Judea Pearl is well-known for pointing out that not all causal relations are recoverable from only observable data.
See e.g. his seeing, doing, imagining tri-hierarchy
Yes, they are not all recoverable. Per Pearl, researchers should first come up with a scientific hypothesis about the causal model (which variables are causes, which are effects), and then verify or refute it with the help of statistical data. The first step is fundamentally subjective (enter a non-trivial debate and Pearl’s views about the nature of causality, and epistemology more generally). But the second step often doesn’t require collecting new data.
So, an AGI model can contemplate such hypotheses just as well as human researchers. Whether the hypotheses are “right” is the wrong question. The right question is whether they give the power to answer certain questions.
Huh.
Judea Pearl is well-known for pointing out that not all causal relations are recoverable from only observable data. See e.g. his seeing, doing, imagining tri-hierarchy
Yes, they are not all recoverable. Per Pearl, researchers should first come up with a scientific hypothesis about the causal model (which variables are causes, which are effects), and then verify or refute it with the help of statistical data. The first step is fundamentally subjective (enter a non-trivial debate and Pearl’s views about the nature of causality, and epistemology more generally). But the second step often doesn’t require collecting new data.
So, an AGI model can contemplate such hypotheses just as well as human researchers. Whether the hypotheses are “right” is the wrong question. The right question is whether they give the power to answer certain questions.