Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#91

Post by aeorgnoieang »

31reasons wrote: post #38
zebrafish wrote: post #34

I don't know. I think backprop is probably utilized a lot in biological networks. Isn't that why we take tests in school? Obviously backprop doesn't make sense in an unsupervised setting. There's no label to backprop on. But here's an example: I see a stove eye is black when cold, then when I see it turn red, I touch it. Ow, it hurts. That's supervised learning. Don't touch things that are glowing red when they don't…

I think Unsupervised Learning is fundamentally connected with the mission/goal of the AI. Whatever the mission is give to AI, it need to start learning information landscape by itself and make classification and use that knowledge to make predictions and act accordingly to optimized the outcome of the mission its given.

But you can't even 'give an AI a mission' without a model of the world! And, if you expect the AI to achieve its mission in a way that's acceptable to you, you better be supplying it with a big enough model for it to reasonably be able to hit that tiny target in the space of possibilities.

Take self-driving cars as an example. Do you not think that any AI that will be able to do this will be essentially 'given' a huge set of knowledge before it's expected to learn anything by itself?

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#92

Post by eanzenberg »

function_seven wrote: post #59
eanzenberg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 year olds "know amazing wealth of knowledge about the world and how it works"?? Que? How many 5 year olds do you know or interact with?

You're severely underestimating children (or over-estimating the current state of AI). 5 year-olds have better natural language skills than any AI in existence, better motor and navigation skills than the most advanced DARPA robot, better mood recognition capabilities, etc. You appear to be thinking of just facts and figures. AI is not that.

When did I mention AI?

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#93

Post by samfisher83 »

iandanforth wrote: post #22

Brief description of the issue for non-experts: Supervised learning You can judge the output of your network against ground truth. You say that's a cat? Nope, it's a dog! And then slightly adjust your network so it's less likely to give that wrong answer in the future. How exactly you adjust the network is what backpropagation describes (in combination with something called a learning rate). Unsupervised learning You…

Well your teachers, parents, society tell you what is right and wrong so we really aren't learning unsupervised.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#94

Post by eanzenberg »

felippee wrote: post #66
eanzenberg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please describe what "unsupervised learning" a child may be doing.

Learning to crawl. Learning to perceive depth. Learning to walk. Learning to pick objects. Learning to hold balance. Learning to hold balance while picking an object. Learning to handle liquids (such as food or drink). Learning to avoid dangerous situations. Learning to ride on a bike. Learning to see. Learning to interact with other agents. And so on and so on. The list is almost endless. In all of those cases, if t…

All those things you described can be explained by having a pre-trained model built from DNA. Babies aren't a blank slate. Why would you even think they are? Do you think a baby learns to breath from blank-slate intelligence?

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#95

Post by eanzenberg »

bonzini wrote: post #72
felippee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learning to crawl. Learning to perceive depth. Learning to walk. Learning to pick objects. Learning to hold balance. Learning to hold balance while picking an object. Learning to handle liquids (such as food or drink). Learning to avoid dangerous situations. Learning to ride on a bike. Learning to see. Learning to interact with other agents. And so on and so on. The list is almost endless. In all of those cases, if t…

Even before: learning to swallow in the womb. There's definitely no reinforcement from other humans involved in that, and it's fundamental that they learn it in the womb because it would be too late to learn it with milk.

That's been passed down over 3.5 billion years to form the DNA that creates that part of the brain in an infant. AKA pre-trained.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#96

Post by eanzenberg »

function_seven wrote: post #57
eanzenberg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please describe what "unsupervised learning" a child may be doing.

Language acquisition. Sure, parents will point at an object and say, "Ball", "Chair", "Food", etc. But they don't do this for the conjunctions and interjections and prepositions. Nor for most of the 10,000 words a child will learn in the first few years of life. Children learn the rules of grammar long before they realize there are any rules at all. Tenses and plurals, etc.

It's amazing how little people on this site know or understand intelligence, artificial and human.

You would be surprised how much infants learn from listening around them and how long it takes to learn that language, and how a brain interprets language was formed through so many years of evolution to be highly tuned to learn language fast.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#97

Post by eanzenberg »

samfisher83 wrote: post #93
iandanforth wrote: post #22

Brief description of the issue for non-experts: Supervised learning You can judge the output of your network against ground truth. You say that's a cat? Nope, it's a dog! And then slightly adjust your network so it's less likely to give that wrong answer in the future. How exactly you adjust the network is what backpropagation describes (in combination with something called a learning rate). Unsupervised learning You…

Well your teachers, parents, society tell you what is right and wrong so we really aren't learning unsupervised.

Very little of what human's learn is done "unsupervised".

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#98

Post by dtech »

samfisher83 wrote: post #93
iandanforth wrote: post #22

Brief description of the issue for non-experts: Supervised learning You can judge the output of your network against ground truth. You say that's a cat? Nope, it's a dog! And then slightly adjust your network so it's less likely to give that wrong answer in the future. How exactly you adjust the network is what backpropagation describes (in combination with something called a learning rate). Unsupervised learning You…

Well your teachers, parents, society tell you what is right and wrong so we really aren't learning unsupervised.

Also things like pain, hunger and pleasure also are for the most part generated outside of the "learning" parts of the brain, so similar to a pre-defined utility function/oracle.

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#99

Post by [deleted] »

sjg007 wrote: post #78
Nomentatus wrote: post #75

Back in the nineteen-nineties I'd built a neural-net creator using a method other than back-propogation that was able to create nets with about a hundred neurons that played tic-tac-toe well or perfectly (depending on the net created that day.) This was on a 12 mhz 286 using what I called static point multiplication (based on shift instructions, not multiplication instructions.) So I went to Toronto to see Professor…

What's the idea? Sounds interesting? Publish a paper on it? Or put up a blog post?

[deleted]

Re: Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over

#100

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

striking wrote: post #37
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet it's the only strategy that we're absolutely certain produces intelligent life.

Are you absolutely certain we qualify as intelligent life? edit: This comment isn't a joke, I mean this seriously. Modeling a system after ourselves may not be the best idea if we're not the best possible system.

It's a good question, and I think the answer is - up to a point.

We're biased towards individualism and the illusion of personal intelligence making clever decisions using its own resources, but in fact our real intelligence is collective.

Individually, most humans are a little bit smarter than other animals, but not much.

Humans are also excellent mimics. We learn by copying, and a lot of what we consider intelligence is copied behaviour and copied beliefs - often applied unconsciously.

So we've created systems - spoken language, writing, science, technology - that can externalise, collect, and preserve the best of our learning, so the species as a whole, including average humans, can get the benefit of it.

This works fine as far as it does, but our political and economic systems are still founded on animal logic (i.e. personal advantage no matter the cumulative long-term cost) instead of conscious collective intelligence amplification and species optimisation.

Based on this, AI won't get far unless someone invents an analogous way to externalise and abstract learning, so different AI projects can bootstrap each other, and there are common systems for abstraction and generalisation.

Unsupervised learning isn't going to be all that interesting unless it can do that. It'll be a fun toy for certain classes of problems, but it won't be anywhere close to an AGI.

Post reply on HN