Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
nautil.us
Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#2No, they don't.
Now, feel free to _show_ me that they do, and I will gladly accept to have been wrong. But this argument that because of some very theoretical view on the problem the current engineering solutions should be abandoned, without actually providing good engineering alternatives, is weird.
I have a bit of a "not even wrong" feeling on the symbolist side of the debate. Deep neural networks have serious flaws, but they can at least be pointed out due to them already solving engineering problems. It is easy to say a field should move to your direction, but they will probably only do it when provided with tangible evidence. AI has moved into the realm of application, and that means the scientific bar for purely theoretical ideas has been raised compared to 20 years ago. And right now, the tangible evidence for symbolism is simply not cutting it.
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#3A symbol is just a frozen weight in a neural network.
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#4AI development has hit a plateau in terms of performance and funding saturation. All investment is now expected to deliver some semblance of market performance before the great Margin Call of 2019 hits, which means scaling out AI to absurd domains and deploying vast armies of surplus humans to either code or emulate profitable-enough behavior to pass the risk on to the next investor round.
In the end, the Mechanical Turk has gone worldwide with no brakes.
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#5No, they don't. Now, feel free to _show_ me that they do, and I will gladly accept to have been wrong. But this argument that because of some very theoretical view on the problem the current engineering solutions should be abandoned, without actually providing good engineering alternatives, is weird. I have a bit of a "not even wrong" feeling on the symbolist side of the debate. Deep neural networks have serious flaw…
I think they need symbols but they just need to be taught symbols.
If you kept child stationary and show it just static photos one at a time you wouldn't be surprised that it can't tell bus lying on the side in the snow from a snow plow.
What neural networks need is the same thing little children need, motion, rotation, things stacking hitting and occluding each other ... and possibly even interaction.
We haven't taught NN to see properly yet and guy wants to hardwire math into them because he thinks that's the only option. Humans learn symbols late and only with deliberate effort.
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#6No, they don't. Now, feel free to _show_ me that they do, and I will gladly accept to have been wrong. But this argument that because of some very theoretical view on the problem the current engineering solutions should be abandoned, without actually providing good engineering alternatives, is weird. I have a bit of a "not even wrong" feeling on the symbolist side of the debate. Deep neural networks have serious flaw…
Or to frame your argument in terms of science rather than engineering, it's a falsifiable hypothesis. The author should go try to test it and then let us know if it works.
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#7This reads like 19-th century engineer arguing we need articulated wings for heavier-than-air flight because our current methods doesn't work and birds have them :)
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#8No, they don't. Now, feel free to _show_ me that they do, and I will gladly accept to have been wrong. But this argument that because of some very theoretical view on the problem the current engineering solutions should be abandoned, without actually providing good engineering alternatives, is weird. I have a bit of a "not even wrong" feeling on the symbolist side of the debate. Deep neural networks have serious flaw…
I think they need symbols but they just need to be taught symbols. If you kept child stationary and show it just static photos one at a time you wouldn't be surprised that it can't tell bus lying on the side in the snow from a snow plow. What neural networks need is the same thing little children need, motion, rotation, things stacking hitting and occluding each other ... and possibly even interaction. We haven't tau…
On the other hand humans have built-in special processing stages already. One that comes to mind is that the neurons in your eyes in effect run a sharpening filter on the incoming light before the data ever enters your brain. I don't think it's a stretch to propose that we should implement certain features as special-purpose processing stages that the neural network can use, with the goal of having a more efficient system.
The holy grail would be a neural network that has programming capabilities and can write bare metal programs for itself.
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#9He's right about LeCun. Yann really does not like Deep Learning being criticized.
Please someone who knows much more than me about deep learning tell me how a deep learning ai can explain how it came to an answer.
It can't. By definition.
You can say that it's a equation with a lot of terms, but that isn't really showing your working out.
You need a symbolic system to show that working out.
This isn't to say that deep learning is worthless, just not worth the amount of column inches it's getting at the moment.
Re: Why Robot Brains Need Symbols
#10No, they don't. Now, feel free to _show_ me that they do, and I will gladly accept to have been wrong. But this argument that because of some very theoretical view on the problem the current engineering solutions should be abandoned, without actually providing good engineering alternatives, is weird. I have a bit of a "not even wrong" feeling on the symbolist side of the debate. Deep neural networks have serious flaw…
> And right now, the tangible evidence for symbolism is simply not cutting it.
In AI/ML perhaps. In the biological and psychological sciences the importance of symbols to cognitive functioning is pretty well established.
Just look at how important the mastery of language is for complicated thought. One of the main differences between linguistic thought and other forms of thinking is all about symbol manipulation.
(This says nothing about the quality of this article of course)