AI agents that “self-reflect” perform better in changing environments
hai.stanford.edu
hai.stanford.edu
But this is not what happened. Instead, some guys told AI agents to explore in the way that the guys think that animals explore. "Stanford researchers invented the “curious replay” training method based on studying mice to help AI agents"
Something, something, The Bitter Lesson.
As far as simply differing, much of the time there’s a character limit that’s hit. I’ve seen many posts with comment from the poster calling out their edit to the title and the character limit is usually cited.
It would be especially difficult to keep the character limit (I think there are legitimate design reasons for this) while also requiring that the title matches the submission as closely as possible. Who decides what words are omitted without it potentially being any of: patronizing, inaccurate, or misleading?
That arxiv stuff looks perfectly normal but I kind of hate how it got more and more caricatured as it went through the university press office and hacker news clickbait pipeline.
I've been wondering for a while at what the next steps in adding 'inefficiencies' to AI processing would look like, commenting the other day to a friend that what's needed in the next 18 months is getting AI to be able to replicate the Eureka moments in the shower where latent information is reconstructed in parallel to processing tangential topics.
Going from "attention is all you need" to "attention and curiosity is what you need" seems like a great next step!
I've been playing with this part specifically and it's really amazing stuff.
Having the model concurrently model internal monologue and output for a task, but allowing the internal monologue to be as focused or unfocused as the model sees fit.
You end up with situations where you have it working on a naming task for example, and the model starts imagining the warmth of a coffee cup on the desk, or traffic building up outside for a future appointment with a non-existent person, and then returns back to the task at hand with non-obvious tangents that it'd probably never have uncovered if it was only predicting on tokens related to the original goal of naming something.
It gets even more interesting when you inject variability into the process via the API (for example, telling it to use certain letters pulled from an RNG inside the next iteration of internal monologue).
As not an RL person (I'm in generative), have people not re-increased the exploration variable after the model has been initially trained? It seems natural to vary that ee trade-off.
Looks like you shadowbanned this account. Maybe for posting a URL in the first comment.
My current imagining says that novelty and unexpected inputs drive our immediate understanding of the world around us. To have expectations you have to have to have a model. When that model breaks and is adjusted you have a novel experience and the model can be updated. This feedback loop is critical.
Example: other day I was grilling food and my digital food thermometer was on the metal prep area near the hot griddle. As I was walking away I reached for it, grabbed it, and expected to pick it up. However! I didn't know it had a magnet and it gave me back unexpected stimulus.
I immediately jerked my hand away and several thoughts happened near instantly. My thoughts went from I burned my hand to no, no pain, maybe a really bad burn, to no, no heat, no sizzling of flesh, to oops, wrong stimulus, something resisted, resisted how, it slid but wouldn't pick up easy, ah, a magnet.
The researchers here are right, I expect. You need curiosity and some goal, but you need to constantly tune the input for expectations and tweak the (mental) model of the world.
How many times do you, for a split second, totally misinterpret what you see or feel but near instantly self correct? Better AI will require putting forth it's initial result and then validating the result with feedback. The more unexpected the feedback the more novel the experience and more learning that can happen.
[1] 2018, "The Markov blankets of life: autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle", https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2017.079...
And, things like GPT are not 'embodied', since they don't live in the 'world' they can't associate language with physical reality. Put them in a simulated environment like a game, and it looks a lot more 'conscious'.
History has been repeating itself for thousands of years. We keep killing the prophets, and putting the absolute worst of us on pedestals. What's rational about that?
Dolphins mucking about in the water - that's rational.
If it is irrational that history repeats itself, do you think that it would be rational if history progressed towards some goal, and if yes, what is that goal?
Don't keep such an open mind that your brain falls out.
> If it is irrational that history repeats itself, do you think that it would be rational if history progressed towards some goal
It has, often. For example, 50 years ago a bunch of fossil fuel executives decided it would be best to let the planet burn, so they can keep making money.
History progressed toward their goal, and now we're starting to really suffer. But they have their megayachts.
Do you think that's rational?
So of course superyachts are perfectly rational. But of course they are far from reasonable.
Most famously, Hegel believed that human history trends & tends towards the perfection of human nature and society. Many other philosophers and philosophies fundamentally disagree with Hegel, and assert that history has no teleological purpose built into it.
Perhaps acknowledge the depth and history of this question before throwing out some quick asides about it?
You seem to feel fairly certain that humanity is "on a path", and that there's going with that flow and there's going against it. You're welcome to believe that, but it's far from a settled POV.
As for lying executives, they are immoral and only rational when viewed through the lens of their own selfishness.
Look at a climate graph. That's the path I'm talking about. Look into the Anthropocene Extinction - that's us. We're walking that path; or more accurately, sleepwalking on it. It's not subjective whatsoever; there's mountains of hard data on this.
Extrapolating that into teleology / philosophy / my worldview was entirely your invention and interpretation.
You hopefully get the picture. We may get better at remembering history if united via a common cause under a common leadership. Otherwise it's just an organism looking for food and trying to survive.
is that coincidence?