6 ms·
Gödel Machine
- carapace 8y agoIt may be too difficult to build one of these directly, but it might be possible to build a machine that then builds a Gödel Machine.
- tekromancr 8y agoEven that's a stretch. I think you would need to build a machine that builds a machine that then builds a Gödel Machine.
- Anon84 8y agoSo... basically a Lisp machine?
- federicotdn 8y agoI think there's an Emacs mode for that.
- no_identd 8y agoNah, you need typed holes. Check out Hazel.org.
- jakethe____ 8y agometa-meta-learning
- squidbidness 8y agoWorth pointing out though that we do already know the answer: 42
- KingFelix 8y agoYes, so we would require a 3rd, maybe a 4th?
- joe_the_user 8y agoCoding an approximation to a Godel machine naively probably isn't that hard, relatively speaking - it would essentially be an extension to a symbolic computation system. What would be hard is running such a thing with any efficiency.
- carapace 8y agoSchmidhuber has a great talk where he sets up the GM then drops the boom on practical implementations (I forget the details, but the exponent is ~3000, an impossible lifetime-of-the-Universe search space) and the audience laughs, but then he also points out that the self-improvement search may well find massive speed-ups, and so it is perhaps not as hopeless as all that.
- abhinai 8y agoCould humans be considered to be a Gödel machine? If not a human, could the entire humanity considered as one entity be considered to be a Gödel machine? On a different plane could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well?
- TelmoMenezes 8y ago> Could humans be considered to be a Gödel machine? At least parts of our brain, for sure. It is clear that we can improve some of our own learning algorithms. Everything that is innate, no (or not yet). For example, a liver cannot optimize itself in novel ways during its lifetime. > If not a human, could the entire humanity considered as one entity be considered to be a Gödel machine? Good question. I'm not sure humanity has a utility function, so even though it clearly can self-modify, the question might be nonsensical. > On a different plane could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well? A think evolution is recursively a Gödel machine. It learns how to create things that become better at learning how to create things that... Also, certain innovations fundamentally change the game, e.g. the emergence of genders.
- iamcurious 8y ago> For example, a liver cannot optimize itself in novel ways during its lifetime. That is very brainist of you.
- lukifer 8y ago> could evolution qualify as a Gödel machine as well? I would say so. See also: Gaia Hypothesis [0], and the Big History project [1]. Arguably, biological evolution is but one layer in a self-improving information-energy complexity stack, which has now achieved sufficient stability to provide a foundation for ecosystems of technological and memetic evolution. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History#Complexity,_energy,_thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History#Complexity,_energy...
- yongjik 8y agoI think that's stretching the analogy too much. Basically, we might say cows are spherical objects if we want to solve some problems in classical mechanics, but you won't gain much insights about how cows actually work by assuming they are spherical objects. Same thing here, IMHO.
- nickelcitymario 8y agoHonest question: Has this been put into practice in any AI to date? Does TensorFlow count as a Gödel Machine? ML is basically the machine deciding its own weights right? Is that the same thing? Or have we not crossed into "writing its own code" territory? And if we haven't, why not? This seems like the kind of thing we already have the technology for.
- jimfleming 8y ago> Has this been put into practice in any AI to date? Meta-learning is an active subfield of research in machine learning. Gödel machines may overlap with program synthesis as well which is another subfield. > Does TensorFlow count as a Gödel Machine? No. TF is itself is static and not self-improving. Most standard machine learning models are also not typically self-improving, though you can implement meta-learning with TF. A big challenge with meta-learning is scale. It's relatively easy to solve multi-armed bandit problems but complex tasks are still challenging.
- Voloskaya 8y agoIn typical ML you just learn the weights. But the architecture stays fixed, and since we don't have an architecture that can realistically solve well enough all tasks, it shouldn't count as Godel machine. Meta-learning, where you also learn hyper-parameters (including potentially the architecture) are closer to that, see for example: - Google Vizier: https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46180 https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46180 - Microsoft neural architecture search: https://github.com/Microsoft/nni https://github.com/Microsoft/nni But this is still far from a true Godel machine.
- jimfleming 8y agoHyperparameter optimization (including architectures) is not really meta-learning. Meta-learning, also known as "learning to learn", is more like MAML[0], RL2[1], L2RL[2], etc. 0. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03400 https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03400 1. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02779 https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02779 2. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05763 https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05763
- 8y ago
- empath75 8y agoIsn't this somewhat like what the JVM does with runtime optimizations?
- senozhatsky 8y agoI had a similar thought - profile guided optimizations (PGO).
- est31 8y agoBtw, Jürgen Schmidhuber, who proposed Gödel machines, is also the inventor of LSTMs, an important building block for many neural network designs. Amazing guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Schmidhuber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Schmidhuber
- xcq1 8y agoDidn't Gödel explicitly proof that there are some statements that cannot be proven this way? Is it just assumed that these will not be relevant for all the hard problems that humans cannot solve or am I missing something here?
- ozy 8y ago1. rarely does that come up in practical problems 2. for many reasons (and completeness is one) the machine cannot prove the next version is better, thus must discard it
- godelmachine 8y agoAs you folks might have realized, my namesake :)