Adversarial Examples and the Deeper Riddle of Induction: The Need for a
  Theory of Artifacts in Deep Learning
  Deep learning is currently the most widespread and successful technology in
artificial intelligence. It promises to push the frontier of scientific
discovery beyond current limits. However, skeptics have worried that deep
neural networks are black boxes, and have called into question whether these
advances can really be deemed scientific progress if humans cannot understand
them. Relatedly, these systems also possess bewildering new vulnerabilities:
most notably a susceptibility to "adversarial examples". In this paper, I argue
that adversarial examples will become a flashpoint of debate in philosophy and
diverse sciences. Specifically, new findings concerning adversarial examples
have challenged the consensus view that the networks' verdicts on these cases
are caused by overfitting idiosyncratic noise in the training set, and may
instead be the result of detecting predictively useful "intrinsic features of
the data geometry" that humans cannot perceive (Ilyas et al., 2019). These
results should cause us to re-examine responses to one of the deepest puzzles
at the intersection of philosophy and science: Nelson Goodman's "new riddle" of
induction. Specifically, they raise the possibility that progress in a number
of sciences will depend upon the detection and manipulation of useful features
that humans find inscrutable. Before we can evaluate this possibility, however,
we must decide which (if any) of these inscrutable features are real but
available only to "alien" perception and cognition, and which are distinctive
artifacts of deep learning-for artifacts like lens flares or Gibbs phenomena
can be similarly useful for prediction, but are usually seen as obstacles to
scientific theorizing. Thus, machine learning researchers urgently need to
develop a theory of artifacts for deep neural networks, and I conclude by
sketching some initial directions for this area of research.
