Live data from Hacker News

Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

qz.com

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#11

With the definition of curiosity from the article, it’s not that surprising? A dynamic “screen” is always more interesting than the static map. Definition: The definition that OpenAI team used for artificial curiosity was relatively simple: The algorithm would try to predict what its environment would look like one frame into the future. When that next frame happened, the algorithm would be rewarded by how wrong it w…

[deleted]

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#12

With the definition of curiosity from the article, it’s not that surprising? A dynamic “screen” is always more interesting than the static map. Definition: The definition that OpenAI team used for artificial curiosity was relatively simple: The algorithm would try to predict what its environment would look like one frame into the future. When that next frame happened, the algorithm would be rewarded by how wrong it w…

The researchers quoted were explicit about this:

> OpenAI researcher Harri Edwards tells Quartz that the idea for letting the AI agent flip through channels came from a thought experiment called the noisy-TV problem. The static on a TV is immensely random, so a curious AI agent could never truly predict what would happen next, and get drawn into watching the TV forever. In the real world, you could think of it as something completely random, like the way light shimmers off a waterfall.

The headline is really just inappropriate anthropomorphization.

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#14

With the definition of curiosity from the article, it’s not that surprising? A dynamic “screen” is always more interesting than the static map. Definition: The definition that OpenAI team used for artificial curiosity was relatively simple: The algorithm would try to predict what its environment would look like one frame into the future. When that next frame happened, the algorithm would be rewarded by how wrong it w…

How many loot boxes would it open under the same criterium?

/s

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#15

Using prediction error as the definition of curiosity rings hollow for me. Curiosity in my mind is more about mapping out an unexplored thing and not about being surprised.

Actually it seems pretty accurate. Novelty-seeking is a well known phenomenon in curious individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_seeking

Literally getting dopamine rewards for seeing something new is what keeps people glued to tik tok feeds and twitter.

I tend to get bored halfway through a book if it is predictable.

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#16

With the definition of curiosity from the article, it’s not that surprising? A dynamic “screen” is always more interesting than the static map. Definition: The definition that OpenAI team used for artificial curiosity was relatively simple: The algorithm would try to predict what its environment would look like one frame into the future. When that next frame happened, the algorithm would be rewarded by how wrong it w…

There's clearly a sweet spot in the amount of entropy/unpredictability that is "interesting". Otherwise observing white noise would be the most interesting thing imaginable.

I don't know the details, but probably you would want to seek unpredictability in a higher level representation of the observed state. White noise is highly unpredictable per pixel, but will get a very predictable representation after a layer or two of featurization if the features are trained/designed for real world observations.

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#17

With the definition of curiosity from the article, it’s not that surprising? A dynamic “screen” is always more interesting than the static map. Definition: The definition that OpenAI team used for artificial curiosity was relatively simple: The algorithm would try to predict what its environment would look like one frame into the future. When that next frame happened, the algorithm would be rewarded by how wrong it w…

[deleted]

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#18

With the definition of curiosity from the article, it’s not that surprising? A dynamic “screen” is always more interesting than the static map. Definition: The definition that OpenAI team used for artificial curiosity was relatively simple: The algorithm would try to predict what its environment would look like one frame into the future. When that next frame happened, the algorithm would be rewarded by how wrong it w…

I think the problem is pretty interesting though. Better definitions of curiosity might still have this failure mode. Human curiosity definitely does!

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#19
as mentioned elsewhere this is from nearly six years ago and uses a very crude model for curiosity - and poses this as some sort of unsolveable problem instead of a decision made by the researchers in order to investigate particular behaviors of the systems they were working with.

It is a fun thought experiment - how do our brains systems manage to reward seeking new information without getting trapped by simplistic pseudo-RNG patterns in nature

Re: Give AI curiosity, and it will watch TV forever (2018)

#20

Link to the actual paper. https://pathak22.github.io/large-scale-curiosity/ I was curious how they define or reward curiosity, it says it right here: Reinforcement learning algorithms rely on carefully engineering environment rewards that are extrinsic to the agent. However, annotating each environment with hand-designed, dense rewards is not scalable, motivating the need for developing reward functions that are intr…

This seems highly suseptible to what a human might consider irrelevant randomness. Given random images just shuffling indefinitely a curious individual will just give up and say, even though I can't predict the next thing it doesn't pertain to the domain of curiosity.
Post reply on HN