8 ms·
> even rodents can outperform state of the art models at general tasks Rodents can't play Go or a lot of other humanly-meaningful tasks. We don't need to build
by buboard 7y ago
> even rodents can outperform state of the art models at general tasks
Rodents can't play Go or a lot of other humanly-meaningful tasks. We don't need to build an artificial cell. A cell is too many components that by blind luck happened to find ways to work together, this is as far from efficient design as can be. The same way we don't build two-legged airplanes, we don't need anything that's close to the wet spiky mess that happens in human brains. It's more likely that we have all the ingredients already in ML, and we need to connect them in an ingenious way and amp up the parallelism.
- romwell 7y agoThe problem with the analogy is that the car, by far, is not a general transportation device. Practically, most cars are solving a very constrained transportation problem: moving on roads that humans made. We don't have anything remotely close to a wetware-enabled transportation device, something that can move on flat land, climb mountains, swim in bodies of water, crawl in caves, hide in trees. Within the constrained problem, the machine exceeds humans. But generally, the wetware handles moving around much better. Same with AI: in a constrained problem, the AI can excel (beat humans in chess and go). But I doubt we will see a general AI any time soon.
- buboard 7y ago> constrained problem human AI also evolved by solving constrained problems, one at a time. Life existed before the visual system , but once this was solved it moved on to do other things. In AI we have a number of sensory systems seemingly solved: Speech recognition, visual object recognition, and we are closing to certain output (motor) systems: NLP text synthesis systems seem a lot like the central pattern generators that control human gait, except for language. What seems to be missing is the "higher-level ", more abstract kernels that create intent, which are also difficult to train because we don't have a lot of meaningful datasets. Or maybe , we have too big datasets (the entirety of wikipedia) but we don't know how to encode it in a meaningful way for training. It's not clear however that these "integrating systems" are going to be fundamentally different to solve than other subsystems. It certainly doesn't seem to be so in the brain, since neocortex (which hosts both sensory and motor and higher level systems) is rather homogeneous. In any case, it seems we 're solving problems one after another without copying nature's designs, so it's not automatically true that we need to copy nature in order to keep solving more.
- acdha 7y ago> In AI we have a number of sensory systems seemingly solved: Speech recognition, visual object recognition, Do you have examples of those systems which are competitive in general use rather than specialized niches? The cloud offerings from Amazon, Google, etc. are good in the specific cases they’re trained on but fall off rapidly once you get new variants which a human would handle easily.
- buboard 7y agoThere are many vision models where classification is better than human. I m not sure what you mean 'fall of rapidly'; they do fail however for certain inputs where humans are better. But we 're talking about models that contain 6 to 7 orders of magnitude less neurons than an adult brain.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIt's also interesting in the context of how we build our technology in general: we constraint our environments just as much we develop tools that operate in them. E.g. much as cars were created for roads, we adapted our communities and the terrain around them by building roads and supporting infrastructure. A lot of things around us rely on access to clean water at pressure, which is something we built into our environments, etc.
- pyentropy 7y agoAlphaZero has coded all the rules for the respective three games, they do a tree search and their neural network output layer has exactly n neurons for max(n) possible moves. Although it's impressive they don't teach it heuristics and strategies, it's a very specific task. What about pigeons predicting breast cancer with 99% probability, rats learning to drive cars, monkeys building tools? Rodents stand a bigger chance at learning Go than AlphaZero spontaneously building stone tools and driving cars.
- vegarab 7y agoYou are talking about AlphaGo. AlphaZero was not given any prior knowledge of the game and is trained exclusively through self-play -- and it outperforms Monte Carlo tree search-based systems such as AlphaGo and Stockfish in chess 100-0 with a fraction of the training time. AlphaZero is also capable of playing Chess, Shogi and Go at a super-super-human.
- sjg007 7y agoYou can view these as optimized pattern recognizer regexes. You start with a blank fully connected graph and it eventually converge on a useful function. That graph has many paths encoded in it that represents specific optimal game play.
- TwoBit 7y agoAs impressive as AlphaZero surely is, I don't think it ever got a proper comparison to Stockfish. It was running on a veritable supercomputer while Stockfish was running in a crippled mode on crippled hardware.
- azth 7y ago> A cell is too many components that by blind luck happened to find ways to work together Can't tell if sarcasm.