Live data from Hacker News

Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

techxplore.com

61–70 of 126 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#61
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12999516 :

"CogPrime: An Integrative Architecture for Embodied Artificial General Intelligence" (2012) > "Competencies and Tasks on the Path to Human-Level AI": https://wiki.opencog.org/w/CogPrime_Overview#A_CogPrime_Thou... :

> [Perception, Actuation, Memory, Learning, Reasoning, Planning, Attention, Motivation, Emotion, Modeling Self and Other, Social Interaction, Communication, Quantitative, Building/Creative ] http://wiki.opencog.org/w/CogPrime_Overview#Competencies_and...

And then, "A CogPrime Thought Experiment: Build Me Something I Haven’t Seen Before"

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#63
post #32

Arguably the human-ness (or even animal-ness) of thought is, at its root, characterized as the ability abstract in a novel manner (the neurocog term for innovate). In other words, it is the ability to find patterns between two concepts that weren't, ever, prior announced. A computer that could do this would then be AI. A computer that cannot would fall short of that category, however otherwise dazzling in stitching t…

LLMs can do this already. They are well past this. It's just they can't do it as well as humans and they can hallucinate as well. The problems we are having with LLMs aren't the fact that they aren't creative. It's the fact that they are too creative. They make up too much stuff that isn't true.

I think that a lot of hallucination might just be due to not planning ahead - basically a case of running mouth before engaging brain, and then being in a situation where one has uttered a bunch of nonsense - basically backed oneself into a conversational corner. A human might catch themselves with "err, never mind, forget that!", but the LLM's only recourse is to continue extrapolating the nonsense the only way it knows how - i.e. to bullshit/hallucinate the most statistically plausible continuation of the hole it dug for itself.

As a simplistic made up example, say the training set included a bunch of statements about capital cities of various countries of the form "the capital of england is london", "the capital of france is paris", etc, but didn't include any data indicating the capital of australia... Now, if asked "what is the capital of australia?", it may confidently start "the capital of australia is ..." since this matches the pattern it learnt from the training set (with "australia" being copied from the context). However, when generating the next word the LLM (without realizing it) finds itself in the unfortunate situation of not having been trained on data that would let it predict the right answer, but it of course goes ahead and predicts as best it can anyway (i.e. hallucinates/bullshits) and maybe generates the name of some random important city in australia such as "sydney".

The way to fix at least this cause (maybe the primary one) of hallucination is essentially to plan ahead .. don't start off saying "the capital of australia is .." without knowing where you are going with it! One approach might be additional training using tree of thought rollouts (generate multiple possible branching continuations for each training prompt) then evaluate them and use these as RL rewards to learn to predict words leading to good outcomes (e.g. "i don't know", rather than "the capital of australia is ..").

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#64

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12999516 : "CogPrime: An Integrative Architecture for Embodied Artificial General Intelligence" (2012) > "Competencies and Tasks on the Path to Human-Level AI": https://wiki.opencog.org/w/CogPrime_Overview#A_CogPrime_Thou... : > [Perception, Actuation, Memory, Learning, Reasoning, Planning, Attention, Motivation, Emotion, Modeling Self and Other, Social Interaction, Communication,…

For the arts,

On creating something sufficiently novel,

EDA tools solve part of the problem in chip design, for example; furthermore sometimes with logic instead of imitation.

Will any LLM ever output a formally verified design and implementation without significant tree filtering, Even if trained solely on formally verified code?

Synthesis without understanding, and worse without ethics.

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#65

Pardon my superficial understanding, but how'd it innovate if it tries to get the most probable result or energy-spending efficient result, which feels like the opposite of thinking out of the box?

You've got it backwards.

The article claims that the AI does not have a tendency to innovate, specifically stopping when it doesn't have the most probably result at hand.

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs can do this already. They are well past this. It's just they can't do it as well as humans and they can hallucinate as well. The problems we are having with LLMs aren't the fact that they aren't creative. It's the fact that they are too creative. They make up too much stuff that isn't true.

I think that a lot of hallucination might just be due to not planning ahead - basically a case of running mouth before engaging brain, and then being in a situation where one has uttered a bunch of nonsense - basically backed oneself into a conversational corner. A human might catch themselves with "err, never mind, forget that!", but the LLM's only recourse is to continue extrapolating the nonsense the only way it k…

As the query prompter you are in control of the feedback loop. You can ask the AI to re-examine it's output to catch errors just as a human would do for himself.

Practically speaking this does work to a limited extent. Sometimes the AI just sticks with it's guns and runs with it just like a human might.

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#67
What counts as an innovation is in the eye of the beholder. Mark Rober demonstrated Gemini's creative ability by having it suggest a video, details of contents, and how to produce it. The results were impressive but far from world changing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHZSrtl4zX0

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#69
post #56
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’re simpler than we imagine. Indeed, creativity (not just randomness) is a quite high bar, that I think even most humans don't pass. Most of us don't create a lot of new things and ideas in our daily lives. We mostly follow the steps of those that came before them, with small adjustments here and there.

Recombination makes dna and rna every day. Our limitation in seeing this is our short and fleeting lives. There is a pub:grill in Tempe called monkeypants. Is that a new idea or just clever?

It's random-ish and "novel", but that could very easily be a reddit username from years ago.

Re: Artificial intelligence systems found to excel at imitation, but not innovation

#70
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recombination makes dna and rna every day. Our limitation in seeing this is our short and fleeting lives. There is a pub:grill in Tempe called monkeypants. Is that a new idea or just clever?

It's random-ish and "novel", but that could very easily be a reddit username from years ago.

Haha this thread has gotten too deep, but I appreciated your accurate addition with a lol!
Post reply on HN