Hacker News Reader

Comment by benchmarkist | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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?

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.

Yeah I mean I would never pay you for anything.

You’ve convinced me that you’re small and know very little about the subject matter.

You don’t need to reply to this. I’m done with this convo.

Ok, have a good one dude.

Seriously... The ability to identify what physics/math theories the AI should apply and being able to make the AI actually apply those are very different things. And you don't seem to understand that distinction.

Unless you have $500k to pay for the actual implementation of a Hamiltonian video generator then I don't think you're in a position to tell me what I know and don't know.

lolz, I doubt very much anyone would want to pay you $500k to perform magic. Basically, I think you are coming across as someone who is trying to sound clever rather than being clever.

My price is very cheap in terms of what it would enable and allow OpenAI to charge their customers. Hamiltonian video generation with conservation principles which do not have phantom masses appearing and disappearing out of nowhere is a billion dollar industry so my asking price is basically giving away the entire industry for free.

Sure, but I imagine the reason you haven't started your own company to do it is you need 10s of millions in compute, so the price would be 500k + 10s of millions... Or you can't actually do it and are just talking shit on the internet.

I guess we'll never know.

cop out... according to you, the idea is so obvious it wouldn't be worth anything.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com