"At 87, Pearl is still able to change his mind" by rotatingpaguro
Oct 30, 2023
auto_awesome
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.
Causal relationships can potentially be grasped through statistical approaches and machine learning algorithms, challenging the need for exclusive reliance on causal models.
Ethical guidelines and regulation are crucial to prevent the misuse of AI, especially in the case of language models like chat GPT, which can already pose risks in the wrong hands.
Deep dives
Reconsidering the Role of Text in Causal Reasoning
Judea Pearl, a renowned researcher in Bayesian networks and causality, has reevaluated his previous notion that causal relationships cannot be understood solely through statistical approaches. Pearl explores the idea that text data itself could contain causal information, challenging the belief that only causal models can capture causality. He highlights the potential of machine learning algorithms, even at the statistics level, to grasp causality through data that reflects decision action outcome units or abstract descriptions of causation.
Ethical Concerns of AI and the Need for Regulation
Pearl acknowledges the risks of AI misuse, emphasizing the need for ethical guidelines and regulation. He warns that existing language models like chat GPT can already be dangerous in the wrong hands, and calls for early intervention to prevent their misuse. Additionally, Pearl raises concerns about future general AI surpassing human intelligence, expressing uncertainty about controlling such powerful machines and drawing attention to the potential dangers of dominance and lack of human-compatible ethics in AI systems.
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.