They haven't even found an optimal sort for a ymm of 8 or zmm of 16 integers?
Just 5 elements? That's completely and utterly useless.
Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
301–310 of 328 posts
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's surprising is that anyone would've expected an AI to come up with a brand-new algorithm with better complexity than pre-exsiting human-made solutions. How could it possibly come up with something better when it doesn't even understand how the original authors of qsort/mergesort/etc came up with their own.. Sure, it's great PR for the company, but.. the results just aren't there.
How could AlphaZero possibly play better chess than humans when it doesn’t even understand the history of chess theory? RL doesn’t stop at human levels
Even if AlphaZero does play better chess, there's absolutely zero it can do in terms of explaining why it played that way.
AlphaZero is zero in terms of explainability.
Humans have to explain to themselves and to others what they do, this is key in understanding what's happening, in communicating what's happening, in human decision-making, in deciding between what works and what doesn't and how well or how bad it works.
Returning back to the original DeepMind press release, it's misinforming the public about the alleged progress, in fact no fundamental progress was made, DeepMind did not come up with an entirely new sorting algorithm, the improvement was marginal at best.
I maintain my opinion that Alphadev does not understand any of the existing sorting algorithms at all.
Even if AI comes up with a marginal improvement to something, it's incapable of explaining what it has done. Humans (unless they're a politician or a dictator) always have to explain their decisions, how they got there, they have to argue their decisions and their thought-process.
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is DeepMind's modus operandi. Every press release is just utterly hyperbolic nonsense that doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny. AlphaGo, AlphaFold, AlphaDev... they've done literally nothing to improve the human condition, and may have actually made things worse. Go players have DECREASED their Elo after playing AlphaGo (or just quit the game altogether). I would be embarrassed to be associated with DeepMin…
It's a bit surprising how poorly DeepMind has lived up to their hype. But they're an OK lab, maybe a bit overly vain.
I can’t believe this
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name one improvement. Just one thing that has ACTUALLY helped real life humans and been a net positive since AlphaFold's inception 5 years ago.
We're talking about biomedical science here. Things move slowly because the domain is exceptionally complex and human lives are in the balance. AlphaFold catapulted protein structure prediction forward, and it's hard to overstate how important understanding protein structure is in modern drug development As an example of how this will be used to help actual people, here's a paper that uses AlphaFold to identify the p…
Exactly !
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about biomedical science here. Things move slowly because the domain is exceptionally complex and human lives are in the balance. AlphaFold catapulted protein structure prediction forward, and it's hard to overstate how important understanding protein structure is in modern drug development As an example of how this will be used to help actual people, here's a paper that uses AlphaFold to identify the p…
And yet, even after 5 years there's no sign of any real, meaningful drugs, even just Phase I trials. In 5 - 10 years (which will be 10 to 15 years after AlphaFold was released) I am willing to bet real money that there will be zero drugs discovered by AlphaFold that meet the following criteria: 1) The drug couldn't have been discovered without AlphaFold 2) It has been proven to reduce all cause mortality (the thing r…
Send them your resume or ideas about how to do it faster and better, it could help !
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that AlphaGo has made players worse. My point is that there's no evidence that anything USEFUL or IMPORTANT has come from a system that has gotten so much hype (and cost ungodly amounts of money). If players aren't getting better (there's no evidence they are) or are quitting the game after playing, it's simply a net negative, along with DeepMind's other ventures.
> My point is that there's no evidence that anything USEFUL or IMPORTANT has come from a system that has gotten so much hype Geez. We are talking about pebbles on a wooden plank. They are not even colourful! Go is super cool game, but it is that. Just a game. We are not talking about curing cancer, or solving world hunger, or reversing climate change here. So by the very formulation a Go playing AI can be cool, or in…
IT TAKES TIME to solve HUGE CHALLANGES.
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, even after 5 years there's no sign of any real, meaningful drugs, even just Phase I trials. In 5 - 10 years (which will be 10 to 15 years after AlphaFold was released) I am willing to bet real money that there will be zero drugs discovered by AlphaFold that meet the following criteria: 1) The drug couldn't have been discovered without AlphaFold 2) It has been proven to reduce all cause mortality (the thing r…
Send them your resume or ideas about how to do it faster and better, it could help !
There is no way to do it faster or better with these techniques. It is a waste of money - that's the entire point. My advice would be: stop wasting time, money, and human brainpower. Go off and try entirely new approaches to AI that might actually work!
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#308You can see hashing optimizations as well https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphadev-discovers-faster-sort... , https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/commit/74eee2aff683cc7d... I was one of the members who reviewed expertly what has been done both in sorting and hashing. Overall it's more about assembly, finding missed compiler optimizations and balancing between correctness and distribution (in hashing in particular). It…
> 9-16 was a better spot and it simplified from 2 multiplications to just one and a rotation I'm very confused as to why rotation was at all useful. Xoring with a random-ish constant makes sense, because the constant has high entropy and is likely to decorrelate bits from the input (also can use a different constant per hash table). But rotating by a constant—and a fixed one at that—seems like it just accounts for ex…
Does that end up moving high bits into the low bits? That could possibly be very helpful for all sets of strings, since the equality test will start with the first byte, so it could better to have the rotr on the hash so that the hash is less affected by the first byte (and more affected by later bytes). Just hypothetically speaking that is where the implication could break down, since it doesn’t consider the non-uniform cost of the equality.
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Gleason bound? Instead of repeating yourself, can you link to some actual information? still will win no matter how measure speed Speed is measured with time. You can keep saying algorithmic complexity is speed, but that will never make it reality. If you want to argue against heap sort, then you need to argue That's not how it works. Other sorts take a fraction of the time. I showed you this already. I'll let so…
> You are trying to argue something that isn't real to make a point that no one cares about and has nothing to do with this thread. In a word, you are wrong. I've been very, very, very clear again, over again, once again, yet again, and you just fail to get it, a simple lesson often just in the first week of an easy, first college course in computer science. > Other sorts take a fraction of the time. I showed you thi…
> You have some problems, some blocks in understanding. You just do not want to learn something new to you. You deeply resent this. Your problem is not about computers or applied math but emotional. For your emotional problems, nothing in computing, computer science, or my writing can help you.
Every accusation, as they say, is a confession.
Re: Deepmind Alphadev: Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep RL
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 9-16 was a better spot and it simplified from 2 multiplications to just one and a rotation I'm very confused as to why rotation was at all useful. Xoring with a random-ish constant makes sense, because the constant has high entropy and is likely to decorrelate bits from the input (also can use a different constant per hash table). But rotating by a constant—and a fixed one at that—seems like it just accounts for ex…
Does that end up moving high bits into the low bits? That could possibly be very helpful for all sets of strings, since the equality test will start with the first byte, so it could better to have the rotr on the hash so that the hash is less affected by the first byte (and more affected by later bytes). Just hypothetically speaking that is where the implication could break down, since it doesn’t consider the non-uni…
> the equality test will start with the first byte
I would expect the equality test to compare at least a full word at a time, just as the hash hashes at least a full word at a time.