Live data from Hacker News

Neurogenesis Deep Learning

arxiv.org

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#71

It never ceases to amaze me that the best steps towards achieving AI is to look at how we perceive that a Neuron works and simulate it. And the thing is, we aren't exactly sure why exactly that is.. it's amazing. Sometimes the best thing we can do is imitate nature

I completely blame my own community, rather than you, for writing this, but as an AI researcher, your comment is terribly painful to read. We have little to no idea how actual neurons (let alone entire brains) really work. The things that are often called "(artificial) neural networks" really shouldn't be called that. I strongly prefer terms like "computational networks" or (where applicable) "recurrent/convolutional…

As a brain scientist, it pains me as well.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#72
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the time the verbosity isn't so much to sound more clever as it is to be very specific and explicit about what the author is trying to convey. There's a lot of changing assumed knowledge and jargon in various fields and our use of language changes over time. The publication writing style is an attempt to factor that out.

That's what an appendix is for. Letters to Nature are 1500 words. You'd be surprised how effective that forcing function is. Not only do you preserve meaning, but you can convey it better because it respects the readers cache size limitations.

By that analogy, an appendix is even worse; requiring a jump and a complete cache flush for the reader :p

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely blame my own community, rather than you, for writing this, but as an AI researcher, your comment is terribly painful to read. We have little to no idea how actual neurons (let alone entire brains) really work. The things that are often called "(artificial) neural networks" really shouldn't be called that. I strongly prefer terms like "computational networks" or (where applicable) "recurrent/convolutional…

> We have little to no idea how actual neurons (let alone entire brains) really work. I think that slights neuroscience, which has devoted the past 60 years to answering this question, to a fair degree. But I agree that the biomimetic motivations offered up for various flavors of neural net feel pretty bogus. It seems to me like, among the major old-school researchers in the field, only Geoff Hinton still does this.

I think that what neuroscience has found out in the last 60 years is that neurons and synapses are more complex than they had ever dreamed.

I could say the same about genetics, btw. Biology has turned out to be incredibly complex.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#74
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then here's a challenge: could you write the abstract of the article in "simple English", without changing the meaning?

Here's my attempt; not a huge number of changes because it was not too bad to begin with, but with slightly less self-indulgent language, and a lot of the jargon has to stay (partly because I don't know the field): Neural machine learning methods, such as deep neural networks (DNN), have achieved remarkable success in a number of complex data processing tasks. These methods have arguably had their strongest impact on…

Academic writing avoids using periods. Unfortunately.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#75
post #49
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example in the abstract: "adding new neurons to deep layers of artificial neural networks in order to facilitate their acquisition of novel information while preserving previously trained data representations" Nobody talks like this. In my head I read this sentence and I have to translate it to "we add extra neurons to existing networks so they can learn new information while remembering everything it already kno…

However, your statement is actually vague and ambiguous. "Extra neurons"? Input layer? Output layer? Just before a final, fully-connected layer? Somewhere in between? "Everything it already knows"? What does it know? Character probabilities, like a charnn? Image categories like in a CNN? Input distributions, like a GAN? From the abstract, I can immediately tell that this paper is about modifying deep auto-encoders in…

Academic Writing : The battle between precision and TL;DR

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#76
post #6
post #3

Neurogensis? How about neural death as a way to prune large neural networks into more compact ones--now that is a research idea!

I believe several papers have examined efficiently pruning neural networks, but neural death would be better branding ;) ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.02626v3.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.00149v5.pdf )

There is also this one https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02515 which takes pruning a step further to reduce the sparsity. Also this one https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04493 which makes sure not to kill any neurons which proves to be useful at a later stage in the pruning process.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#77

They simulate neurogenesis, I guess, but they do not incorporate the most interesting part of that neurogenesis: That is the new neurons are born into the dentate gyrus, a region thought to have a particular capacity to orthoganalize feature representations that are similar (e.g. pattern separate) allowing distinct memories to be formed for similar events. The dentate gyrus outputs to a region called Cornu ammonis 3…

this is really interesting, where/how did you learn this?

I'd like to learn more about these things - brain regions, connections, functions - and what they might imply about the kinds of computations that are going on, but my background is mainly on the AI/math side of things.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#78
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that all nodes are functionally important/non-spurious.

I'm not assuming that, I'm giving the model more options and letting it decide what is functionally important/non-spurious. It might take it longer, but I don't assume that.

More parameters also means that the likelihood of overfitting (the training set) increases. Currently (and rather unintuitively, considering that ML is an applied optimization field, and optimization is usually concerned with underfitting), the bane of ML is overfitting. It's easy to supply a model with high representational capacity, but it's impossible to learn anything interesting in a reasonable amount of time. You'll learn how to fit your training set perfectly because your model has enough degrees of freedom to let you fit a million points arbitrarily well, but that doesn't mean that the resulting fit describes the data in a meaningful way. This is why a core tenet of ML is to prune parameters whenever possible. Neurogenesis increases representational capacity whenever it detects that your underlying model does not have sufficient representational capacity to fit the data; from this perspective, you start small (undercapacity) and then you gradually increase your capacity until you hit the optimal model. In other words, Neurogenesis is also a way for you to minimize the number of options.

On the other hand, giving the model with more options than it necessarily needs and letting it decide what is important will usually backfire. Rather than learning a few meaningful/functional features, it can just go ahead and completely fit the training data from the very beginning. It will therefore decide that everything is important, because all those extraneous parameters will let it squeeze that last 0.5% out of your training set.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#79
post #3

Neurogensis? How about neural death as a way to prune large neural networks into more compact ones--now that is a research idea!

https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 Modern applications of small networks regularly reduce sizes from larger state-of-the-art networks using distillation. Distillation compacts neural networks while affecting accuracy minimally. Instead of pruning directly from the large network, just learn how it generalizes. Takes fewer nodes / overall operations (Multiplications / Additions).

Now that is interesting. I hadn't realized methods to combine trained networks so efficiently were already readily available.

Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to researchers in the field, even your prediction is very optimistic.

Can you provide references ? I'd like to know what researchers think about it.

There are a few sources at https://intelligence.org/all-publications/

Click on "FC Forecasting" near the top to limit the list to those about AI predictions, including:

- The Errors, Insights and Lessons of Famous AI Predictions - and What They Mean for the Future

- Predicting AGI: What Can We Say When We Know So Little?

- How We're Predicting AI - or Failing To

Post reply on HN