Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hardmaru 2990 days ago
Hi, thanks for the feedback! Honestly we didn't intend to over-hype the results. We took the terms from existing works that we knew:

1) Alex Graves on Hallucination with Recurrent Neural Networks, a 2015 lecture at the University of Oxford from a course by Nando de Freitas (highly recommended).

http://www.creativeai.net/posts/kp4bTG993JTQcqy2d/alex-grave...

2) Generating Sequences With Recurrent Neural Networks

https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0850

"Assuming the predictions are probabilistic, novel sequences can be generated from a trained network by iteratively sampling from the network’s output distribution, then feeding in the sample as input at the next step. In other words by making the network treat its inventions as if they were real, much like a person dreaming."

There are other terms, such as Imagination, also used in the literature:

3) Imagination-Augmented Agents for Deep Reinforcement Learning

https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06203

4) Uncertainty-driven Imagination for Continuous Deep Reinforcement Learning

http://proceedings.mlr.press/v78/kalweit17a/kalweit17a.pdf

In our work, the procedure is closer to the approaches in (1) and (2), rather than the "Imagination" approach in (3) and (4) where there are more subtle differences (i.e. planning), so we followed the terms in (1) and (2).

1 comments

I completely agree with you. Dreams, imagination, or hallucination are appropriate terms for an agent working through solutions within its own world-model without using new external input. Would we reserve the verb 'to fly' only for birds? As Dijkstra said, "the question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than whether a submarine can swim".
I guess the question is, why did we need to move away from `to generate` or `to permutate` on feedback with no additional input?

It seems to have coincided with the re-emergence of neural networks and the only way I can see it is that it romanticizes the field in the expense of some accuracy of statement.

I however definitely can't claim to be immune to the charm of this romanticization, it surely appeals to something inside me.

'generate' and 'permutate' are more semantically general words. To convey what you mean you have to add "on feedback with no additional input". 'imagine' or 'dream' fully includes this specific meaning: it is more accurate. The only difficulty is that we are not used to applying these verbs to non-animal subjects. It is just like going out of your way to say "the submarine propelled itself through the water" or "the plane propelled itself through the air" because you don't want to use the verbs swim or fly with inanimate subjects. Why the distinction in those two particular cases; I have no idea. Maybe we're used to seeing birds glide without moving while you don't really see fish swimming without that distinctive wriggling-flapping motion.