We aren't going to get useful humanoid robots while understanding the implementation fully.
If you can't leverage AI to build a safe and useful robot without fully understanding the implementation, the model is not good enough.
We aren't going to get useful humanoid robots while understanding the implementation fully.
If you can't leverage AI to build a safe and useful robot without fully understanding the implementation, the model is not good enough.
There are so many assumptions in these two lines that I don't know where to begin. I wish you best of luck.
The humanoid robot was an example.
My argument is that if safety and liability make the use of AI without fully understanding the implementation impossible, the model is arguably not good enough.
A long time ago we decided as a society that in order for an engineer to sign off on physical designs, they have to take legal liability for them.
No such process exists for a model to take a design seriously that can kill people.
For serious engineering work not only physical designs, software also.
When we manually tested nuclear power plant controlling software, each test case was printed out on paper and tested and then signed by the tester. A lot of paper was produced and archived for each software release. (Archived for as long as the software was running in any nuclear power plant).
Everyone understood, that in a case of significant accident at the nuclear power plant, accident analysis would be done and if the root cause was an software error, this could have possible legal consequences for the developers and testers. (Of course nuclear power plants have many independent and redundant hardware controlling mechanisms, but incorrectly working controlling software could damage the power plant in a very costly way).
With a larger project, I do not think there is a requirement that the engineer signing off understands every implementation detail.
I imagine that the requirement is that after testing, you are confident that the product is safe.
Respectfully: you are out of your depth. Maybe pick another subject?
It was you who shifted the conversation away from software to make an argument that "anything with a motor" requires full understanding of the software implementation, and that for this reason GLM 5.3 is good enough.
I think you're entirely wrong, and we can leave it at that, seeing that you're clearly unwilling to engage constructively.
The practice of deliberately engineering software without full understanding of the implementation, especially when it comes to robotics, should be illegal. Technology serves society alone and it should progress at a pace that is sustainable for adaption. Your excitement for a “singularity” does not outweigh someone else’s health and safety.