Why we must adopt a new rule: take no machine's word for it
In short: As computers become more powerful, we risk outsourcing our objectivity to machines that inherit our own flaws. To ensure our future isn't built on metaphorical sand, we must move beyond human skepticism to a new standard of digital verification.
The rapid acceleration of computing over the last 67 years has yielded extraordinary tools like GPS and the Web, but it has also introduced systemic risks like cybercrime and the 'reproducibility crisis.' Professor Martyn Thomas warns that we are already taking unreasonable risks because the pace of technological change is outstripping our ability to regulate it. This creates a landscape where big data, AI, and autonomous vehicles operate faster than our legislative and social frameworks can adapt.
A core problem lies in the 'human' element of machine intelligence. Computers are only as smart as the people who write their algorithms, supply their data, and curate their theories. Because humans possess frailties, foibles, and a capacity for self-deception, these biases can be baked into the software. Consequently, the Royal Society suggests we must broaden its motto, 'nullius in verba' (take nobody's word for it), to include a healthy skepticism of 'in silico' science. We cannot assume a machine's output is objective simply because it is computational.
To make computer-based predictions 'actionable' for things like weather forecasting or clinical decisions, experts advocate for a rigorous framework called VVUQ: verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification. This is especially critical in the life sciences, where complex systems do not easily submit to mathematical treatment. While big data and machine learning offer solutions, they also risk producing soaring ratios of false correlations. True reliability requires acknowledging that correlation does not imply causality and that machines, while powerful, remain constrained by the theories we provide them.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Should We Trust Computers - Professor Martyn Thomas CBE
- Also: Should We Trust Computers?
- Also: Should We Trust Computers?
- Also: Should We Trust Computers? | Royal Society
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/ideas-should-we-trust-computers-professor-martyn-thomas-cbe.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Artificial intelligence · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics
