Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by benchmarkist 550 days ago
Neural networks use smooth manifolds as their underlying inductive bias so in theory it should be possible to incorporate smooth kinematic and Hamiltonian constraints but I am certain no one at OpenAI actually understands enough of the theory to figure out how to do that.
3 comments

> I am certain no one at OpenAI actually understands enough of the theory to figure out how to do that

We would love to learn more about the origin of your certainty.

I don't work there so I'm certain there is no one with enough knowledge to make it work with Hamiltonian constraints because the idea is very obvious but they haven't done it because they don't have the wherewithal to do so. In other words, no one at OpenAI understands enough basic physics to incorporate conservation principles into the generative network so that objects with random masses don't appear and disappear on the "video" manifold as it evolves in time.
> the idea is very obvious but they haven't done it because they don't have the wherewithal to do so

Fascinating! I wish I had the knowledge and wherewithal to do that and become rich instead of wasting my time on HN.

No one is perfect but you should try to do better and waste less time on HN now that you're aware and can act on that knowledge.
Nah, I'm good. HN can be a very amusing place at times. Thanks, though.
How does your conclusion follow from your statement?

Neural networks are largely black box piles of linear algebra which are massaged to minimize a loss function.

How would you incorporate smooth kinematic motion in such an environment?

The fact that you discount the knowledge of literally every single employee at OpenAI is a big signal that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I don’t even really like OpenAI and I can see that.

I've seen the quality of OpenAI engineers on Twitter and it's easy enough to extrapolate. Moreoever, neural networks are not black boxes, you're just parroting whatever you've heard on social media. The underlying theory is very simple.
Do not make assumptions about people you do not know in an attempt to discredit them. You seem to be a big fan of that.

I have been working with NLP and neural networks since 2017.

They aren’t just black boxes, they are _largely_ black boxes.

When training an NN, you don’t have great control over what parts of the model does what or how.

Now instead of trying to discredit me, would you mind answering my question? Especially since, as you say, the theory is so simple.

How would you incorporate smooth kinematic motion in such an environment?

Why would I give away the idea for free? How much do you want to pay for the implementation?
cop out... according to you, the idea is so obvious it wouldn't be worth anything.
lol. Ok dude you have a good one.
You too but if you do want to learn the basics then here's one good reference: https://www.amazon.com/Hamiltonian-Dynamics-Gaetano-Vilasi/d.... If you already know the basics then this is a good followup: https://www.amazon.com/Integrable-Hamiltonian-Systems-Geomet.... The books are much cheaper than paying someone like me to do the implementation.
There are physicists at OpenAI. You can verify with a quick search. So someone there clearly knows these things.
I'd be embarrassed if I was a physicists and my name was associated with software that had phantom masses appearing and disappearing into the void.
Why don't you write a paper or start a company to show them the right way to do it?
I don't think there is any real value in making videos other than useless entertainment. The real inspired use of computation and AI is to cure cancer, that would be the right way to show the world that this technology is worthwhile and useful. The techniques involved would be the same because one would need to include real physical constraints like conservation of mass and energy instead of figuring out the best way to flash lights on the screen with no regard for any foundational physical principles.

Do you know anyone or any companies working on that?