4 ms·

1. Do we have to engineer how much it's being rewarded in each game? 2. What happens in the infinite case? With pacman, there are always a finite number of cho

1. Do we have to engineer how much it's being rewarded in each game? 2. What happens in the infinite case? With pacman, there are always a finite number of choices at each state. 3. If it doesn't have to be told the rules, then how does it make decisions? In theory, it may be able to learn how to play jeopardy, but it may be way too inefficient in practice. Humans don't even start with a blank state. 4. I don't think I ever consciously apply philosophical principles like ockham's razor when I problem solve or learn. It makes me a little uncomfortable that we're starting with a philosophy, rather than having the system discover things itself. I would be ok with it if there was some parallel between ockham's razor and physics (not the methodology of science).

maaku 13y ago
> I don't think I ever consciously apply philosophical principles like ockham's razor when I problem solve or learn. It makes me a little uncomfortable that we're starting with a philosophy, rather than having the system discover things itself. I would be ok with it if there was some parallel between ockham's razor and physics. Why do you think it is relevant what you do consciously? The only things that you do consciously are those things which your brain is ill-equipped to do. The vast majority of your thinking processes are subconscious, as are the principles that drive your conscious thinking. And I guarantee you, Ockham's razor is in there whether you realize it or not. When things get complicated do you purposefully look for a simpler solution? When trying to understand an unknown situation, do you start with something simple and ad complexity as needed? Ockham's razor. > I would be ok with it if there was some parallel between ockham's razor and physics. ... there's not? EDIT: As an AI researcher, I'd be more interested in creating an artificial scientist than "artificial science." So what makes the scientist work? Ockham's razor is at the foundation of that.
Symmetry 13y ago
Regarding 4: A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating his morning meal. “I would like to give you this personality test”, said the outsider, “because I want you to be happy.” Drescher took the paper that was offered him and put it into the toaster, saying: “I wish the toaster to be happy, too.” http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141308 http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141308
pierrelux 13y ago
About countably infinite state space: with about 10^56 states, Pacman still remains a very challenging domain ! Just to put things into perspective, my colleague recently ran some experiment where he would exhaust 8Gb of RAM, but could reduce this number down to 4Gb using random projections for dimensionality reduction. http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/files/whamilton-icml13.pdf http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/files/whamilton-icml13.pdf http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~whamil3/files/cpsr-talk.pdf http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~whamil3/files/cpsr-talk.pdf Also, don't forget that this is a partially observable domain (with only local sensory information) with no apriori knowledge of the overall goal to achieve. It learns completely from scratch ! If we find this task easy as human beings, it's because we have a lot of prior knowledge that we can transfer into this task
JulianMorrison 13y ago
Ockham's razor here isn't a "philosophical principle", it's math. AIXI is doing a shortest-first search for predictors that match the observed environment, except that it's searching them all simultaneously in infinite parallel (that's why it's not computable) and what gets moved around is probability weighting. Ockham's razor describes the starting state of the weightings when there hasn't yet been any evidence: shorter predictors are given more weight.

maaku 13y ago

> I don't think I ever consciously apply philosophical principles like ockham's razor when I problem solve or learn. It makes me a little uncomfortable that we're starting with a philosophy, rather than having the system discover things itself. I would be ok with it if there was some parallel between ockham's razor and physics. Why do you think it is relevant what you do consciously? The only things that you do consciously are those things which your brain is ill-equipped to do. The vast majority of your thinking processes are subconscious, as are the principles that drive your conscious thinking. And I guarantee you, Ockham's razor is in there whether you realize it or not. When things get complicated do you purposefully look for a simpler solution? When trying to understand an unknown situation, do you start with something simple and ad complexity as needed? Ockham's razor. > I would be ok with it if there was some parallel between ockham's razor and physics. ... there's not? EDIT: As an AI researcher, I'd be more interested in creating an artificial scientist than "artificial science." So what makes the scientist work? Ockham's razor is at the foundation of that.

Symmetry 13y ago

Regarding 4: A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating his morning meal. “I would like to give you this personality test”, said the outsider, “because I want you to be happy.” Drescher took the paper that was offered him and put it into the toaster, saying: “I wish the toaster to be happy, too.” http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141308 http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/koans.html#id3141308

pierrelux 13y ago

About countably infinite state space: with about 10^56 states, Pacman still remains a very challenging domain ! Just to put things into perspective, my colleague recently ran some experiment where he would exhaust 8Gb of RAM, but could reduce this number down to 4Gb using random projections for dimensionality reduction. http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/files/whamilton-icml13.pdf http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/files/whamilton-icml13.pdf http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~whamil3/files/cpsr-talk.pdf http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~whamil3/files/cpsr-talk.pdf Also, don't forget that this is a partially observable domain (with only local sensory information) with no apriori knowledge of the overall goal to achieve. It learns completely from scratch ! If we find this task easy as human beings, it's because we have a lot of prior knowledge that we can transfer into this task

JulianMorrison 13y ago

Ockham's razor here isn't a "philosophical principle", it's math. AIXI is doing a shortest-first search for predictors that match the observed environment, except that it's searching them all simultaneously in infinite parallel (that's why it's not computable) and what gets moved around is probability weighting. Ockham's razor describes the starting state of the weightings when there hasn't yet been any evidence: shorter predictors are given more weight.