4 ms·
the paper postulates that "reward is enough" but what is the alternative? rewards plus what? the "cybernetic feedback loop" aka reinforcement learning has kind
by LesZedCB 5y ago
the paper postulates that "reward is enough" but what is the alternative? rewards plus what?
the "cybernetic feedback loop" aka reinforcement learning has kinda always been the idea, no?
i believe that architecture is important. yes, at one level the human is a rewards machine, but the neocortex produces a lot of "self-reflection" that doesn't really generate reward in itself, at least i don't know if it does. maybe meditations create a general dopamine spike?
- exo-pla-net 5y agoOne needs to actually read the paper to understand what it's postulating; the paper's title is not enough. There is a temptation to view our capabilities as a complex set of interacting modules. Under that view, each module would need to be separately developed in order to artificially recreate our abilities. The paper makes the case that we need only a single carrot. Per the paper: "For example, the ability of social intelligence has often been framed as the Nash equilibrium of a multi-agent system; the ability of language by a combination of goals such as parsing, part-of-speech tagging, lexical analysis, and sentiment analysis; and the ability of perception by object segmentation and recognition. In this paper, we consider an alternative hypothesis: that the generic objective of maximising reward is enough to drive behaviour that exhibits most if not all abilities that are studied in natural and artificial intelligence."