Mastodawn

toadjaune 3d ago

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)

When I was a PhD student, I attended a talk by the late Robin Milner where he said two things that have stuck with me.

The first, I repeat quite often. He argued that credit for an invention did not belong to the first person to invent something but to the first person to explain it well enough that no one needed to invent it again. His first historical example was Leibniz publishing calculus and then Newton claiming he invented it first: it didn’t matter if he did or not, he failed to explain it to anyone and so the fact that Leibniz needed to independently invent it was Newton’s failure.

The second thing, which is a lot more relevant now than at the time, was that AI should stand for Augmented Intelligence not Artificial Intelligence if you want to build things that are actually useful. Striving to replace human intelligence is not a useful pursuit because there is an abundant supply of humans and you can improve the supply of intelligent humans by removing food poverty, improving access to education, and eliminating other barriers that prevent vast numbers of intelligent humans from being able to devote time to using their intelligence. The valuable tools are ones that do things humans are bad at. Pocket calculators changed the world because being able to add ten-digit numbers together orders of magnitude faster allowed humans to use their intelligence for things that were not the tedious, repetitive, tasks (and get higher accuracy for those tasks). If you want to change the world, build tools that allow humans to do more by offloading things humans are bad at and allowing them to spend more time on things humans are good at.

Neil Madden Nov 18

@david_chisnall I got to work briefly with Robin Milner as a postdoc just before his death. Very generous and kind man. I was a bit in awe of him, but he always seemed genuinely interested in what I, and others, had to say.

@neilmadden @david_chisnall I had RM for one of my undergrad courses (CCS) and he was one of the best lecturers that I have ever had. And he was indeed kind and humble too. When I kinda disproved one thing he claimed, he was very gracious.

Matthias Krämer Nov 18

@david_chisnall And Augmented Intelligence means the Augmented Intelligence of a human, not some Intelligence in absence of humans.

SamuelJohnson Nov 18

@Kraemer_HB @david_chisnall Doug Engelbart would certainly have agreed

https://www.dougengelbart.org/Vision

@david_chisnall thanks - that is beautifully distilled!

Sumukha S Nov 18

@david_chisnall such a really good post. Enjoyed reading it. Thanks.

Marco Ivaldi Nov 18

@david_chisnall so much this, thanks 💯

Furbland's Very Cool Mastodon™Nov 18

@david_chisnall I very much approve of that second one.

@david_chisnall AI should be named by the concept of "numerical automaton". There is nothing "augmented" and "intelligence" about a technology that is simply computational.

Maybe you know it, but for other people who will see this conversation I highly recommend this article from Andrea Angelini and Giuseppe Longo: https://www.di.ens.fr/users/longo/files/AngeliniLongo-Internation-AI-BigData-Stiegler.pdf

Christopher Manning Nov 18

@david_chisnall yeah, but I guess those kind of solutions aren't the most profitable, so here we are, unfortunately. It would be a great world if things were like that, though

Cluster Fcku 3d ago

@fotgjengeren @david_chisnall to your point about profits, this made me wonder though, whether AI spending by corporations that feed AI and/or use it (perhaps not research it) would have higher payoff & profits if applied to better care of staff & customers, better education, and better financial security for those who use or contribute to their products.

@fotgjengeren @clusterfcku @david_chisnall “Other people will pay their employees to create a reservoir of demand for our products and services,” is an example of Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. The guy might’ve been a bag of dicks as I’ve heard reported, but his failings as a person don’t make him wrong.

@david_chisnall @fotgjengeren @clusterfcku A rare Hank Ford W.

@david_chisnall Big Doug Engelbart vibes on the second point

Les capsules du prof Lutz Nov 18

@david_chisnall For the first point (and in woke french):

"Une idée appartient à celuielle qui l'exprime le mieux."

Viktor Glukozavr Kurochkin Nov 18

@david_chisnall For the first point it’s debatable in what is credit. Cause while inventing and explaining are both important, the second can’t come without the first. And some people are good in talking and others are not. Which should not rob them of the achievement.
For the second I fully agree. We need to focus on tools and improvements, not in trying to replace humans.

Tommy Thorn Nov 19

@glukozavr @david_chisnall Time and time again, multiple people invent the same thing independently. I’d argue that most inventions are a function of the context and a need and thus most patents are unfair.

Viktor Glukozavr Kurochkin Nov 19

@tommythorn @david_chisnall Patents is a different thing, I was talking about credit 😁 patents are really complicated. From one side, if I managed to invent the same thing, why can’t I use it? From other side, how to protect inventor from robbing his invention from him?

Hugs4friends ♾🇺🇦 🇵🇸😷2d ago

@tommythorn Necessity being the mother of invention, is not quite the same as theoretical science, but I get your drift. @glukozavr @david_chisnall

Mix Mistress Alice💄Nov 18

@david_chisnall I assume that you mean augmented -human- intelligence; just telling as corporatocracy is pushing for selling appliances with aim to 'augment' human perception of reality.

ifrauding Nov 18

@david_chisnall
I love, how the word "credit" in your post seems to have attracted spambots.
They are still kind of rare in the mastodon biosphere. (But no reason not to report&block them, though.)

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Nov 18

@Ifrauding Ah, is that why? I reported them as soon as I saw them (the report UI showed me that they'd sent the same spam to a load of other posts), but the way replies propagate in Mastodon probably means other people will probably see cached versions for a while.

@david_chisnall BTW Leimnitz had a far better notation for calculus than Newton. You have to be a genius to use Newton, but Lebnitz is foolproof.

TobiWanKenobi Nov 18

@david_chisnall

"you can improve the supply of intelligent humans by removing food poverty, improving access to education, and eliminating other barriers that prevent vast numbers of intelligent humans from being able to devote time to using their intelligence."

This is very true but not an option in neo-feudalism, err capitalism. The ruling class has no interest and need in allowing the "lower" classes to gain knowledge and intelligence since those people could then realize the blaring inequality of the current system and thus endanger their positions. This is also why they send their children to private schools instead of the underfinanced, low-quality public schools, which only have the purpose to produce new, cheap labor.
Keeping people poor and in-need for daily necessities of survival like food, housing, warmth, etc. is just another way of slavery.
The rich caste of this planet has more than enough money and assets to allow all 8 billion people on this planet to live a good, modest life. The reason why this hasn't happened isn't because the rich need 200 villas and 500 private boats, but because they don't want to share their wealth (and thus power in capitalism or autocracies) with others.
In the first place, you don't even need money, if your goal is to guarantee a good life for all the people on this planet. 🤷‍♂️

Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC Nov 18

@TobiWanKenobi @david_chisnall What we need is some kind of socialism. The authoritarian version, however, doesn't seem very attractive. The only thing that authoritarian state socialism is good at is defense against capitalist imperialist aggression, but at what price? I wonder if anti-authoritarian Anarcho-Socialism can become better at collective self-defense than it is today.

Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC Nov 18

@TobiWanKenobi @david_chisnall Besides, Capitalism is almost over because we're at the end of growth. A growing economy just won't be possible anymore in the near future (and probably never again) because we have exhausted the resources of this planet, and we haven't got the resources left to start the extraction of resources from the rest of the solar system. Without growth, the capitalist system will collapse, turning into some sort of cyberfeudalism in which corporations own all the infrastructure and extract taxes from those who use it.

TobiWanKenobi Nov 18

People are very inventive when it comes to upholding the status quo in order to protect their "own" (perceived) possessions. So I expect for capitalism to be upheld by the people and organizations in power for as long as possible.

Of course it'll eventually come down crashing and will, just like most systems, end with a lot of blood and violence. We will likely see wars and chaos embroiling this planet, before something new will be formed out of the ashes.

It sure would be nice if we could have some sort of democratic socialism with a circular economy as replacement, but systems that are built on all people understanding/following certain values and ethics out of their own volition are usually bound to fail because not everyone shares the same views and opinions.

I have no crystal ball, so I can't predict what's going to happen, but I know that I do not envy the children of today. They'll be the ones suffering from the failures of the old generation, which is now in power and holds most of the world's assets.

@david_chisnall

Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC Nov 18

@TobiWanKenobi @david_chisnall Capitalism is not the only system that allows people to hold on to their property, and when Capitalism fails, which will happen sooner rather than later, the rich and those who hope to become rich will fall back to other economic systems, probably something resembling feudalism.

Kaj Kandler Nov 19

@TobiWanKenobi @david_chisnall

"In the first place, you don't even need money, if your goal is to guarantee a good life for all the people on this planet."

I'd be interested to hear how w/o money people would be able to live a life that does not end up in the toil of feeding oneself and the immediate family/tribe in walking distance (aka not the good life for many of us)?

TobiWanKenobi Nov 20

I don't see how providing people equally with the same level of housing, food, warmth, health, etc. requires the concept of money. Especially not in its current shape.

If you want to give people a certain level of freedom of choice, you can distribute the same amount of credit points or whatever to everyone and maybe allow them to get some extra credits for outstanding services to the community, for example. But ultimately, a community should provide everything necessary for living to its members. And since a community consists of its members, it's basically the idea of everyone giving to and taking from the community. You don't really need "money" to achieve that. But you do need organization and coordination.

Personally I don't see any reason why one person should possess more or better stuff than another person, unless they need it for fulfilling their role in a community. Nowadays, however, we have a very few people who possess ridiculously huge amounts of riches and properties while the vast majority is poor or barely scraping by as wage slaves. Inequality also breeds through the lopsided accumulation of property, and the current concept of money is built to facilitate this accumulation.

Luckily, money is nothing more than an imaginary concept, If your local baker, barber, etc. tell you tomorrow that they aren't interested in your paper bills because they have no use for paper, then you can use all that money in your wallet as alternative toilet paper. Given this fact, you can replace "money" with whatever other concept you want to. As long as you can convince everyone else to believe in it.

But please don't ask me to come up with the perfect alternative system. There's enough people around, who are much smarter than me, and I'm sure I'm not the first person to call money a faulty concept that could be replaced, so there are likely quite a few works on alternative systems already existing.

@david_chisnall

Kaj Kandler Nov 22

@TobiWanKenobi @david_chisnall

I guess my definition of "a good life" is not necessarily "an equal life for everyone". Because an equal life for everyone means to me no personal freedom. The "community decides what my needs are."

TobiWanKenobi Nov 22

Sorry to tell you, but the community decides what your needs are anyways. Your job, your livelihood, and everything else is granted to you by society. Unless you live out in the wild and hunt/produce your food and everything else yourself (in which case you couldn't be online on Mastodon), you're completely reliant on the community in whatever you do. The community simply allows its members to choose different options within the community's own framework. I'm not against giving people that sort of freedom.

Also, you might want to keep in mind that your definition of a "good life" is based on the exploitation of others. You may put your head in the sand and disregard this, but in the end having more than others means taking away from others.

Oh, and don't get me wrong. I too benefit from the exploitation of Western countries etc. I don't claim to be a saint or anything, but at the same time, I'm aware that this life and the lives of those in my country are based on exploitation of other countries and people. And this same exploitation also happens within my country (community), because the highly unequal system that only allows a few to lead a "good life."

@david_chisnall

zaunkoenig Nov 18

@david_chisnall Just one question remains - what exactly are humans good at?

Gordon J Holtslander Nov 18

@david_chisnall Many of today’s issues are tech amplifying what humans are extraordinarily poor at? inbiased judgement, understanding of the complex and just ordinary hatred and selfish

Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC Nov 18

@david_chisnall It is, however, quite easy to build systems that can do one particular task better than 999 out of 1000 people, for some tasks even better than 999 999 out of a million people. Things most people can't do without a machine, but with the machine, anyone can do them.
I think the main problem lies in who owns the systems. Most machine learning software is proprietary, a lot of it isn't even small enough to run on a home PC because it needs 64 GB RAM or more, and the computing centres where the huge machines are crunching the numbers for billions of simulated neurons are owned by private companies and not by the people. We need open source software and open training data, we need to make the models small enough to run on affordable machines whenever possible, and we need publicly owned nonprofit computing centres for the ones that need to be big.

Felienne Hermans Nov 18

@david_chisnall What an amazing quote! Is there any (written) source if I want to cite something more than a mastodon post?

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Nov 18

@Felienne As I recall, it was the inaugural talk for the Digital Technium. I don’t think there was a recording or a transcript. IT Wales wrote an article, which may have had some quotes.

Mahendra Pandya Nov 18

@david_chisnall Excellent piece. The role of explaining in layman language is critical be it an invention or
any other topic of interest.

poetaster Nov 18

@david_chisnall I'm not sure what is meant by Calculus here. Leibniz and Newton fought over methods for representing derivation and integration. They had quite different aporoaches. Now, Leibniz way of writing has shaped the writing of Calculus more. I often regret this since I sometimes find Newton easier to read. I believe the arguments were much more particular than Newton making a claim about something like 'Calculus'.

SatinBrooch Nov 18

@david_chisnall Augmented Intelligence was used for decades before in other contexts.

William Gunn Nov 18

@david_chisnall I like this, but note that it's very much an "ought" statement and not as "is". The big AI labs are quite clear about what they're building, and it's AGI - intelligence that will have its own purposes which might not be related at all to what humanity wants. https://casmi.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2024/openais-quest-for-artificial-general-intelligence-vision-or-mirage.html

OpenAI’s Quest for Artificial General Intelligence: Vision or Mirage?

Notes on the News: CASMI Director Kristian Hammond reacts to OpenAI's five-step plan toward artificial general intelligence.

Jeremy Gibbons Nov 18

@david_chisnall Corollary: stop trying to use AI for creative tasks.

@david_chisnall I love this. Thank you for posting it.

Fish Id Wardrobe Nov 18

@david_chisnall Two *really* good points.

Dom Pates Nov 18

@david_chisnall That’s really interesting to hear. I co-designed a computer lab that was named after him (renamed towards Milner at short notice - it was going to be the Marvin Minsky Lab but then the Epstein stuff came out).

Good to know a bit more about Milner and his actual thinking, particularly as regards AI.

writermonki Nov 18

@david_chisnall not just things humans are good at but want to do. There’s no need to train to AI write film scripts. Other than to control more of the profit. AI is being developed not to remove drudgery, but to strip creativity.

@david_chisnall
The AI / Augmented Intelligence idea was explored quite elegantly in this recent podcast by #theverge and is well worth your time. Stanford professor Ge Wang argues that AI is a tool and will impact, but not replace, humans.

https://pca.st/2z60on92

Making human music in an AI world - The Vergecast

The Vergecast is the flagship podcast from The Verge about small gadgets, Big Tech, and everything in between. Every Friday, hosts Nilay Patel and David Pierce hang out and make sense of the week’s most important technology news. And every Tuesday, David leads a selection of The Verge’s expert staffers in an exploration of how gadgets and software affect our lives – and which ones you should bring into yours.

Pocket Casts

Andreas K Nov 18

@david_chisnall
So by that standard nobody working under a NDA or with trade secrets can ever invent something?
@glynmoody

nick rothwell Nov 18

@david_chisnall I worked on one of Robin’s research programmes for some years. I feel I didn’t spend enough time having conversations with him.

Plétora Network Nov 18

@david_chisnall What an interesting reflection, David 🙌 Robin Milner's view on the importance of explaining inventions in a clear and accessible way really highlights the value of shared knowledge. I also love the perspective on Augmented Intelligence, focused on enhancing human capability, rather than replacing it. It's a deeply valuable approach that reminds us how technology should be a tool that facilitates and empowers us. totally agree with you! 💡🌍

Anthony Horton Nov 18

@david_chisnall This is great, thanks for sharing. When was this talk given, roughly?

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Nov 19

@spacelizard probably around 2004 or 2005. It was, I think, the official opening of the Digital Technium (which happened some time after it was actually open and people were working in it).

UpLateGeek Nov 18

@david_chisnall humans are pretty good at language if they’re taught it well, so rather than spend trillions on new data centres and the nuclear power stations to power them, why don’t we just spend a fraction of that on free education?

Thomas Decker Nov 19

@david_chisnall but what if the people who discovered it first were disregarded because they were women? Happened quite often, and in these cases I am not willing to give credit for the mansplainers who were actually listened to by other men. They should have paid attention the first time, no?

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Nov 19

@thomas_decker I agree, there’s a lot of social context to consider. I’d say that the women who discovered something and explained it well enough for a man to steal the idea and publish it were the ones who deserved the credit, even if they don’t get it at the time. The person who stole the idea and published it didn’t have to discover it again, so Milner’s point still stands.

Ema エマ Nov 19

Instead of entrusting
things humans are bad at to tech, can‘t we just agree on a full-hearted commitment to becoming good at it?

daughter of lilith

@david_chisnall "the first person to explain it well enough that no one needed to invent it again"

I would add to this that we should not forget the bias towards europeans here, and it's not just about how well something is explained, but also the environment allowing the recognition (which in this case was limited for non-europeans). And there are lots of examples of that, also in other categories such as race and gender.

daughter of lilith

@david_chisnall the amount of times a man got recognition for a woman's invention in science is *infuriating*.