Self-supervised learning: The dark matter of intelligence • Hacker News Board

Re: Self-supervised learning: The dark matter of intelligence

#71

Post by Dracophoenix » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 11:00 AM UTC

Forge36 wrote: post #69

montenegrohugo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but humans are a relatively known entity. They exist with a level of variance that is not too extreme, and you can more or less, in a general way, predict their behavior to a tolerable risk level. We've seen billions of humans, we know what to expect of them. We might not understand how other humans work internally, but we understand their actionspace. For AI models, that isn't really the case. We don't know ho…

Then train the models on real world data? Verify outputs enough until confidence is achieved. The computer can do whatever it wants. People can do whatever they want. The question will be what level of security access will they have. The key difference today is people are really good at making rationalizations for individual decisions. Computers are not. Sometimes decisions are generally important, when they are impo…

>> Then train the models on real world data? Verify outputs enough until confidence is achieved.

And therein lies the rub. Do people actually want to know the truth? They invent methods to obtain it, but is that their aim or is it to confirm their current understanding of the world? Unlike a human being that can be forced into silence through coercion or manipulation, a computational model, once proven with certainty, is never going to go back in Pandora's box. This contradiction of pursuing truth but suppressing the inconvenience of its conclusions hasn't disappeared for some reason despite greater and greater knowledge of ourselves. Will it ever?

Re: Self-supervised learning: The dark matter of intelligence

#72

Post by Forge36 » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #71

Forge36 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then train the models on real world data? Verify outputs enough until confidence is achieved. The computer can do whatever it wants. People can do whatever they want. The question will be what level of security access will they have. The key difference today is people are really good at making rationalizations for individual decisions. Computers are not. Sometimes decisions are generally important, when they are impo…

>> Then train the models on real world data? Verify outputs enough until confidence is achieved. And therein lies the rub. Do people actually want to know the truth? They invent methods to obtain it, but is that their aim or is it to confirm their current understanding of the world? Unlike a human being that can be forced into silence through coercion or manipulation, a computational model, once proven with certainty…

Both? I'm not 100% following. I think people want to know the truth, change is slow and admitting mistakes is often looked down on. Humanity made significant changes based on what was learned in the past 100 years. How this will be used, and who will reap it's benefits is unclear.

Re: Self-supervised learning: The dark matter of intelligence

#73

Post by cutemonster » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

epidemian wrote: post #14

tasogare wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but humans are a relatively known entity. We don’t know how brain works, why sleep exist, most of humans cultures and languages are not documented, hundreds if not thousands of psychological and medical things are unknown, etc. Machines and their applications are a few more magnitudes more understood than any human matter, by the sheer fact we created them. Their complexity is ridiculously low in comparison t…

on one hand i agree with what you're saying. we humans have done terrible stuff like wars, genocides, famines, destruction of ecosystems, extinction of entire species, etc. and that's only the things we did more or less deliberately. we might cause our own extermination or a mass extinction event "by mistake", and we don't even understand how basic parts of our minds work. but all of that being said, i think it's als…

Yes, I wouldn't want an army of self supervised learning military mini drones

Re: Self-supervised learning: The dark matter of intelligence

#74

Post by Dracophoenix » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

Forge36 wrote: post #72

Dracophoenix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Then train the models on real world data? Verify outputs enough until confidence is achieved. And therein lies the rub. Do people actually want to know the truth? They invent methods to obtain it, but is that their aim or is it to confirm their current understanding of the world? Unlike a human being that can be forced into silence through coercion or manipulation, a computational model, once proven with certainty…

Both? I'm not 100% following. I think people want to know the truth, change is slow and admitting mistakes is often looked down on. Humanity made significant changes based on what was learned in the past 100 years. How this will be used, and who will reap it's benefits is unclear.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. Would the general public accept the truth of a data model that proved that a previously controversial/unacceptable idea was factually correct to the point it could not be denied by a reasonable person?

Several attempts at training with real world models have produced results that have been attacked for being "algorithmically biased". This isn't because there was anything experimentally wrong with the dataset or choice of model on their own, but because of the result's contradiction of a certain worldview. While, I agree with you that people come closer to the truth in the long-term, in the short- and medium-term, I expect certain people to pad their own data and quash the different findings out of ideological motivation for some time.

Re: Self-supervised learning: The dark matter of intelligence

#75

Post by visarga » Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 8:37 AM UTC

ReDeiPirati wrote: post #53

elcomet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans cannot really explain their reasoning. It has been shown that they usually invent an explanation that matches what has already been decided in their black-box.They mostly use post-hoc explanation, but cannot explain the true decision mechanism. If you make them believe that they choose another decision, they will create another explanation on the fly.

This! Decision making is mostly "irrational". I wish it would be different.

Decision making in humans is a mix of slow and fast thinking. Fast thinking - like reading, writing, physical reflexes - requires little effort and is best suited for repetitive situations.

Slow thinking - such as reasoning - is more expensive so we only use it when we are faced with a new situation for which we have not 'cached' the answer. It entails the creation of a mental model and imagining outcomes. The exact mix of the two modes is tuned by evolution.

If all we had was the slow system we'd be much less efficient at survival.

Re: Self-supervised learning: The dark matter of intelligence

#76

Post by suifbwish » Mon, Mar 15, 2021, 12:38 AM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #67

suifbwish wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was not the original point. Humans are relatively predictable whether we understand how the brain works exactly. An AI model isn’t an actual intelligence in the normal use of the word. It’s a functional fragment that is able to emulate the ability to absorb a pattern of information for repetitive conditional recall in future processes. Until a researcher has had ALOT of time spent on observing the limits db part…

Luckily we never have unforeseen behaviors with people that we then have to react strongly to after the fact ... We like to pretend that's true, but really, it isn't. Governments are built around the principle that single individuals and even small to medium groups can't be trusted to react reasonably, something that played out in human history again and again. How many people have been in US prisons again? Oh right,…

Humans being unpredictable at the individual level although true does not invalidate the original point that employing a poorly understood neural net training methodology in critical systems of any kind is incredibly rash and presumptive