17 ms·
My point is that it’s equally ridiculous to call either AI. If our chip here is not the AI then the AI has to be the optimizer. By extension that means AdamW is
by valine 2y ago
My point is that it’s equally ridiculous to call either AI. If our chip here is not the AI then the AI has to be the optimizer. By extension that means AdamW is more of an AI than ChatGPT.
- ulonglongman 2y agoI don't understand. I learnt about optimizers, and genetic algorithms in my AI courses. There are lots of different things we call AI, from classical AI (algorithms for discrete and continuous search, planning, sat, Bayesian stuff, decision trees, etc.) to more contemporary deep learning, transformers, genAI etc. AI is a very very broad category of topics.
- valine 2y agoOptimization can be a tool used in the creation of AI. I'm taking issue with people who say their optimizer is an AI. We don't need to personify every technology that can be used to automate complex tasks. All that does is further dilute an already overloaded term.
- kadoban 2y agoIt's not "an AI", it's AI as in artificial intelligence, the study of making machines do things that humans do. A fairly simple set of if statements is AI (an "expert system" specifically). AI is _not_ just talking movie robots.
- Dylan16807 2y agoYou can remove the word 'an' if you're attributing some weird meaning to it, the point is still valid. Genetic algorithms and optimizers are usually in there to make AI algorithms, they aren't themselves AI algorithms. And you have to be doing something rather specific with a pile of if statements for it to count as an expert system.
- layer8 2y agoI agree that the article is wrong in using the wording “the AI”. However, firstly the original publication [0] doesn’t mention AI at all, only deep-learning models, and neither do any of the quotes in the article. Secondly, it is customary to categorize the technology resulting from AI research as AI — just not as “an AI”. The former does not imply any personification. You can have algorithms that exhibit intelligence without them constituting any kind of personal identity. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54178-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54178-1
- soulofmischief 2y agoWho said it was 'an AI'? Do you understand what intelligence means? And what artificial means?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Nition 2y agoIn game dev we've called a bunch of weighted If statements AI since the 80s. Sometimes they're not even weighted.
- fc417fc802 2y agoI think that's a bit different. The term is overloaded. There's "the machine is thinking" AI and then there's "this fairly primitive code controls an agent" AI. The former describes the technique while the latter describes the use case. Clippy was an AI but he wasn't an AI.
- rowanG077 2y agoI don't understand what your gripe is. Both are AI. Even rudimentary decision trees are AI.
- valine 2y agoLets just call every turning complete system AI and be done with it.
- coderenegade 2y agoThere's no function here that is analogous to a decision tree, or a parametrized model, just an optimizer and a loss function with a simulator. This isn't AI in the way it's commonly understood, which is the function that takes an input and produces a learned output.
- kadoban 2y agoThe entire point of the thing is that it takes an input and produces an output. The output is the designed chip.
- coderenegade 2y agoAn optimizer produces a single optimized set of parameters. AI is a (usually parametrized) function mapping a collection of input states to a collection of output states. The function is the AI, not the optimizer. I'd suggest anyone who thinks otherwise go and do some basic reading.
- saltcured 2y agoArtificial intelligence, as others are using it here to cover a broad field of study or set of techniques. You seem to be objecting because the described product is not "an artificial intelligence", i.e. an artificial mind. For some of us, your objection sounds as silly as if we were to tell some student they didn't use algebra, because what they wrote down isn't "an algebra".
- coderenegade 2y agoYou use optimization to train AI, but we usually refer to AI as being the parametrized function approximator that is optimized to fit the data, not the optimizer or loss function themselves. This is "just" an optimizer being used in conjunction with a simulation, which we've been doing for a long, long time. It's cool, but it's not AI.
- jjk166 2y agoYou use teachers to train humans, but that doesn't mean teachers can't also be humans.
- coderenegade 2y agoThis is totally irrelevant. Optimization is a branch of mathematics concerned with optimization techniques, and the analysis and quality of possible solutions. An optimizer is an algorithm concerned with finding optima of functions. You don't get to rewrite decades of mathematical literature because it gives you AI vibes. Yeah, you need an optimizer to train AI, but it's not the AI part. Most people would refer to and understand AI as being the thing they interact with. You can't interact with an optimizer, but you can interact with the function that is being optimized. I'm honestly stunned that this is even a controversial position.
- saltcured 2y agoFWIW, I suspect there are more folks here with exposure to decades of computer science literature about AI than to comparable mathematics literature. The CS literature has used AI to refer to nearly any advanced search algorithm, e.g. during the prior AI boom and bust cycle around symbolic AI. In this literature, it is idiomatic that AI techniques are the broad category of search and optimization techniques. There wasn't necessarily any "training" involved, as machine learning was considered part of the AI topic area but not its entirety.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoYes. It's the optimizer here that's called "AI" because AIs are optimizers - and so are humans. It's a matter of sophistication.