We did, a long time ago. It’s called an encyclopedia.
If humans can’t be trusted to only provide facts, how can we be trusted to make a machine that only provides facts? How do we deal with disputed truths? Grey areas?
Comment on Judges Are Fed up With Lawyers Using AI That Hallucinate Court Cases
Bogasse@lemmy.ml 6 days agoYou don’t need any knowledge of computers to understand how big of a deal it would be if we actually built a reliable fact machine. For me the only possible explanation is to not care enough to try and think about it for a second.
ggppjj@lemmy.world 6 days ago
barsoap@lemm.ee 6 days ago
We actually did. Trouble being you need experts to feed and update the thing, which works when you’re watching dams (that doesn’t need to be updated) but fails in e.g. medicine. But during the brief time where those systems were up to date they did some astonishing stuff, they were plugged into the diagnosis loop and would suggest additional tests to doctors, countering organisational blindness. Law is an even more complex matter though because applying it requires an unbounded amount of real-world and not just expert knowledge, so forget it.
morrowind@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
That’s fundamentally impossible. There’s always some baseline you trust that decides what is true