5 ms·

You 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 optimize

You 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 ago
You use teachers to train humans, but that doesn't mean teachers can't also be humans.
- coderenegade 2y ago
  This 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 ago
    FWIW, 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.
    - coderenegade 2y ago
      Maybe I'm getting old and grumpy. It's always been acknowledged that various disciplines had significant crossover, e.g. ML and operations research, but I've never seen anyone claim that optimization is AI until recently. Ian Goodfellow's book is, what, 10 years old at this point? The fundamentals in that book cover all of ML from classical to deep learning, and pretty clearly enumerate the different components necessary to do ML, and there's no doubt that optimization is one of them. But to say that it is AI in the way that most people would probably understand it? It's a stretch, and hinges on whether you're using AI to refer to the collection of techniques or the discipline, as opposed to the output (i.e. the "intelligence"). I, and I'd argue most people, use AI to refer to the latter, but I guess the distinction between the discipline and the product is vague enough for media hype. And to be clear, I'm not trying to take away from the authors. Optimization is one of the tools I like to throw around, both in my own projects and professionally. I love seeing cool applications of optimization, and this definitely qualifies. I just don't agree that everything that uses optimization is AI, because it's an unnecessary blurring of boundaries.
      - saltcured 2y ago
        Sorry, didn't notice this thread continued... I'm actually getting old and grumpy. And I'm talking about common usage since I was an undergraduate taking AI courses 30+ years ago and surveying CS literature, some of which predated my courses by another 10-30 years... I recall one visiting professor who was an "AI researcher" at NASA, and his work was planners and optimizers for spacecraft operations. But getting back to the basic point: there is a semantic difference of having a grammatical article, which for others here carries more significance than you seem to admit. "Artificial intelligence" vs "An artificial intelligence".
  - jjk166 2y ago
    > You don't get to rewrite decades of mathematical literature because it gives you AI vibes. AI as a term was invented to describe exactly this. Any usage of the term AI which does not include this is a misunderstanding of the term. You don't get to rewrite decades of computer science literature because it fails to give you AI vibes. > 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 have no idea what you mean by "interact with" in this context. You can use a non AI optimizer to train an AI. You can also create an AI that serves the function of an optimizer. Optimization is a task, artificial intelligence is an approach to tasks. A neural network trained to optimize chip design is exactly as much an AI as a neural network trained to predict protein folding or translate speech.
    - coderenegade 2y ago
      Okay, I'm an idiot who didn't RTFA and just realized I was wrong. Disregard everything I've said.

jjk166 2y ago

You use teachers to train humans, but that doesn't mean teachers can't also be humans.

coderenegade 2y ago
This 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 ago
  FWIW, 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.
  - coderenegade 2y ago
    Maybe I'm getting old and grumpy. It's always been acknowledged that various disciplines had significant crossover, e.g. ML and operations research, but I've never seen anyone claim that optimization is AI until recently. Ian Goodfellow's book is, what, 10 years old at this point? The fundamentals in that book cover all of ML from classical to deep learning, and pretty clearly enumerate the different components necessary to do ML, and there's no doubt that optimization is one of them. But to say that it is AI in the way that most people would probably understand it? It's a stretch, and hinges on whether you're using AI to refer to the collection of techniques or the discipline, as opposed to the output (i.e. the "intelligence"). I, and I'd argue most people, use AI to refer to the latter, but I guess the distinction between the discipline and the product is vague enough for media hype. And to be clear, I'm not trying to take away from the authors. Optimization is one of the tools I like to throw around, both in my own projects and professionally. I love seeing cool applications of optimization, and this definitely qualifies. I just don't agree that everything that uses optimization is AI, because it's an unnecessary blurring of boundaries.
    - saltcured 2y ago
      Sorry, didn't notice this thread continued... I'm actually getting old and grumpy. And I'm talking about common usage since I was an undergraduate taking AI courses 30+ years ago and surveying CS literature, some of which predated my courses by another 10-30 years... I recall one visiting professor who was an "AI researcher" at NASA, and his work was planners and optimizers for spacecraft operations. But getting back to the basic point: there is a semantic difference of having a grammatical article, which for others here carries more significance than you seem to admit. "Artificial intelligence" vs "An artificial intelligence".
- jjk166 2y ago
  > You don't get to rewrite decades of mathematical literature because it gives you AI vibes. AI as a term was invented to describe exactly this. Any usage of the term AI which does not include this is a misunderstanding of the term. You don't get to rewrite decades of computer science literature because it fails to give you AI vibes. > 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 have no idea what you mean by "interact with" in this context. You can use a non AI optimizer to train an AI. You can also create an AI that serves the function of an optimizer. Optimization is a task, artificial intelligence is an approach to tasks. A neural network trained to optimize chip design is exactly as much an AI as a neural network trained to predict protein folding or translate speech.
  - coderenegade 2y ago
    Okay, I'm an idiot who didn't RTFA and just realized I was wrong. Disregard everything I've said.