9 ms·

They sure put a lot of focus on "toy" problems such as sorting and path planning in their papers - perhaps because they are easy to understand and show a major

They sure put a lot of focus on "toy" problems such as sorting and path planning in their papers - perhaps because they are easy to understand and show a major improvement over other ML approaches. IMHO they should focus more on "real" problems - e.g. in Table 1 of this paper it seems to be state of the art on the bAbl tasks, which is amazing.

sherjilozair 10y ago
bAbI isn't really a "real" problem either, although somewhat better than sorting and the like. bAbI works with extremely restrictive worlds and grammar. In contrast, current speech recognition, language modeling, and object detection do quite well with actual audio, text, and pictures. I think the strength of NTMs will be best demonstrated by putting it to work on a long-range language modeling task where you need to organize what you read so that you can use it to predict better a paragraph or two later. Current language models based on LSTM are not really able to do this.
TeeWEE 10y ago
Once you have a learning machine that can solve simple problems. You can scale it up to solve very complex problems. Its a first step to true AI imho. Al lot of small steps are needed to go towards this goal. Integrating Memory & Neural Nets is a big step imho.
- chriswarbo 10y ago
  > Once you have a learning machine that can solve simple problems. You can scale it up to solve very complex problems. Nope. It's really easy to solve simple problems; it can sometimes even be done by brute-force. That's what caused the initial optimism around AI, e.g. the 1950s notion that it would be an interesting summer project for a grad student. Insights into computational complexity during the 1960s showed that scaling is actually the difficult part. After all, if brute-force were scalable then there'd be no reason to write any other software (even if a more efficient program were required, the brute-forcer could write it for us). That's why the rapid progress on simple problems, e.g. using Eliza, SHRDLU, General Problem Solver, etc. hasn't been sustained, and why we can't just run those systems on a modern cluster and expect them to tackle realistic problems.
  - mordymoop 10y ago
    The point of this is generality. If you can use the same architecture to do many different types of tasks, and you keep adding to the variety of tasks it can do, eventually you cover all classes of tasks and then you never ever need to switch over to brute-force architectures. This is not nothing.
TeeWEE 10y ago
Once you have a learning machine that can solve simple problems. You can scale it up to solve very complex problems. Its a first step to true AI imho. Al lot of small steps are needed to go towards this goal. Integrating Memory & Neural Nets is a big step imho.
gradys 10y ago
At least some of the "toy" problems aren't chosen just for being easy to solve or understand. They're chosen for being qualitatively different than the kinds of problems other neural nets are capable of solving. Sorting, for example, is not something you can accomplish in practice with an LSTM. Mainstream work on neural nets is focused on pattern recognition and generation of various forms. I don't mean to trivialize at all when I say this - this gives us a new way to solve problems with computers. It allows us to go beyond the paradigm of hand-built algorithms over bytes in memory. What DeepMind is exploring with this line of research is whether neural nets can even subsume this older paradigm. Can they learn to induce the kinds of algorithms we're used to writing in our text editors? Given this goal, I think it's better to call problems like sorting "elementary" rather than "toy".
ludoplex 10y ago
Any chance you could link a pdf of the paper for us?

sherjilozair 10y ago

bAbI isn't really a "real" problem either, although somewhat better than sorting and the like. bAbI works with extremely restrictive worlds and grammar. In contrast, current speech recognition, language modeling, and object detection do quite well with actual audio, text, and pictures. I think the strength of NTMs will be best demonstrated by putting it to work on a long-range language modeling task where you need to organize what you read so that you can use it to predict better a paragraph or two later. Current language models based on LSTM are not really able to do this.

TeeWEE 10y ago

Once you have a learning machine that can solve simple problems. You can scale it up to solve very complex problems. Its a first step to true AI imho. Al lot of small steps are needed to go towards this goal. Integrating Memory & Neural Nets is a big step imho.

chriswarbo 10y ago
> Once you have a learning machine that can solve simple problems. You can scale it up to solve very complex problems. Nope. It's really easy to solve simple problems; it can sometimes even be done by brute-force. That's what caused the initial optimism around AI, e.g. the 1950s notion that it would be an interesting summer project for a grad student. Insights into computational complexity during the 1960s showed that scaling is actually the difficult part. After all, if brute-force were scalable then there'd be no reason to write any other software (even if a more efficient program were required, the brute-forcer could write it for us). That's why the rapid progress on simple problems, e.g. using Eliza, SHRDLU, General Problem Solver, etc. hasn't been sustained, and why we can't just run those systems on a modern cluster and expect them to tackle realistic problems.
- mordymoop 10y ago
  The point of this is generality. If you can use the same architecture to do many different types of tasks, and you keep adding to the variety of tasks it can do, eventually you cover all classes of tasks and then you never ever need to switch over to brute-force architectures. This is not nothing.

TeeWEE 10y ago

gradys 10y ago

At least some of the "toy" problems aren't chosen just for being easy to solve or understand. They're chosen for being qualitatively different than the kinds of problems other neural nets are capable of solving. Sorting, for example, is not something you can accomplish in practice with an LSTM. Mainstream work on neural nets is focused on pattern recognition and generation of various forms. I don't mean to trivialize at all when I say this - this gives us a new way to solve problems with computers. It allows us to go beyond the paradigm of hand-built algorithms over bytes in memory. What DeepMind is exploring with this line of research is whether neural nets can even subsume this older paradigm. Can they learn to induce the kinds of algorithms we're used to writing in our text editors? Given this goal, I think it's better to call problems like sorting "elementary" rather than "toy".

ludoplex 10y ago

Any chance you could link a pdf of the paper for us?