Page 243 - Ray Dalio - Principles
P. 243

For  example,  suppose  we  were  trying  to  derive  the
                       universal  laws  that  explain  species  change  over  time.
                       Theoretically,  with  enough  processing  power  and  time,  this

                       should  be  possible.  We  would  need  to  make  sense  of  the
                       formulas the computer produces, of course, to make sure that
                       they are not data-mined gibberish, by which I mean based on
                       correlations that are not causal in any way. We would do this
                       by  constantly  simplifying  these  rules  until  their  elegance  is
                       unmistakable.

                          Of  course,  given  our  brain’s  limited  capacity  and

                       processing  speed,  it  could  take  us  forever  to  achieve  a  rich
                       understanding of all the variables that go into evolution. Is all
                       the  simplifying  and  understanding  that  we  employ  in  our
                       expert systems truly required? Maybe not. There is certainly a
                       risk that changes not in the tested data might still occur. But
                       one might argue that if our data-mining-based formulas seem
                       able  to  account  for  the  evolution  of  all  species  through  all

                       time, then the risks of relying on them for just the next ten,
                       twenty, or fifty years is relatively low compared to the benefits
                       of  having  a  formula  that  appears  to  work  but  is  not  fully
                       understandable (and that, at the very least, might prove useful
                       in helping scientists cure genetic diseases).

                          In  fact,  we  may  be  too  hung  up  on  understanding;
                       conscious thinking is only one part of understanding. Maybe

                       it’s enough that we derive a formula for change and use it to
                       anticipate what is yet to come. I myself find the excitement,
                       lower  risk,  and  educational  value  of  achieving  a  deep
                       understanding  of  cause-effect  relationships  much  more
                       appealing than a reliance on algorithms I don’t understand, so

                       I am drawn to that path. But is it my lower-level preferences
                       and habits that are pulling me in this direction or is it my logic
                       and reason? I’m not sure. I look forward to probing the best
                       minds in artificial intelligence on this (and having them probe
                       me).

                          Most likely, our competitive natures will compel us to place
                       bigger and bigger bets on relationships computers find that are

                       beyond  our  understanding.  Some  of  those  bets  will  pay  off,
                       while  others  will  backfire.  I  suspect  that  AI  will  lead  to
   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248