my ideal world, scientific knowledge empowers individuals to get more of what what they want on their own terms without taking away from others.
Scientific knowledge shouldn't be about putting people in a prison made of other people's reasons which they don't agree with, don't understand, and that say there's only one best choice for everyone.
So in conclusion, I believe that people have a right to autonomy and self-determination. I believe people have the right to be "stupid" and to work on being smarter at their own pace.
Addendum: I don't think my views map well to current politics. It's a bit like what libertarians mean by "liberty" if they were less obsessed with wealth in the form of money and property and defined wealth instead as virtue, self-actualization and strong relationships.
Left and right both capture some of it. The right recognizes the freedom to be what others consider "stupid". The left recognizes the freedom to self-determination outside of the freedom to do whatever you want with property.
Addendum II: No condemnation is either implied or intended concerning any country or any parties in their response to the pandemic. I believe in your autonomy so I'm not trying to tell you what to do. This thread is an ABSTRACT discussion of my personal relationship to politics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You may have heard hallucinations are a big problem in AI, that they make stuff up that sounds very convincing, but isn't real.
Hallucinations aren't the real issue. The real issue is Exact vs Approximate, and it's a much, much bigger problem.
When you fit a curve to data, you have choices.
You can force it to pass through every point, or you can approximate the overall shape of the points without hitting any single point exactly.
When it comes to AI, there's a similar choice.
These models are built to match the shape of language. In any given context, the model can either produce exactly the text it was trained on, or it can produce text that's close but not identical
I’m deeply skeptical of the AI hype because I’ve seen this all before. I’ve watched Silicon Valley chase the dream of easy money from data over and over again, and they always hit a wall.
Story time.
First it was big data. The claim was that if you just piled up enough data, the answers would be so obvious that even the dumbest algorithm or biggest idiot could see them.
Models were an afterthought. People laughed at you if you said the details mattered.
Unsurprisingly, it didn't work out.
Next came data scientists. The idea was simple: hire smart science PhDs, point them at your pile of data, wait for the monetizable insights to roll in.
As a statistician, this is extremely alarming. I’ve spent years thinking about the ethical principles that guide data analysis. Here are a few that feel most urgent:
RESPECT AUTONOMY
Collect data only with meaningful consent. People deserve control over how their information is used.
Example: If you're studying mobile app behavior, don’t log GPS location unless users explicitly opt in and understand the implications.
DO NO HARM
Anticipate and prevent harm, including breaches of privacy and stigmatization.
Example: If 100% of a small town tests positive for HIV, reporting that stat would violate privacy. Aggregating to the county level protects individuals while keeping the data useful.
Hot take: Students using chatgpt to cheat are just following the system’s logic to its natural conclusion, a system that treats learning as a series of hoops to jump through, not a path to becoming more fully oneself.
The tragedy is that teachers and students actually want the same thing, for the student to grow in capability and agency, but school pits them against each other, turning learning into compliance and grading into surveillance.
Properly understood, passing up a real chance to learn is like skipping out on great sex or premium ice cream. One could but why would one want to?
If you think about how statistics works it’s extremely obvious why a model built on purely statistical patterns would “hallucinate”. Explanation in next tweet.
Very simply, statistics is about taking two points you know exist and drawing a line between them, basically completing patterns.
Sometimes that middle point is something that exists in the physical world, sometimes it’s something that could potentially exist, but doesn’t.
Imagine an algorithm that could predict what a couple’s kids might look like. How’s the algorithm supposed to know if one of those kids it predicted actually exists or not?
The child’s existence has no logical relationship to the genomics data the algorithm has available.