4 ms·
Human behaviour in a way far more general than which token we might next type. To mimick humans as closely as might be possible with the basic deep learning me
by retrac 3y ago
Human behaviour in a way far more general than which token we might next type. To mimick humans as closely as might be possible with the basic deep learning method, train something that can predict human behaviour in general. Training would require billions to quadrillions of hours of video and audio and probably many other inputs, from many different people, engaged in the full variety of human activity.
- reducesuffering 3y agoWhy? An adult by 25 only has 146k hours of video experience “training,” most of it repeated, derivative, and unproductive. And their encoded genes can be observed in their genome, so don’t need to be retrained by millions of years of evolution.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alanbernstein 3y agoHow better to learn to do menial physical tasks like house cleaning, and produce picking?
- thaw13579 3y agoMuch of that time also includes physical interaction with the world, which makes it far more valuable because it can improve performance in a focused way.
- canjobear 3y agoNeural nets seem to learn much slower than humans. Even GPT-2 has seen orders of magnitude more tokens of language than a human experiences in a lifetime. At least as far as language is concerned, humans are able to extract a lot more information from their training data.
- mkaic 3y agoHumans are also extensively pretrained by billions of years of evolution, so by starting from scratch GPT is admittedly disadvantaged from the get-go.
- georgeg23 3y agoBut the human genome is only 3 gigabytes and the vast majority of that is unlikely to be encoding brain structure.
- retrac 3y ago"Only" 3 gigabytes. The lambda calculus (a system we know is capable of infinite self-complexity, learning, etc. with the right program) can be described in a few hundred bits. And a neural net can be described in the lambda calculus in perhaps a few thousand bits. Also, we have no idea how "compressed" the genome is.
- georgeg23 3y agoBasic structure can be encoded yes (and obviously is given brains have consistent structure), but the weights or parameters, presuming that brains learn via synaptic weights, obviously do not fit in the genome. Compression still must obey information theory.
- canjobear 3y agoTrue, but we don’t know how to recreate that kind of pretraining.
- thaw13579 3y agoOne difference is that humans are actively involved in data collection, so when there is a gap in their knowledge, they don’t just wait for the information to show up, they ask a question, etc.
- edgyquant 3y agoHumans do not train on video, the idea of a video, or even a frame, is a high level abstraction within the human brain.
- quickthrower2 3y agoHumans have a brain that physically changes especially in childhood, so that is potentially a massive advantage.