4 ms·
That's interesting to think about. I'm not familiar with the literature on this but I'm 100% sure there's some interesting work on it (and related fields such a
by dimatura 2y ago
That's interesting to think about. I'm not familiar with the literature on this but I'm 100% sure there's some interesting work on it (and related fields such as distributed and federated learning). I guess the simplest solution would be "centralized" - periodically aggregate all the raw data from all robots, train a model with all the data, redistribute the model. In that case there wouldn't be any "individuality", but (maybe again, by analogy with evolution) one could think it'd be advantageous to have some. But even if all the models all the same, the robots might be different types and operate in different environments, which raises issues of generalizability, transferability and specialization.
Either way the centralized would have some scaling problems, naturally - some way to transfer/aggregate experience (possibly "peer to peer") without resorting to training from raw data then becomes attractive, and I'm sure something people are working on. It does turn out that at least in some recent LLMs, weights appear to be sort of linear and people have been using that to merge them with fairly naive methods with good results.
- jcgrillo 2y agoIt's possible that different entities experience each other's experiences differently.. that is, if you were to magically teleport your experience of reading this post into my brain it might be overpoweringly disorienting and even painful. On the other hand it could just be "a little weird". Or would I instantly have everything that differentiates my mind from yours completely overwritten? This would probably catastrophically reduce my fitness because I'd have to--or more like you'd have to--learn how to operate my body.