Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#51

Post by cmehdy »

fizixer wrote: post #49
cmehdy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume your 20 years is a guesstimate, and I do think it misses the point of what Sutton's writing is. The trap here is that there's always to be more computing in the future, so where do we draw the line? The idea is to think differently now, for the pursuit of actual progress down the road. Which, by the way, is exactly what people were doing about 40 years ago and what put down more than the foundations for all…

I see what Sutton said as a "statistical learning and artificial intelligence" researcher in line with what the authors of the physics paper presented as "an application of learning research to computational science and engineering, CSE, surrounding physics". CSE researchers did not sit down and wait for AI researchers to learn the bitter lesson before they resumed their work. CSE research goes on independent of whet…

That makes sense. As you said, those two sources don't have to be contradicting each other if they complement instead.

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#52

Post by redisman »

inetknght wrote: post #31
redisman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A baby is not born with the knowledge of body movement Anyone who's witnessed a birth can tell you this is wrong.

Perhaps born is the wrong word. That freshly-born baby did have nine months of gestation during which it's undoubtedly been exploring how to move about and sense its very limited environment.

Right but what it's doing in the womb is also lots of moving around ("kicking" and "jumping") so I just don't think this argument makes much sense to anyone who has experienced having a baby.

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#53

Post by taneq »

visarga wrote: post #47
logicslave wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But were all a blank slate!!!

Even blank slates have specific properties, such as being better or worse at handling various types of information.

In the current context you're skirting heresy here... >.>

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#54

Post by [deleted] »

mtgp1000 wrote: post #44
rckoepke wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_action_pattern More generally, reptiles are born with nearly all the behaviors they'll need throughout life. Why wouldn't humans be born with some?

>action patterns are said to be produced by the innate releasing mechanism, a "hard-wired" neural network, in response to a sign stimulus or releaser This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just like a baby deer "instinctively" can walk, but wobbles around for the first few hours, what you're seeing is something very similar to a purpose evolved neural network structure who's weights are being set through the princip…

[deleted]

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#55

Post by inetknght »

redisman wrote: post #52
inetknght wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps born is the wrong word. That freshly-born baby did have nine months of gestation during which it's undoubtedly been exploring how to move about and sense its very limited environment.

Right but what it's doing in the womb is also lots of moving around ("kicking" and "jumping") so I just don't think this argument makes much sense to anyone who has experienced having a baby.

You don't think moving around is a normal part of a brain learning to move and sense?

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#56

Post by _iyig »

Brings to mind this classic from the Jargon File:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/koans.html

In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6. “What are you doing?”, asked Minsky.

“I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe” Sussman replied.

“Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky.

“I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said. Minsky then shut his eyes. “Why do you close your eyes?”, Sussman asked his teacher.

“So that the room will be empty.”

At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#57

Post by samcodes »

jariel wrote: post #28

Can someone with AI knowledge please clarify - does this mean we can build 'rules based systems' into AI to synthesise intelligence from both domains? If so, this would be dramatic, no? If you could teach a translation service 'grammar' and then also leverage the pattern matching, could this be a 'fundamental' new idea in AI application? Or is this just something specific?

They model a system which they know to be constrained by a closed-form equation called the Hamiltonian. They (cleverly, IMO) force the network’s predictions to be constrained by the Hamiltonian, by choosing the right output and loss function.

I don’t see a way to generalize this to the procedural rule-based systems you describe, unless they too are governed by a fairly simple continuous function Like the Hamiltonian.

I don’t know if it was “dramatic”, but it made me really happy.

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#58

Post by esperent »

yongjik wrote: post #38
redisman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A baby is not born with the knowledge of body movement Anyone who's witnessed a birth can tell you this is wrong.

Eh, I've seen my baby sucking on its thumb, and then the baby jerks and the thumb goes away, baby cries, somehow the wild flailing gets the thumb back to the mouth. Baby happy again, sucking on its own thumb. I agree that we are not born a blank slate, but at the same time, there's a lot of knowledge missing on a newborn baby.

Even if the baby has trouble getting the thumb into the mouth at first, it has no trouble sucking it. Or any of thousands of other instinctive behaviors.

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#59

Post by noobermin »

joshlk wrote: post #10
mywittyname wrote: post #9

Why do you need a neural network when you have the Hamiltonian mechanics of the system modeled? I've always understood Langrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics to be methods of modeling the behavior of a system through the decomposition of the external constraints and forces acting on a body. In other words you can understand a complex model by doing some calculus on the less complex constituents of the model. I'm probably…

For some systems even with the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian setup your solving differential equations with numerical techniques that has error. It might be that the neural networks has less error than the standard techniques. This is a guess.

To be frank, this should be the reference, compare to numerical integration and see which is better.

Re: Teaching physics to neural networks removes 'chaos blindness'

#60

Post by aaronblohowiak »

logicslave wrote: post #40
Fricken wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't sell biology short like that. Human driver are born with a mental model of physics that's been honed 24 hours a day since before they were diatoms.

But were all a blank slate!!!

This is not at all true..
Post reply on HN