arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2206.00520cs.AIcs.CYcs.LGphysics.soc-ph
收藏

科学发现中的深度学习不透明性

Deep Learning Opacity in Scientific Discovery

University of Chicago(芝加哥大学)

Eamon Duede

AI总结:

本文针对哲学界对深度学习不透明性的悲观与科学界对AI的乐观之间的脱节,提出应考察AI在科学发现整体过程中的实际角色,并以“发现语境”与“辩护语境”的哲学区分及两个科学案例证明:认识论不透明性并不必然削弱AI促成重大且可辩护科学突破的能力。

摘要:

哲学家们最近关注深度神经网络的不透明性所带来的关键认识论挑战。从这些文献中,人们可能会得出这样的结论:用不透明模型做好科学是异常困难的,甚至是不可能的。然而,这很难与近期对人工智能在科学中应用的乐观情绪高涨以及由人工智能方法驱动的大量近期科学突破相协调。在本文中,我论证哲学悲观主义与科学乐观主义之间的脱节源于未能考察人工智能在科学中实际被如何使用。我表明,为了理解人工智能驱动的突破的认识论辩护,哲学家们必须考察深度学习作为更广泛的发现过程的一部分所扮演的角色。在这方面,哲学上对“发现语境”与“辩护语境”的区分是有帮助的。我通过两个取自科学文献的案例来证明关注这一区分的重要性,并表明认识论上的不透明性未必会削弱人工智能引导科学家取得重大且可辩护的突破的能力。

英文摘要:

Philosophers have recently focused on critical, epistemological challenges that arise from the opacity of deep neural networks. One might conclude from this literature that doing good science with opaque models is exceptionally challenging, if not impossible. Yet, this is hard to square with the recent boom in optimism for AI in science alongside a flood of recent scientific breakthroughs driven by AI methods. In this paper, I argue that the disconnect between philosophical pessimism and scientific optimism is driven by a failure to examine how AI is actually used in science. I show that, in order to understand the epistemic justification for AI-powered breakthroughs, philosophers must examine the role played by deep learning as part of a wider process of discovery. The philosophical distinction between the 'context of discovery' and the 'context of justification' is helpful in this regard. I demonstrate the importance of attending to this distinction with two cases drawn from the scientific literature, and show that epistemic opacity need not diminish AI's capacity to lead scientists to significant and justifiable breakthroughs.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑