|
> Humans observe an object once, such as a cup for drinking water, and we immediately grasp its "cupness" Adults do (i.e. the agents pretrained holistic model of its entire observed physical context). By reducing the phenomenon to the single observation, you're conveniently ignoring the early childhood phases spent exploring shapes/3d-geometry that enable this very ability of inference. this isn't fair, because regarding humans, the line between training-phase and trained model is very blurry, whereas a statistical model is trained when the weights are set and done. Brute forcing through 2d-projections of 3d-objects (further denormalized through camera-artifacts etc.) until something sticks in a convoluted (heh) composition of arbitrarily initialized set of nodes and connections is obviously far different from the physical exploration kids do. Comparing the models resulting from the latter with the former is, in a word, absurd. Through exploration, humans develop a model of physics itself, from which the nature of cupness can be inferred (which is, in fact, the magic term). Deep learning alone won't get us there, but it'll probably give us the components that enable us to simulate this intricate process happening in kids brains. In fact, I'm pretty sure that that's what a lot of the smart people researching general intelligence are working on (because that's what I would do, excuse my hybris). |
I think what I was looking at was the result that has been often observed, that progress in AI research roughly tracks with hardware developments. Looking at AlphaGo to AlphaZero to MuZero. Training time for self-play increases. But parallelism in the tensor units of the hardware is an order of magnitude faster. It's great for problem domains like autonomous vehicles, contactless payments in retail stores and fraud detection in the data center. But what about generalizability? What about the black box communicating how it has learned? Will it be suitable for next-gen applications like robots designed to assist humans in space expansion?
I attended an event in NYC around the creative use of AI by a new breed of emerging artists like Mario Kliegmann from Germany. ArtBreeder can train a GAN on a single input sample and generate paintings in the style of Fragonard or Picasso or Rothko. And someone made a remark along the lines of: "if this had existed in the 1960s, we wouldn't have need Warhol to invent Pop Art!". But in reality, Andy Warhol experimented with a wide variety of media and techniques. From film to "oxidation art". And it struck me that was the truly creative part of the process. One that arises from a place other than rational optimization on a single task or even multiple known tasks.