3 ms·
Everything old is new again. As far as I can tell, they're not actually proposing how to achieve this. I can't access the article without a host institution it
by azinman2 5y ago
Everything old is new again.
As far as I can tell, they're not actually proposing how to achieve this. I can't access the article without a host institution it seems (is there another link?), so I only have the article to go by. RL has been the basis for all robots engaging with the world, and that engagement with the physical world modeled using RL has been promised to make robots that can act like a 2 year old for a long time (see Cynthia Breazeal's work, for example). Yet AFAIK, we haven't actually achieved this as we don't know how to efficiently model the problem to have learning rates that reach anywhere near what we're able to do with DNNs today.
Perhaps someone who has access to the paper can say why this is a milestone? If Patricia Churchland suggests it is, then something new must be happening here.
- hervature 5y agoI don't know who Patricia Churchland is, but they said that the paper was "very carefully and insightfully worked out." After having read the paper, I am very disappointed in the output. Nothing concrete was shown, just hypothesis and reads more like philosophy. That being said, I would say that the paper is carefully worked out and does provide insight if you haven't thought about RL before.
- Ieghaehia9 5y agoIf Patricia Churchland doesn't have a problem with the paper despite it being philosophical, then that's probably because she is a philosopher. An eliminative materialist, to be precise. Personally, from reading the abstract, I disagree with the hypothesis. There's a trick where anything (even say, a database lookup) looks like optimization as long as you contrive the objective function just right, but that's kind of uninformative.
- LesZedCB 5y agoand our intelligence is quite good at confabulating optimization functions for abstract processes that are inert. pretty amazing, really.
- leto_ii 5y ago> is there another link? This is the download link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370221000862/pdfft?md5=12802032b840c6cc044e57c3a5aaa7c3&pid=1-s2.0-S0004370221000862-main.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437022...
- deepnet 5y agoThe paper is creative commons licensed no signup necessary to download https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370221000862/pdfft?md5=12802032b840c6cc044e57c3a5aaa7c3&pid=1-s2.0-S0004370221000862-main.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437022...