Live data from Hacker News

The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

blogs.nvidia.com

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#81
post #76
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once we have a comprehensive AI program that can play many kinds of games Before AlphaGo, DeepMind released a reinforcement learning algorithm that could play many Atari games just from the raw pixels on the screen, in many games surpassing humans. The same algorithm. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.5602.pdf Reinforcement learning is a general framework for learning behavior from acting in an environment with the purpos…

> Atari games just from the raw pixels on the screen It's important to distinguish between what sorts of games work well under this method and what sorts do not. Games that are variations of pole balancing, like Pong, fare better than more complex games like Asteroids, Frostbite or Montezuma's Revenge. > Saying that AlphaGo is limited because it only knows to play one game, is like saying that humans are limited beca…

> It's important to distinguish between what sorts of games work well under this method and what sorts do not. Games that are variations of pole balancing, like Pong, fare better than more complex games like Asteroids, Frostbite or Montezuma's Revenge.

That's what I'm getting at really: AIs that are expert/genius level at something niche and fall apart when applied to a similar task a human wouldn't have trouble adapting to. Once an AI is easily adaptable to many different domains without manual tuning people will be hard pressed to deny it is intelligent.

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#82
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that they used a general method that can be used to do other tasks as well. It is not a limitation of AI that we generally make systems that are good at only one thing This is exactly the kind of hubris and reasoning that brought down good old fashioned AI initially. They also had a lot of initial impressive wins with methods that looked quite general at that time.

The difference being that this time there are real applications to deep learning.

There are real applications to old AI even today. Look up ITA software, uses of theorem proving of hardware and software verification, etc. Let us not engage in FUD please.

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#83
post #76
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once we have a comprehensive AI program that can play many kinds of games Before AlphaGo, DeepMind released a reinforcement learning algorithm that could play many Atari games just from the raw pixels on the screen, in many games surpassing humans. The same algorithm. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.5602.pdf Reinforcement learning is a general framework for learning behavior from acting in an environment with the purpos…

> Atari games just from the raw pixels on the screen It's important to distinguish between what sorts of games work well under this method and what sorts do not. Games that are variations of pole balancing, like Pong, fare better than more complex games like Asteroids, Frostbite or Montezuma's Revenge. > Saying that AlphaGo is limited because it only knows to play one game, is like saying that humans are limited beca…

[deleted]

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#84
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Atari games just from the raw pixels on the screen It's important to distinguish between what sorts of games work well under this method and what sorts do not. Games that are variations of pole balancing, like Pong, fare better than more complex games like Asteroids, Frostbite or Montezuma's Revenge. > Saying that AlphaGo is limited because it only knows to play one game, is like saying that humans are limited beca…

> It's important to distinguish between what sorts of games work well under this method and what sorts do not. Games that are variations of pole balancing, like Pong, fare better than more complex games like Asteroids, Frostbite or Montezuma's Revenge. That's what I'm getting at really: AIs that are expert/genius level at something niche and fall apart when applied to a similar task a human wouldn't have trouble adap…

My cellphone can play hundreds of games well, I don't think that's an indicator of intelligence.

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#85
This intro is pretty good, but may be a bit high level for some readers of HN. It seems like it's written for non-technical readers. The idea is that AI, ML and DL are nested like Russian dolls, each subsequent one a subset of the other.

It might be better to explain why deep learning is so effective, in clear language:

* Deep artificial neural networks are old, relatively simple combinations of math and code that are now able to produce accurate models through brute force because we have

1) vastly more computational power thanks to NVIDIA and distributed run-times; 2) much more data, and much larger labeled datasets thanks to people like Fei-Fei Li at Stanford; 3) better algorithms thanks to the work of Hinton, LeCun, Bengio, Ng, Schmidhuber and a raft of others.

Deep is a technical term. It refers to the number of layers through which data passes in a neural net; that is, the number of mathematical operations it is subjected to, and the number of times it is recombined with other inputs.

This recombination of inputs, moving deeper into the net, is the basis of feature hierarchy, which is another way of saying: we can cluster and classify data using more complex and abstract representations.

That clustering and classification is at the heart of what deep learning does. Another way to think about it is as machine perception. So the overarching narrative in AI is that we've moved from the symbolic rules engines of the chess victors to the interpretation of complex sensory information. For a long time, people would say AI could beat a 30-year-old at chess but couldn't beat a 3-year old at basic tasks. That's no longer true. We can go around beating 3-year-olds at name games all day. AI mind, beginner's mind.

But it's important to note that deep learning actually refers to other algorithms besides artificial neural networks. Deep reinforcement learning is one example. RL is also an old set of algorithms, which are goal-oriented. RL helps agents choose the right action in a given state to maximize rewards from the environment. Basically, they learn the function that converts actions to rewards given certain conditions, and that function is non-differentiable; that is, you can't learn it simply by backpropagating error, the way neural nets do.

Deep RL is important because the most amazing algorithms, like AlphaGo, are combining deep neural nets (recognize the state of the Go board) with RL (pick the move most likely to succeed) and other components like Monte Carlo Decision Trees (limit the state space we explore).

So we're moving beyond perception to algorithms that can make strategic decisions in increasingly complex environments.

We've written more about this, and implemented many of these algorithms:

http://deeplearning4j.org/ai-machinelearning-deeplearning.ht... http://deeplearning4j.org/reinforcementlearning.html http://github.com/deeplearning4j/rl4j

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#86
post #12

Also, an interesting read related to this would 'the AI effect'[0]. A lot of the stuff Deep Learning/Machine Learning is able to do today would be looked at as something that only 'true' AI (whatever consensus on what that means is; I think of it as AGI) would be able to do. But as soon as we are able to solve a problem that we think (feel?) only true AI (AGI) would be able to solve, as soon as we know how it was sol…

This intro is pretty good, but may be a bit high level for some readers of HN. It seems like it's written for non-technical readers. The idea is that AI, ML and DL are nested like Russian dolls, each subsequent one a subset of the other.

It might be better to explain why deep learning is so effective, in clear language:

* Deep artificial neural networks are old, relatively simple combinations of math and code that are now able to produce accurate models through brute force because we have

1) vastly more computational power thanks to NVIDIA and distributed run-times; 2) much more data, and much larger labeled datasets thanks to people like Fei-Fei Li at Stanford; 3) better algorithms thanks to the work of Hinton, LeCun, Bengio, Ng, Schmidhuber and a raft of others.

Deep is a technical term. It refers to the number of layers through which data passes in a neural net; that is, the number of mathematical operations it is subjected to, and the number of times it is recombined with other inputs.

This recombination of inputs, moving deeper into the net, is the basis of feature hierarchy, which is another way of saying: we can cluster and classify data using more complex and abstract representations.

That clustering and classification is at the heart of what deep learning does. Another way to think about it is as machine perception. So the overarching narrative in AI is that we've moved from the symbolic rules engines of the chess victors to the interpretation of complex sensory information. For a long time, people would say AI could beat a 30-year-old at chess but couldn't beat a 3-year old at basic tasks. That's no longer true. We can go around beating 3-year-olds at name games all day. AI mind, beginner's mind.

But it's important to note that deep learning actually refers to other algorithms besides artificial neural networks. Deep reinforcement learning is one example. RL is also an old set of algorithms, which are goal-oriented. RL helps agents choose the right action in a given state to maximize rewards from the environment. Basically, they learn the function that converts actions to rewards given certain conditions, and that function is non-differentiable; that is, you can't learn it simply by backpropagating error, the way neural nets do.

Deep RL is important because the most amazing algorithms, like AlphaGo, are combining deep neural nets (recognize the state of the Go board) with RL (pick the move most likely to succeed) and other components like Monte Carlo Decision Trees (limit the state space we explore).

So we're moving beyond perception to algorithms that can make strategic decisions in increasingly complex environments.

We've written more about this, and implemented many of these algorithms:

http://deeplearning4j.org/ai-machinelearning-deeplearning.ht... http://deeplearning4j.org/reinforcementlearning.html http://github.com/deeplearning4j/rl4j

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#87
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's important to distinguish between what sorts of games work well under this method and what sorts do not. Games that are variations of pole balancing, like Pong, fare better than more complex games like Asteroids, Frostbite or Montezuma's Revenge. That's what I'm getting at really: AIs that are expert/genius level at something niche and fall apart when applied to a similar task a human wouldn't have trouble adap…

My cellphone can play hundreds of games well, I don't think that's an indicator of intelligence.

> My cellphone can play hundreds of games well, I don't think that's an indicator of intelligence.

I don't think it is either. I'd want to see many more domains than is demonstrated in playing most games (e.g. conversation, object recognition, planning, maths)

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#88
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My cellphone can play hundreds of games well, I don't think that's an indicator of intelligence.

> My cellphone can play hundreds of games well, I don't think that's an indicator of intelligence. I don't think it is either. I'd want to see many more domains than is demonstrated in playing most games (e.g. conversation, object recognition, planning, maths)

That's not really my point. If software X can do handwriting recognition then having software Y call software X is usually fairly easy and has little to do with intelligence.

IMO, we already have intelligent AI. It's just not intelligent the way we are used to dealing with. People don't want AI, they want a human brain in a box.

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#89
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've always heard that expert systems are good, because there you can reason about the solution. For instance diagnosing people based on rules contributed by doctors. You can trace the steps the algorithm takes easily. But for a neural net, you cannot say why this particular net should be trusted, as you don't know how it arrives at a solution. Therefore it's "scary" to use. While I don't agree, it explains why…

Random Decision Forests provide sort of a middle ground. For training, a large set of decision trees are built randomly based on the input features. When classifying input for one tree, each node considers feature value of the input, and decides on a branch. Leafs corresponds to a classification, so when a leaf is reached, the tree has classified the given input. By having a large set of trees, and picking e.g. the m…

Just curious, what prevents somebody to debug deep network in the same way? You potentially can check what features contributed to activation of each "neuron"..

Re: The Difference Between AI, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning

#90
post #75
post #12

Also, an interesting read related to this would 'the AI effect'[0]. A lot of the stuff Deep Learning/Machine Learning is able to do today would be looked at as something that only 'true' AI (whatever consensus on what that means is; I think of it as AGI) would be able to do. But as soon as we are able to solve a problem that we think (feel?) only true AI (AGI) would be able to solve, as soon as we know how it was sol…

And on a related note, "better than humans", "comparable to human intelligence", and phrases like these since the early days of AI have always been a red herring. Not the least because these phrases do not imply what we are really comparing - better than all humans? some humans? How about just a person? What about just better than a 4-year-old? The criteria should have always been "faster / more efficiently", "more a…

>And on a related note, "better than humans", "comparable to human intelligence", and phrases like these since the early days of AI have always been a red herring

Well, I agree that it is not definitive, but it definitely gives us some insight on where AI techniques are, comparing with the 'average human'. Now I know even the term average human doesn't have a strict definition, but the scale of intelligence[0] is so vast compared to the dumbest and smartest human, all that we need to know from that is if the technology is better than humans or not. If it is not, then I'll not care much, but if it is, then you've got my attention.

>Let's say that was software that ran on post-VLSI hardware (1+ million transistors). Now, we have deep learning deployed on multiple GPUs each with a 15+ billion transistor count.

I think the problem lies with how we emulate intelligence. Will you be able to emulate me perfectly if you had not billions, but trillions of transistors? I'm assuming the answer is no, because, although we have all the power that the human brain (abstracting the neurons and other 'mechanical parts') has, we cannot simulate even a child's intelligence (now here I'm referring the ability to learn new things and communication, etc other abstract things etc, not computational ability). We need to know the technique just like we know have deep learning and are able to analyze pictures near-perfectly.

>True AI is starting to look philosophically like a mirage

Well, of course definitions vary. I think most people's (including mine) definition is that 'AI' (AGI, if you want to remove ambiguity) is surpassing human intelligence in the optimization area, like large scale optimizations like designing a spaceship, or curing cancer using techniques unknown to us right now.

I remember reading that and considering his view very interesting. With our (normal) perspective we don't really see AI like people see it centuries ago.

[0]: http://kruel.co/scale_of_intelligence.png - I apologize for the poor quality picture; it was a quick google image search

Post reply on HN