A cat is on a mat.

The AI Ladder says (page 5) that 81% of business leaders are confused about artificial intelligence.  Personally, it has been my observation that about 99.9% of not only business leaders, but also technical professionals and I am coming to find even including AI researchers are confused about the real capabilities and potential of AI.  What is my basis for reaching the conclusion that I have reached?  Well, about 20+ years of working to make XBRL-based reporting work and reading the book The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do.  I also have some background in formal logic which does help.  I am no expert in AI, but I am really good at understand what does and does not work and testing. While I am no AI expert, I am very qualitied to ask really good questions.

Hype, hype, hype.  For example, Elon Musk has promised full self driving cars since 2015.  So how is that going?  I really like Elon and what Elon and Tesla and SpaceX are doing.  But come on.  I learned early in my accounting career to never trust a software vendor.  You certainly don't want to trust any AI software vendor right now.  You need to test and verify what these people claim.  And most business leaders have no clue how to test and verify claims of AI software vendors. Most AI is little better than cheap parlor tricks.  This puts business leaders in a really risky position.

I am not quite done with reading The Myth of Artificial Intelligence yet.  I will lay out what I understand from that, and I am understanding a lot, later.  If you, like me, are tired of being bamboozled by snake oil salesmen; consider following my blog for the next two or three months.

For starters, to understand artificial intelligence, you need to understand the difference between "syntax" and "semantics".  That is not all you need to understand, but that is a start.

So, how do you communicate, "A cat is on a mat," such that a computer can understand what you are communicating?  Here are several different technical syntax alternatives (examples):

Which alternative do you like best?  Probably the one in the lower right hand corner, "A cat is on a mat."

After you have articulated the information in a technical syntax, you still have to break down the semantics (the meaning) of what is carried within that technical syntax. My blog post, Logic Programming and Theories, points out different approaches for articulating the semantics or the meaning conveyed within that technical syntax.  That meaning needs to be understandable to machines so that they can perform work and also understandable to humans so that they can check to be sure the meaning conveyed is correct.

There are exactly three ways to get the meaning conveyed by some technical syntax into a form that a computer based process can effectively understand:
  1. Humans put the meaning they want to convey into some machine-readable form.
  2. Machines read the technical syntax and convert that technical syntax into machine understandable meaning.
  3. Humans and machines work together to get the meaning into a form that is understandable by machines.
Each of the three approaches has a basket of PROS and a basket of CONS.  To avoid building a fragile house of cards that will come crashing down on you, you need to have a clear understanding of those PROS and CONS. Business leaders need to peel away all of the hype and hyperbole.

Understand the above; I will keep going in the next installment.

Additional Information: 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS)

Image
Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS) is an interesting idea that combines the relational paradigm and the knowledge graph paradigm.  This documentation, Why RKGS , explains the idea. This gets even more interesting with the notion of "relational AI".  RelationalAI is described as follows by the company of the same name, Relational.ai : “RelationalAI is a cloud-based relational knowledge graph management system, with state of the art probabilistic processing and declarative reasoning at scale to make developing Data Applications a superpower for your business.” This notion of knowledge graphs represented in relational databases fits into my belief that knowledge graphs have two aspects: the expression SYNTAX and the logic of what is expressed or SEMANTICS. While the LOGIC of a knowledge graph is always the same regardless of technical syntax used to express that logic; there are many, many different technical syntaxes that can be used to represent a knowledge graph. There
Read more

Graph Hairball

Image
Knowledge graph system logic, the "things" and "relations between things" that  graph theory calls "vertices" (a.k.a. nodes, points, entities, things) and "edges" (a.k.a.  links, lines, relations, associations), looks like a big graph hairball as some people call it an example of which you can see here: Why?  This common view of a graph is because there has to be some "general view" of the information provided by the graph.  This is just like a general view of the information within a relational database is a table ; a set of ROWS and COLUMNS for exactly one table at a time. So what is interesting is that with a graph database the default view is everything in the graph of knowledge.  Whereas the default view of everything in a relational database is one table at a time. Further, it does not really matter whether the information that populates your knowledge graph comes from, say, CSV files, Excel, JSON, XBRL, RDF, PROLOG or whateve
Read more

PLATINUM Business Use Cases, Test Cases, Conformance Suite

Image
A brick wall is made of exactly two things: bricks, mortar. But a brick wall created by a master craftsman, or mason, and a brick wall created by a “weekend warrior” with no knowledge of masonry will be very different. Master craftsmen are created and that process takes time and effort. This blog post is a first prototype that brings several things together into one useful resource for business professionals.  It pulls together the human readable information of the Showcase of Reports   and the machine readable information of the Conformance Suite of XBRL-based Financial Reports Prepared using the Seattle Method .  Then, I want to incorporate the information found in these PLATINUM XBRL-based Financial Report Examples . The three resources can be useful and used independently; but they are even more useful when used together.  Business professionals really could not care a less about the technical details of getting some result that they want.  But technical professionals need to under
Read more