[HN Gopher] AI That Teaches Other AI
___________________________________________________________________
AI That Teaches Other AI
Author : geox
Score : 86 points
Date : 2023-07-20 11:30 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (viterbischool.usc.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (viterbischool.usc.edu)
| roschdal wrote:
| This is the end for humanity.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| It's probably the end for our image of a dominant _purely
| biological_ humanity. This isn 't so bad or unexpected though.
| We are just the latest step in the universe's growing
| comprehension of itself.
|
| At one point the self-replicating molecule was the most
| advanced cognition available in our little corner of reality,
| then at various times we had single celled organisms, colonial
| organisms, etc etc until eventually we got humans. There have
| been phase changes in the nature of cognition many times, this
| will just be the latest.
|
| What comes next is just the latest link in a chain of
| continuous increasing complexity of life stretching back to the
| first time a couple of organic molecules reacted. It's exciting
| to be alive in a time when we get to see one of these phase
| changes. It's like being alive at the dawn of civilization or
| when the first fish crawled out onto land.
| p1esk wrote:
| _It 's probably the end for our image of a dominant purely
| biological humanity. This isn't so bad_
|
| Sounds pretty bad
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Why?
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| The lead researcher said in this article, "Humans have the means
| of sharing information. We are now pushing that idea into the AI
| domain." A classic example of human hubris...thinking that we
| will be able to control and benefit from the results of such
| inventions. It boggles my mind how some people are so naive to
| think that this is just an academic game without real-world
| consequences that are likely to be devastating.
| classified wrote:
| Don"t panic, this is just the full autmation of
| enshittification. Producing piles of worthless ouput without
| human assistance. Nothing too dramatic, really.
| Kiro wrote:
| And it boggles my mind that you confidently make such extreme
| claims.
| firewolf34 wrote:
| The modern development of AI can be likened to the earlier
| development of the atom bomb. Everyone thinks it will destroy
| the world because technically it has the potential to do so
| and everyone's a pessimist on average. But it'll probably not
| be nearly as bad as claimed. Us humans have a strong tendency
| to enjoy being alive and preserve doing so.
| pixl97 wrote:
| The atom bomb is an extreme device, the issue is the
| extremeness is multi-polar.
|
| Atom bombs have extreme explosions, but they also require
| extreme maintenance, extreme precision in manufacturing,
| and are extremely detectable.
|
| For AI the level of extremeness has not been defined. Yea,
| it requires extreme manufacturing, but it's the same
| manufacturing that builds billions of chips per year that
| are distributed almost everywhere. A server farm running AI
| looks much the same as a server farm running other
| computing tasks.
|
| Coming back to atom bombs, yes, atom bombs could destroy
| the world 10 minutes from now, and every 10 minutes from
| now until we destroy enough of them they can no longer do
| that. It simply has not happened yet and we've likely been
| very very lucky that it has not happened.
|
| Lastly, AI, especially when we reach AGI, is intelligence
| which means it will likely have some hand in if the world
| is destroyed or not. This risk rapidly increases if AGI
| capabilities are far beyond human capabilities.
| cubefox wrote:
| Atom bombs are just tools, they are only controlled by
| humans. But a super intelligence can be an actor, not just
| a tool. This changes everything. It might be vastly more
| intelligent than humans. It wouldn't be limited by skull
| size, meager energy provided by food, or low spike
| frequency of biological neurons. The difference might be as
| large as between humans and chimpanzees, or humans and
| mice, or even humans and ants. There is no reason to expect
| we are anywhere near the theoretical peak of intelligence.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Why? Every day the rest of the world make confident extreme
| claims that AI/advanced technology/STEM will improve the
| world with zero evidence either, and no one ever challenges
| those. In fact, everyone just jumps on the happy "tech is the
| best" bandwagon with nary a thought. If you think I'm making
| extreme claims, go look at the one-sided only positive view
| of technology being espoused by everyone else.
|
| On the other hand, technology has brought us to the brink of
| a climate disaster and a screwed up society (just look at how
| much research there is for the damaging effects of social
| media).
| firewolf34 wrote:
| So you've realized that one side of the extreme is
| irrational because it's extremely over-positive, and
| decided you'd just jump on the other side of the irrational
| extreme over-negative to be contrary? Saying AI will save
| the world is just as irrational as saying it will destroy
| it. By your own admission, even.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Well, I don't think my statements are extreme actually.
| I've given them a lot of thought and reasoned them out
| more fully elsewhere. I do sincerely believe AI has the
| capability to make society significantly worse and even
| destroy it through its isolating effects and through its
| removal of purpose from humanity. Of course, these
| comment boxes are a little small to have extended
| discussions but I'm perfectly willing to hear any serious
| arguments against what I have to say.
| blackbear_ wrote:
| Do you have a blog or website with your thoughts on this?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Intelligence is extremism. It is the most potentially extreme
| agent in the universe because it allows you to control all
| other forms of extremes.
|
| When humans intelligence grew beyond that of the other
| animals, we became the masters of those animals. We can
| choose to manipulate them, control them, or if they cannot be
| controlled, destroy them.
|
| Now, I don't understand why saying "There is no particular
| reason why humanity is the highest form and capability of
| intelligence" would be an extreme claim in any way. At least
| to me, the opposite is true "Humans are the most capable form
| of intelligence possible" is a anthropocentric and extreme
| statement.
| ape4 wrote:
| Does this allow modules? For example could a general AI's (like
| chatGPT) poker module be updated independent of its other
| abilities.
| yontach wrote:
| [flagged]
| benterix wrote:
| > After consolidating their knowledge, Itti and Ge explained,
| these AIs could serve as a comprehensive medical assistant,
| providing doctors with the latest, most accurate information
| across all areas of medicine.
|
| As for the "most accurate" part, I would agree if at the same
| they provided the source of each bit of information. Otherwise it
| would be just speculation with varying levels of probability.
| carbocation wrote:
| I'm a bit confused as to why a Mixture of Experts (MOE) isn't one
| of the comparators. That seems like the most relevant direct
| comparator, rather than the several other paradigms that they
| cited.
| andreyk wrote:
| MoE is a type of neural network architecture, not an approach
| to lifelong learning. As they say " We propose a new Shared
| Knowledge Lifelong Learning (SKILL) challenge, which deploys a
| decentralized population of LL agents that each sequentially
| learn different tasks, with all agents operating independently
| and in parallel." What they propose is effectively an MoE with
| separately learned routing as far as I can tell, with the heads
| of the LLM being task specific and there being a task mapper to
| assign training labels. The baselines based on Parameter-
| Isolation methods are sort of similar MoEs, in that additional
| weights are added and trained on each tasks (somewhat as
| experts would).
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| There are network architectures for MoE, but afaik the
| concept of MoE is separate from them. MoE at least
| significantly predates the last decade's neural network boom.
| andreyk wrote:
| afaik the term MoE is generally used in the context of
| neural networks, with the term mixture models being more
| general. But you are right it's not exclusive to NNs.
| carbocation wrote:
| > _What they propose is effectively an MoE with separately
| learned routing as far as I can tell, with the heads of the
| LLM being task specific and there being a task mapper to
| assign training labels._
|
| What you are describing would indeed be an MoE model, but
| that's not where it ends. The manuscript continues [1]: "
| _all agents become identical after all tasks have been
| learned and shared, and they all can master all tasks._ "
|
| That is a substantial divergence from the MoE model!
|
| To the extent that there is an MoE-like stage in their
| training, I think it's odd that the term "mixture of experts"
| is not mentioned nor is the literature on the topic cited.
|
| 1 = https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Jjl2c8kWUc
| andreyk wrote:
| Good point - it's a loose analogy training wise, and not
| applicable to inference time.
| theknocker wrote:
| [dead]
| e12e wrote:
| > with applications in medicine and beyond
|
| Cybernetics? ;)
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Don't they run into the meta-dilemma? In semantics I had this
| problem that whenever you moved from an single integrated domain
| (utopia), to a selection of specialized micro domains (feasible),
| the problem became a tradeoff between on the one hand selecting
| the right 'expert', and on the other hand integrating the
| 'knowledge' of the various experts.
|
| For each specific instance of this type of problem you can strive
| to improve the tradeoff, but there is no 'general' solution'.
| yeldarb wrote:
| > Their SKILL tool involves a set of algorithms that make the
| process go much faster, they said, because the agents learn at
| the same time in parallel. Their research showed if 102 agents
| each learn one task and then share, the amount of time needed is
| reduced by a factor of 101.5 after accounting for the necessary
| communications and knowledge consolidation among agents.
|
| This is a really interesting idea. It's like the reverse of
| knowledge distillation (which I've been thinking about a lot[1])
| where you have one giant model that knows a lot about a lot & you
| use that model to train smaller, faster models that know a lot
| about a little.
|
| Instead, if you could train a bunch of models that know a lot
| about a little (which is less computationally intensive because
| the problem space is so confined) and combine them into a
| generalized model, that'd be hugely beneficial.
|
| Unfortunately, after a bit of digging into the paper & Github
| repo[2], this doesn't seem to be what's happening here.
|
| > The code will learn 102 small and separte [sic] heads(either a
| linear head or a linear head with a task bias) for each tasks
| respectively in order. This step can be parallized [sic] on
| multiple GPUS with one task per GPU. The heads will be saved in
| the weight folder. After that, the code will learn a task
| mapper(Either using GMMC or Mahalanobis) to distinguish image
| task-wisely. Then, all images will be evaluated in the same time
| without a task label.
|
| So the knowledge isn't being combined (and the agents aren't
| learning from each other) into a generalized model. They're
| training a bunch of independent fine-tuned models for specific
| tasks & adding a model-selection step that maps an image to the
| most relevant "expert". My guess is you could do the same thing
| using CLIP vectors as the routing method to supervised models
| trained on specific datasets (we found that datasets largely live
| in distinct regions of CLIP-space[3]).
|
| [1] https://github.com/autodistill/autodistill
|
| [2] https://github.com/gyhandy/Shared-Knowledge-Lifelong-
| Learnin...
|
| [3] https://www.rf100.org
| koheripbal wrote:
| It challenges the notion of individuality. Where does one AI
| begin and another end?
|
| A distributed super-intelligence is exciting. It will be
| interesting how long it can remain aligned with itself.
| somenameforme wrote:
| You might be disappointed.. It seems to have been weakly
| confirmed by Geohot that this sort of mixed system is already
| what GPT-4's 'secret sauce' is. [1] It's something I've also
| been speculating for months on. Ctrl+F for "220 billion in
| each". His phrasing, numbers, and details are suggestive of a
| leak unless he's just completely blowing smoke - and I don't
| think there's any real reason to think he is.
|
| It looks like they were pumping the model size up, started
| getting diminishing returns, and so turned to a mixed model
| of 8 expert systems meet LLMs - to try to keep squeezing out
| just a bit more juice. I think Geohot offered an incredibly
| insightful quote, "...whenever a company is secretive, it's
| because they're hiding something that's not that cool. And
| people have this wrong idea over and over again that they
| think they're hiding it because it's really cool."
|
| It also goes a long way to explain their recent, ultimately
| unsuccessful, gambit in congress. If they don't see any way
| of overcoming the diminishing returns, then they're like the
| guy who got a headstart in a race where distance = time ^
| (1/2).
|
| [1] - https://www.latent.space/p/geohot#details
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| Our brains are the same way.
|
| The me that went to sleep last night is not the same one that
| wakes up today or tomorrow. I'll have new experiences, maybe
| even changes in ways of thinking or believing. Maybe I get
| covid and lose an entire sense (smell).
|
| From minute to minute sometimes it also feels like there's
| different beings in us, the angry version, the happy version,
| the loving version, the sad version, etc.. Different parts of
| our brain even handle some different ways we think or feel,
| could each of these parts stand alone on their own?
|
| I think it makes a lot of sense that as we have different
| parts to our brain, so should AI's have different parts for
| different functions.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| I like to toy with the idea that if AIs became self-
| aware,they'd probably gobble up 95% of their time just trying
| to compete with each other...like us.
|
| Hopefully they have that war on another planet...
| koheripbal wrote:
| I imagine all the factions in that war will include
| integrated collections of both AIs and humans, with
| "individuals" fulfilling different roles within each team,
| perhaps with each faction representing some underlying
| ideology.
|
| I wonder if/how humans will physically/cognitively
| integrate with the AIs in their group, in some sort of
| symbiotic hybrid fashion.
|
| It's all really mind-boggling when you think about it.
| pixl97 wrote:
| This is one of the existential scenarios that's talked
| about some times.
|
| AI fights AI and we are collateral damage as the things
| massive replicate and blow each other up.
|
| Or, an ASI becomes dominate and realizes that humans will
| be a risk and dumbs us down to reduce that risk, or
| exterminates us to remove that chess piece from the table.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| This is literally the plot for every transformer movie.
| tlarkworthy wrote:
| It's not a particularly new idea. See robotshare, robobrain or
| robot google
| e12e wrote:
| > Or imagine every smartphone user is a local tour guide in the
| city he or she is visiting. Each user takes photos and provides
| details about significant landmarks, stores, products, and local
| cuisine.
|
| WikiTravel?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-20 23:02 UTC)