Algorithms for Reinforcement Learning
sites.ualberta.ca
sites.ualberta.ca
I don't know what your thresholds for impressive might be, or what your basis of comparison is, but pure control theory seems to be at a bit of a dead end, whereas reinforcement learning allows for greater flexibility and robustness for control tasks, subject to your willingness to gather (or simulate) a lot of training data[0].
See for example this video[1] in which OpenAI shows off a robotic arm with "unprecedented" dexterity.
-----
0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVIxt2rt1_4 for a video (there's also an associated paper) about setting up RL tasks for robots.
https://deepmind.com/blog/alphastar-mastering-real-time-stra...
AlphaStar has gotten critisism for it having unfair advantages. It was 5-0 against Mana when it could see and control the whole map at once for example. But after a camera-restriction was given (so it sees the map like humans) it lost 0-1.
With all this said, it is still impressive. Best bot we have by far in sc2!
Are you familiar with OpenAI's Dactyl? [1]. I could see you saying it's perhaps not a leap forward versus classical techniques like their DOTA bot (OpenAI Five), but I assume part of that is just that they're getting started.
There's also the PlaNet work from Google and DeepMind [2] that's been announced more recently.
[1] https://blog.openai.com/learning-dexterity/
[2] https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/02/introducing-planet-deep-pl...
Apparently, many people on this website think Go and StarCraft qualify as "the real world". Majority of them probably never even heard of blocks world and SHRDLU.
AFAIK, the biggest problem in reinforcement learning still is connecting the final outcome with individual actions you took to achieve it. This hits you hard when you move from toy domains to real-world problems, because you can't replay real-world scenarios thousands of times, and even if you do, you can can get completely different results due to various random and external factors.
This can be somewhat mitigated by taking Marvin Minsky approach and building / using a simulation of the problem instead of the real thing. However, in many domains building a realistic simulation of the domain is significantly harder than supervising learning.
I'll be curious to see the set of domains where a hybrid approach (some real world, lots of simulation) works out. The nice thing about simulation is that you can experience lots of things that you never want happening in the real world (e.g., child runs in front of car with only X00 ms to impact). Trading off the difficulty of accurate simulation versus needing to trust that the model will behave correctly under a situation you could have simulated, will (likely) be an interesting liability challenge for autonomous driving at the least.
I work in this space and even if you could assume the RL would never make a mistake it's not auditable in the way you would need it to be for things like insurance. In general, RL isn't ready to be used in complex situations where people can die when things go bad. This ignores the sample efficiency challenges and handling unseen data.