Is current AI just automated statistics or there is something more to it?

Home Forums Science & tech Is current AI just automated statistics or there is something more to it?

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #181841
      Anonymous
      Guest

      is current AI just automated statistics or there is something more to it?

    • #181842
      Anonymous
      Guest

      think of neural nets as a useful way to encode (and learn the encoding of) arbitrary functions between things.

      • #181843
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yeah, except the useful part.

        • #181844
          Anonymous
          Guest

          neural nets aren’t magic fairy dust that solve all your problems, but given the right tasks they are excellent tools

          • #181901
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Yeah, except the useful part.

            Take your meds, luddite poltard. Do you not realize how fast AI and machine learning are progressing? Neural nets are the path to strong AI. Within 15 years most humans, including scientists and mathematicians will be obsolete and will be replaced with AI.

            • #181902
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Do you not realize how fast AI and machine learning are progressing?
              So fast that we already have an amazing AI that can almost drive a car if you invest millions of dollars training it.

            • #181905
              Anonymous
              Guest

              This. This. SO MUCH THIS! In 15 years I’m gonna have a lightsaber as I cruise around in my faster than light space ship (not that I’ll need it because we’ll have cured aging by then!) visiting colonies on Mars, the Moon, and maybe even some other solar systems if I feel like it, all while A.I. enhanced implants make the trip as easy as doing 1+1 right now! Weeee I love the future! All we have to do is just trust the plan bros.

              • #181906
                Anonymous
                Guest

                What?

            • #181912
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Strong AI won’t happen with neural nets.

        • #181845
          Anonymous
          Guest

          What would you consider a more useful way to encode arbitrary unknown, incomplete functions?

          • #181850
            Anonymous
            Guest

            by collapsing a wavefunction directly to states

            • #181851
              Anonymous
              Guest

              And if you don’t have a quantum computer?

              • #181852
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Then stop being poor.

                • #181854
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Isn’t that the world’s fault for producing so few quantum computers?
                  How do I make the world be less poor?

        • #181847
          Anonymous
          Guest
    • #181846
      Anonymous
      Guest

      hidden layers are ruled by complexity.
      pun intended

    • #181848
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Not much more. It’s kinds like just optimizing a function that can correlate a bunch of variables in order to classify whatever the thing with the variables is.

      • #181849
        Anonymous
        Guest

        composing multiple layers of linear and non-linear functions is a notable

        • #181899
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Are you talking about gradient descent?

          • #181903
            Anonymous
            Guest

            no. i’m saying that a sequence of linear -> non-linear -> linear -> non-linear etc. operations is key to how neural nets work.
            if every layer were linear, then combining a bunch of layers would be equivalent to a single linear layer. and linear systems, while easier understood, can’t do basic things like compute XOR.

            the gradient descent (+ backpropagation) part is just how you adjust weights for your net, and there could be other ways. for instance, it’s obvious our brains use a different method to rewire itself which is still quite mysterious

    • #181853
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What makes you think human (or animal) brains are any different?

      • #181855
        Anonymous
        Guest

        what makes you think they are? I don’t know how human brain functions.

        • #181856
          Anonymous
          Guest

          They are not Turing Complete Machines.

          • #181859
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Human brains are turing complete.

            • #181860
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Prove it, scrote. Run me a Turing tape in your head.

              • #181861
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Turings original paper was coming up with a way to encapsulate how humans perform math with a machine.
                Turing machines are a philosophical thought experiment to mechanize human thought.
                I can imagine tapes moving back and forth, for precisely I can perform with pen and paper all processes a turing machine can even if in slow at it compared to a modern computer.
                You can too.

                • #181862
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >I can perform with pen and paper
                  No paper allowed. Run me a Turing tape.

                  • #181865
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Why does the machine get a tape but I dont?
                    The machine is the head that reads in the symbols on the tape and slides back and forth. My mind is the head that reads in input from the tape (paper) and slides back and forth.
                    I don’t see the difference.

                    • #181870
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Why does the machine get a tape but I dont?
                      The machine has reliable RAM. The RAM is a part of that system. Are pen+paper parts of the system of your brain? Yes? Why, because you perceive it to be so? Fine: I build a robot that presses a button to turn on the PC. The robot is Turing-complete.

                      • #181877
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >The RAM is a part of that system.
                        But the registers in the cpu of the turing machine can do everything the ram can, your brain can not do everything a pen and paper can, so it is not turing complete.

                      • #181884
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Your argument is that because the human working memory can only hold 7 objects in it at a time, we aren’t turing complete.
                        Thats scrotebrained. Were a linear bounded automata just like any other physical instantiation of a turing machine. Having low RAM (in this case working memory) doesn’t stop us from being a linear bounded automaton.

                      • #181885
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No, the argument is that you can’t compute everything a Turing machine can compute.

                      • #181886
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        All machines are bounded by finite space.
                        Of thats what you’re saying then nothing is a turing machine, unless the universe is infinite, in which case only the entire universe itself is one.
                        What would a human be if we aren’t linear bounded automatons?

                      • #181887
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No, the argument is that you can’t compute everything a Turing machine can compute.

                        you don’t need actual infinite tape to run every stoppable program.

                      • #181889
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >implying i can’t write a stoppable program that requires unbounded memory

                      • #181897
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        write one. Guess how long would machine take to write something at inf., you freaking brainlet.

                      • #181900
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The program chooses a number larger than the number of units of memory your machine has, and tries to perform a computation that requires more units of memory than that.

                      • #181888
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >All machines are bounded by finite space.
                        That’s your problem. At most, "Turing-complete machine" could mean "the processor has a Turing-complete instruction set", which is meaningless in the case of a brain that has no foxed instruction set.

                      • #181890
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So what would you consider the human brain?

                      • #181891
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        It’s a fundamentally different approach to the problem of computation. The Turing machine is a kind of unchanging platonic object that can compute everything from the get-go. Organic brains reorganize themselves to become specialized in a finite set of tasks, and their potential universality comes from their ability to reorganize, rather from being complete in every form.

                      • #181893
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I posted this at the same time you posted your post lol

                      • #181913
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        That’s scrotebrained. You can’t even make a plausible theoretical model for how that shit computes, so it’s worthless.

                      • #181915
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Why are you seething? Brains are not Turing machines. Case closed.

                  • #181883
                    Anonymous
                    Guest
                • #181863
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >with pen and paper
                  In a Turing Complete Machine, the program and the data are all on the same machine, the fact that you need additional tools outside of your brain (such as pen and paper) proves it is not Turing Complete by definition.

                  • #181867
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    So a human + paper is turing complete but a human alone is not? What would we be then?

                    • #181869
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >human + paper
                      No because it is two different things, the memory space in a turing complete machine needs to be capable of holding both the program and the data simultaneously, just like regular twins with separate births can never be conjoined twins even though they have a little bit in common with conjoined twins when considered together.

              • #181864
                Anonymous
                Guest

                you don’t need infinite tape scrote, you need unbounded tape (add memory if necessary), since if your algorithm needs infinite tape it will never stop. Also it is instruction set that can be turing complete, not only the system.

                • #181866
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >you don’t need infinite tape scrote
                  Okay. Now run me a Turing tape in your head. (No paper.)

                  >it is instruction set that can be turing complete, not only the system.
                  The system in this case is the brain, and I’m still waiting for you to run a Turing tape on it. Maybe your brain just doesn’t run Turing tapes. I can give you a program in C++ instead — they’re Turing-equivalent.

                  • #181868
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    If you want, I can just imagine a tape in my minds eye and slide back and forth in that way.

                    • #181871
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >If you want, I can just imagine a tape in my minds eye and slide back and forth in that way.
                      Very well. Here’s a Turing tape for fluid dynamics. Run it on your brain and tell me the results.

                      • #181876
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I can simulate fluid dynamic equations in my head. Are you not able to?

                        I don’t understand what you guys are trying to say here. Are you seriously trying to say that humans are strictly weaker than turing machines? That’s nonsense. Turing machines were formulated to encapsulate human computers.
                        It almost comes across like you’re some weird religious guy who worships computers lol

                      • #181878
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >I can simulate fluid dynamic equations in my head.
                        Go ahead and do it. No pen, no paper. In your head.

                      • #181879
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Have you never done math in your head?
                        Give me an equation

                      • #181880
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >devolves into dull trolling
                        Yeah, that’s what I thought. I accept your concession.

                      • #181881
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        There is no concession and there is no trolling.
                        Give me an algorithm and I will compute the solution in my head.

                      • #181882
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Sure, go ahead and compute me the Ackermann function of 4, 4.

                  • #181872
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    I don’t need to run any tape in my brain, all I need to is to
                    >simulate
                    turing machine in my mind, which is easy.

                    • #181873
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Go ahead. Simulate me a machine that calculates fluid dynamics.

                      • #181875
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        sure, give me an algorithm

                  • #181874
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >Turing tape
                    If you taped together all your neurons and laid them end to end, they would encircle the universe 42 times.

          • #181898
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Turing Complete Machines.
            neither are actual computers. they are extremely large finite state machines at best

    • #181857
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Statistics

    • #181858
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What’s an objectively observable difference between sufficiently complex automated statistics, and "something more"? It’s "automated statistics" until it becomes complex enough that the "automated statistics" view is too low-level for any insight.

    • #181892
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why won’t you guys answer what a human brain is?
      We are able to simulate in our imagination any strictly weaker Linearly Bounded Automaton. How does that not make us a LBA and Turing-Complete?
      Answer the question. Saying we have weak working memories just implies that we’re not strong LBA, not that we aren’t Turing complete.

    • #181894
      Anonymous
      Guest

      "current AI" can mean different things.
      Currently popular AI models really are "just" statistics. Statistics can be pretty powerful, as the achievements of AI in the past couple of years show.
      But on the causal ladder, this is still the first rung. Correlation is not causation, and these AI systems are blind to the concept of cause and effect. We will not achieve human-level intelligence until we can fix this problem.
      There is already a lot of research on causal inference, but not nearly enough, and it’s not popular yet. (I assume / hope it will turn popular in the next few years though.)

      • #181895
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Causality doesn’t exist. Read Hume.

        • #181896
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >X is unreal. Read <300 year old philosopher>.
          >refuses to elaborate further, or explain relationship to new results in the past 300 years
          >leaves
          Reddit tier debating.

    • #181904
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Oh OK, so what is really going on during gradient decent then?

      I always thought it was building a composite non-linear function from a series of more specific non-linear functions and using activation functions as a way to "shift" things into place.

      • #181916
        Anonymous
        Guest

        what you described is a "what", but we really don’t know WHY it generalizes so goddamn well. We know how it learns on training data, anything can do that easily, but the generalization to unseen data is surprising still. We’re still investigating how the generalization works mathematically. We had some pieces that looked promising, but they were disproved in 2019 at neurips or whatever its called now, and so we’re still cracking that nut. there’s a surprisingly dense literature surrounding just the exploration of basic SGD and a single layer learning.

    • #181907
      Anonymous
      Guest

      There are people on r/singularity who literally believe the singularity will start in 2022.

      • #181908
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The singularity started in 1954

    • #181909
      Anonymous
      Guest

      read books about ML theory, PAC learnability, and try and implement ML architectures. If it were just automating statistics as we’ve studied it in the past, it’d be done by now.
      There’s a lot of nontrivial theory and systems that isn’t just statistics that goes into realizing AI techniques.

      • #181911
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >read books about ML theory, PAC learnability, and try and implement ML architectures
        All statistics.

    • #181910
      Anonymous
      Guest

      bump

    • #181914
      Anonymous
      Guest

      multi-dimensional and multilayered statistics

    • #181917
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It depends on what you would include in "automated statistics", as you could theoretically describe brain function as "just automated statistics", albeit with a crazy physical machinery.
      Lots of progressive in the last 5 years in ML, especially surrounding natural language processing with RNNs/LSTM/GRU, attention mechanisms and transformers, and more recently the interest in few-shot learning and reinforcement learning. Attention mechanisms and few-shot learning are two things which look to me like very basic necessities if we were going to give a set of criteria for what is considered "AI" (for me, ability to focus on things is important, and the ability to generalize using very few examples is something that people can do but regular old ML models can’t).
      Most models are single-task and lazer focused; for exaple, GPT-3 and such are only focused on natural language generation/translation. We could take a number of single-case models and try to wrap them up into a large multi-task model that uses those model outputs as inputs and has a goal to act like AI or some such.
      The problem is we define AI as "acts like human", like seriously. Doing things beyond human capability is considered "not intelligence", but being able to communicate like a human and come up with new ideas like a human would is considered AI. So we would have to have a model that is opaque and generative (like the current generative models which can make "art"), can communicate, and acts like a person. If it communicates but not like a person, we wont "recognize" it as AI. If it doesn’t have human-like thoughts but other thoughts, we consider it "not intelligent". Part of considering something AI is if we recognize it as human, or at the very least having some emergent behavior that wouldn’t be predicted otherwise, ala a far more complicated Conway’s Game of Life.

    • #181918
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Kind of. But there is a more nuanced difference that usually goes under appreciated. Statisticians are always trying to reduce the number of parameters.
      "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
      This way of thinking holds up to a certain point. But neural networks reveal that something strange happens when you go into extremely high parameter counts. Our intuitions no longer hold when we are in the regime or big data AND big parameter count. Important to have both I must emphasize. When you enter this regime adding parameters improves performance with seemingly no end in sight.
      We see BETTER generalization and less overfitting when we add parameters in this big data regime models. This strikes directly against statistical dogma. Again I must emphasize this only applies to the big data regime as I know some of you autists are going to nitpick here.
      This general phenomenon is something new and is something important. And it is barely understood so we are still early days here. This is the exciting part of modern AI and it is rarely communicated properly.

    • #181919
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s not statistics it’s black box shaking and chinese automaton at best

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.