Judea Pearl, famous researcher known for Bayesian networks and statistical formalization of causality, discusses the need for a causal model and challenges machine learning's limitation to statistics-level reasoning. They explore surprising changes in perspective on causal queries and GPT capabilities, levels of causation in AI, and ethical implications in the shift towards general AI.
09:36
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
insights INSIGHT
Causal Information in Text
Judea Pearl reconsidered his stance on extracting causal information from observational studies after observing large language models.
He found that LLMs can cite causal information present in text data, even without experiencing underlying events.
question_answer ANECDOTE
Firing Squad Example
Pearl tested GPT's causal reasoning with a firing squad example from his book.
After initial struggles, GPT correctly identified overdetermination, where multiple sufficient causes exist for an event.
insights INSIGHT
Ladder of Causation and LLMs
Pearl acknowledges that LLMs can access higher levels of the ladder of causation due to text data containing causal information.
Reinforcement learning, while enabling intervention-based learning, still falls short of true causal reasoning.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
Judea Pearl is a famous researcher, known for Bayesian networks (the standard way of representing Bayesian models), and his statistical formalization of causality. Although he has always been recommended reading here, he's less of a staple compared to, say, Jaynes. So the need to re-introduce him. My purpose here is to highlight a soothing, unexpected show of rationality on his part.
One year ago I reviewed his last book, The Book of Why, in a failed[1] submission to the ACX book review contest. There I spend a lot of time around what appears to me as a total paradox in a central message of the book, dear to Pearl: that you can't just use statistics and probabilities to understand causal relationships; you need a causal model, a fundamentally different beast. Yet, at the same time, Pearl shows how to implement a causal model in terms of a standard statistical model.
Before giving me the time to properly raise all my eyebrows, he then sweepingly connects this insight to Everything Everywhere. In particular, he thinks that machine learning is "stuck on rung one", his own idiomatic expression to say that machine learning algorithms, only combing for correlations in the training data, are stuck at statistics-level reasoning, while causal reasoning resides at higher "rungs" on the "ladder of causation", which can't be reached unless you deliberately employ causal techniques.