3 ms·

> We apply the ToMnet to agents behaving in simple gridworld environments > We argue that this system -- which autonomously learns how to model other agents i

> We apply the ToMnet to agents behaving in simple gridworld environments > We argue that this system -- which autonomously learns how to model other agents in its world -- is an important step forward for developing multi-agent AI systems, for building intermediating technology for machine-human interaction, and for advancing the progress on interpretable AI. I can see how this is an important step forward in gridworld, but I'm missing the point why other standard machine learning methods would not be able to learn how agents react. Edit: Great title for sure.

callesgg 9y ago
I did not read it as if it could not be made with underlying "standard machine learning methods" It is about moving in the concept ladder. From how do i learn "this" to how do i learn generically. What is the concept of a problem. What are the concepts of a solution. What is between them, where should i look. I have a theory that moving in the problem hierarchy of the world is the key to what we call intelligence. Smarter people can jump up and down the hierarchy without major issues, and less gifted people often get stuck at some level and can't see beyond the hill. They may not even recognize that there is a hill. And if they recognize the hill, they can be uninterested in climbing it, as it would require to much work.
- edna314 9y ago
  Correct me if I misunderstood you, but essentially you are saying that the achievement of this paper is a step up in the hierarchy of the concepts of learning. This step has been made before in theory. Now, it seems not very surprising to me that a computer is able to build a model of the behavior of an abstract agent in gridworld and I just would just like to know why this has not been done before. In hindsight I regret my first comment as it should have been rather this question. Or maybe in general: As I'm not an expert and not smart, what could I learn from this paper? > I have a theory that moving in the problem hierarchy of the world is the key to what we call intelligence. Smarter people can jump up and down the hierarchy without major issues, and less gifted people often get stuck at some level and can't see beyond the hill. They may not even recognize that there is a hill. And if they recognize the hill they can be uninterested in looking past is as it would require to much work. This is very interesting because I've heard this argument before and I honestly don't understand how this hierarchy is not arbitrary. I would claim you find this hierarchy only after a problem is solved. Edit: To me this argument seems like a sophisticated way of telling someone that he/she is stupid.
  - callesgg 9y ago
    That is what i took out of the paper. I don't believe i was trying to summarize the paper from an objective standpoint. I guess i was trying to summarize how my interpretation did not lead to the same conclusion that you came to. There are many hierarchy's some model the world better than others. "To me this argument seems like a sophisticated way of telling someone that he/she is stupid." Ok, what argument? Did you interpret my personal theory as an argument for something? I did not mean that it applies to you. I was expressing an idea that i thought was related to what we where talking to. Sorry.
    - pasquinelli 9y ago
      to have a theory is to argue that such and such is the case. that's the sense of the word i took from gp's reply.
    - edna314 9y ago
      > I was expressing an idea that i thought was related to what we where talking to. Sorry. Now I'm confused. How is your theory related to the article? And I would really love to discuss your theory itself as I already heard similar things before from somebody else in a discussion.
      - callesgg 9y ago
        How is your theory related to the article? Cause the article is about intelligence and i was describing something that i think is a key part of intelligence: "generalization". To achieve general intelligence one has to be good at generalizing.
        edna314 9y ago
        Ok got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

callesgg 9y ago

I did not read it as if it could not be made with underlying "standard machine learning methods" It is about moving in the concept ladder. From how do i learn "this" to how do i learn generically. What is the concept of a problem. What are the concepts of a solution. What is between them, where should i look. I have a theory that moving in the problem hierarchy of the world is the key to what we call intelligence. Smarter people can jump up and down the hierarchy without major issues, and less gifted people often get stuck at some level and can't see beyond the hill. They may not even recognize that there is a hill. And if they recognize the hill, they can be uninterested in climbing it, as it would require to much work.

edna314 9y ago
Correct me if I misunderstood you, but essentially you are saying that the achievement of this paper is a step up in the hierarchy of the concepts of learning. This step has been made before in theory. Now, it seems not very surprising to me that a computer is able to build a model of the behavior of an abstract agent in gridworld and I just would just like to know why this has not been done before. In hindsight I regret my first comment as it should have been rather this question. Or maybe in general: As I'm not an expert and not smart, what could I learn from this paper? > I have a theory that moving in the problem hierarchy of the world is the key to what we call intelligence. Smarter people can jump up and down the hierarchy without major issues, and less gifted people often get stuck at some level and can't see beyond the hill. They may not even recognize that there is a hill. And if they recognize the hill they can be uninterested in looking past is as it would require to much work. This is very interesting because I've heard this argument before and I honestly don't understand how this hierarchy is not arbitrary. I would claim you find this hierarchy only after a problem is solved. Edit: To me this argument seems like a sophisticated way of telling someone that he/she is stupid.
- callesgg 9y ago
  That is what i took out of the paper. I don't believe i was trying to summarize the paper from an objective standpoint. I guess i was trying to summarize how my interpretation did not lead to the same conclusion that you came to. There are many hierarchy's some model the world better than others. "To me this argument seems like a sophisticated way of telling someone that he/she is stupid." Ok, what argument? Did you interpret my personal theory as an argument for something? I did not mean that it applies to you. I was expressing an idea that i thought was related to what we where talking to. Sorry.
  - pasquinelli 9y ago
    to have a theory is to argue that such and such is the case. that's the sense of the word i took from gp's reply.
  - edna314 9y ago
    > I was expressing an idea that i thought was related to what we where talking to. Sorry. Now I'm confused. How is your theory related to the article? And I would really love to discuss your theory itself as I already heard similar things before from somebody else in a discussion.
    - callesgg 9y ago
      How is your theory related to the article? Cause the article is about intelligence and i was describing something that i think is a key part of intelligence: "generalization". To achieve general intelligence one has to be good at generalizing.
      - edna314 9y ago
        Ok got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.