Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk Open Sources New 'AI Gym' (csmonitor.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the brain-wars dept.

An anonymous reader writes: OpenAI, a billion-dollar research non-profit backed by Elon Musk and other Silicon Valley executives, just released a public beta of a new Open Source gym for computer programmers working on artificial intelligence. "Nothing beats a competitive environment to motivate developers," says Patrick Moorhead, an analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy. "It's like a monster truck rally for AI programmers."

The gym lets developers run tests in a standardized environment and share their results, and was built by OpenAI to develop algorithms for the non-profit's own research, according to the Christian Science Monitor. "The gym's exercises range from robot simulations to Atari games and are designed to develop reinforcement learning, the type of computer skills needed for motor control, and decision-making. 'Long-term, we want this curation to be a community effort rather than something owned by us,' Greg Brockman and John Schulman wrote in an OpenAI blog post. 'We'll necessarily have to figure out the details over time, and we'd would love your help in doing so.'"

44 comments

  1. So all the future "AI" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will be really good at Robot Gyms. Not so much anything else.

    1. Re:So all the future "AI" by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I always thought Gyms were 3D in nature. Newtonian mechanics requires this. Maybe Elon can use something like Blender3D as a Gym?

    2. Re:So all the future "AI" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the exercises bring up a 3D environment. Depends on the task.

  2. Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nothing beats a competitive environment to motivate developers.

    Capitalism has become so ingrained like a religion in the psyche that we assume it reflects nature.

    Humans are sophisticated social species. The norm is to get together and to cooperate - we fight as a last resort. Our current system has put us in a constant state of last-resort thinking. Sure, we're good at it, but only because that's the final option we have been evolved to deal with - everything beats a competitive environment.

    1. Re:Bollocks. by Viol8 · · Score: 0

      He's at one extreme, you're at the other. As with most things in life the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Competition is good in some areas - eg supermarkets bringing prices down or car performance - and co-operation is better in others such as blue sky research. Life is far more nuanced than either of you seem to appreciate.

    2. Re:Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) I didn't say that competition was always bad - I said it was a last resort;

      2) Supermarkets tend only to bring prices down at the wholesale level, but in a mature market will match each other at retail. This couldn't be more obvious in the UK, where e.g. milk producers end up tied into contracts where they're selling milk at a loss a lot of the time;

      3) I don't drive since it seems an extremely inefficient way of getting around. I know that the US is unlike Europe in that, again, people take the competitive approach of private transport rather than the cooperative approach of cheap, clean, reliable public transport.

      In the long run, businesses consolidate and stagnate, i.e. you end up with a cooperative environment anyway, except that the cooperation is for profit. The only place where competition appears effective is in an immature market, where most of the players haven't sold out yet.

    3. Re: Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People take private transport when they can because, in America, public transport is filled with the dangerous poor.

    4. Re: Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IF only my fellow Americans would learn the poor aren't that dangerous. I would describe most of my interactions with them on public transportation as pleasantly amusing. Of course most of the time I'm minding my own business while retaining my sanity and saving hoards of cash by not piloting myself to my destination.

    5. Re: Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only my fellow Americans would learn that niggers are dangerous. I would describe most of my interactions with them as unpleasant, namely the repeated shootings, robberies, and gang activity in my general area. Fortunately I try to mind my own business while retaining my sanity and savings hoards of cash by working from home.

      Captcha: Commute

    6. Re:Bollocks. by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      In the long run, businesses consolidate and stagnate, i.e. you end up with a cooperative environment anyway, except that the cooperation is for profit. The only place where competition appears effective is in an immature market, where most of the players haven't sold out yet.

      You've made the same fundamental error here that Karl Marx did in his formulation of economic theory: that production systems do reach maturity, where change ceases and competition therefore no longer matters[1]. In fact, this theory of non-advancement actually does describe reality at times, but only when other forces have arranged to squash competition. As long as competition is present, markets do not stagnate because the competitors continue innovating, looking for an edge to make their products more valuable or their production costs lower -- resulting ultimately in better goods at lower prices as competition forces all participants to adopt each new improvement. I don't believe there is any good in the marketplace that has ever reached perfection in both design and production process, and I'm skeptical that any good ever could. (I'd be very interested in counterexamples if you can think of any.)

      You also mentioned consolidation. Yes, over time there is a tendency towards consolidation due to economies of scale, but even very mature markets tend to consolidate down to two or three players, never only one. When you see a marketplace reduced to a single player, it's almost certain that there is some extra-market force involved, because without that extra-market force there's a powerful incentive for capital to create a competitor in order to exploit potential innovations that a monopoly doesn't have a reason to make.[2]

      Yes, cooperation is a core human characteristic, but so is competition. All the way back to pre-historic tribalism, people banded together in cooperative groups, then competed with other groups. And even within tribes, there has always been competition for status, and that competition has always included the formation of smaller cooperative groups to improve their ability to compete. At root, human cooperation is nothing more than a (very effective) competitive strategy.

      Further, looking beyond humanity and social structures competition is the fundamental mechanism by which all knowledge is created. More precisely, variation and selection is the basic mechanism of creation, whether you're looking at the evolution of organisms, the construction of social structures, even the development of ideas. Selection, of course, is inherently competitive.

      Competition is deeply ingrained in humanity, because it's fundamental to all creative activities and processes... including the processes that produced humanity.

      [1] Marx didn't state this assumption explicitly, but it underlies all his analyses of economic relationships, which he viewed as static and based solely on allocation of labor with little notion of the value of knowledge, and no consideration for how applied or created knowledge could change the structure.

      [2] I'm skeptical that government anti-trust efforts are either necessary or even useful. If you look at the history of government anti-trust efforts what you find is a repeated pattern of government stepping in with relatively ineffective measures, followed by the destruction of the monopoly by an innovation-driven market reorganization that which would have happened regardless. I'm not saying long-term self-sustaining monopolies (other than governments themselves) couldn't exist, but I don't think we've ever seen one.

    7. Re:Bollocks. by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Nothing beats a competitive environment to motivate developers.

      ...The norm is to get together and to cooperate - we fight as a last resort. Our current system has put us in a constant state of last-resort thinking...

      It's interesting that you think that competition is the same as fighting. It's not.

    8. Re:Bollocks. by werepants · · Score: 1

      [2] I'm skeptical that government anti-trust efforts are either necessary or even useful. If you look at the history of government anti-trust efforts what you find is a repeated pattern of government stepping in with relatively ineffective measures, followed by the destruction of the monopoly by an innovation-driven market reorganization that which would have happened regardless.

      Over and over this topic comes up, and over and over I wonder how in the hell people are so unaware of THE defining example of a government regulated monopoly. That being Ma Bell and Bell Labs, of course. The combo of immense corporate power, focus, and resources, combined with government scrutiny that required them to limit their profits meant that they dumped most excess cash into Bell Labs, which did the lion's share of the fundamental research work that created the information age. Seriously, it's a long list: the transistor, UNIX, cellular networks, information theory for starters... They had all that excess cash from being a government-granted monopoly, but also due to that reason they had to constantly demonstrate that the existence of their monopoly was good for the public. So they dumped the money into research, developed all this revolutionary technology and licensed that tech out cheaply. Bell Labs more than any other single entity deserves to be credited with developing the enabling fundamental technology that's changed the world in the past few decades.

      So all this nonsense dogmatism that monopolies are inefficient or that government regulation strangles innovation needs to die - it's the exact opposite of reality. In honesty, we should look at a combination of corporate efficiency and government scrutiny as the model to strive for. This isn't to say that monopolies (or government regulation) are always helpful when they are allowed to exist unchecked, but to say that our single best example in recent history of a total monopoly is also on of our best examples of effective government regulation, and happens to be the best instance of innovation and technological development in modern history.

    9. Re:Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The norm is to get together and to cooperate - we fight as a last resort

      Depends on where you focus your microscope, there, perfesser.

      Humans are social - yes. And above a (relatively small) certain population size, you see fragmenting into into 'tribes' (see: Dunbarton's Number), and those tribes most certainly can, and do, naturally exist in a state of conflict. See pretty much every sports fan ever, and every social division from town all the way up to country as examples. We cooperate well when there are relatively few of us. Then, we fragment into "us vs them" groups, and competition begins.

      The more people you want to work together harmoniously, the more individuality-stifling rules, restrictions and regulations you need. (See: every military ever) and you rapidly end up with a dysfunctional social structure that does not lend itself well towards innovation, free thinking, and inventiveness.

      On the contrary - if you want optimal results, you allow small groups to compete for tangible rewards, bragging rights, and social rewards such as respect and renown. There are very few places in reality that adhere to your statement that "the norm is to get together and cooperate" as a fundamental principle. We are loyal first to ourselves, then to our tribe, then to other organizations larger than the tribe. The expectation that people will selflessly work for the good of "society" is exactly the reason communism has failed in practice, every time it's been tried.

    10. Re:Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit - DUNBAR's number!

    11. Re:Bollocks. by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Bell Labs did some great work, sure. But there's no reason to expect that any other organization with tons of excess cash wouldn't do as well, or that any other monopoly-supported organization would have, or for that matter some directly government-funded research lab (because that's exactly what Bell Labs was, in effect, a research lab funded by "tax" revenues).

      Bell Labs was one confluence of circumstances which happened to work out fairly well. We think. It's not evidence of anything except that sometimes when you throw lots of money at smart people you get good stuff out.

    12. Re: Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See for instance apple and various other large corporations who don't keep their profits in offshore tax havens, engage in protracted patent lawsuits, including in areas such as design. Rather these shining beacons of capitalism take a long term approach to innovation, seeking to move beyond planned obsolescence and short term product cycles.

    13. Re:Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over and over this topic comes up, and over and over I wonder how in the hell people are so unaware of THE defining example of a government regulated monopoly. That being Ma Bell and Bell Labs, of course. The combo of immense corporate power, focus, and resources, combined with government scrutiny that required them to limit their profits meant that they dumped most excess cash into Bell Labs, which did the lion's share of the fundamental research work that created the information age. Seriously, it's a long list: the transistor, UNIX, cellular networks, information theory for starters... They had all that excess cash from being a government-granted monopoly, but also due to that reason they had to constantly demonstrate that the existence of their monopoly was good for the public. So they dumped the money into research, developed all this revolutionary technology and licensed that tech out cheaply. Bell Labs more than any other single entity deserves to be credited with developing the enabling fundamental technology that's changed the world in the past few decades.

      So you mean Al Gore didn't invent the internet?

  3. pick an analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is it a gym, or a monster truck rally? nevermind I don't care.

  4. Re: not a real gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get all the exercise I need by bashing Micro$oft on swishdash. The $ burns even more calories because I have to press the shift key with it.

  5. How charitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we'll all "compete" in our underwear in our homes at our expense while they profit, and we cheer them on!

  6. Just another way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For rich parasites to feed off of other peoples ideas.

  7. Re: not a real gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to find you, and I'm going to eat you! Wait, never mind, I've got food here (opens Cheeto bag)

  8. OH FUCK YES THANKS YOU MISTER MUSK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ur like a for realsies iron man
    u invented internet money and electric car
    now you have invented ai and space travel
    were super grateful your pr team is constantly shoving your dick down our throats
    we also thanks slashdotr curation team for another quality piece of advertainment

  9. Excelsior! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand! Al who? Al Gore?
    And why would we exercise then open him to the public?

  10. Christian Science Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Christian Science Monitor
    Huh ?

    1. Re:Christian Science Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Despite its name, Christian Science Monitor is actually one of the best news outfits around. Its quality is astoundingly good, its bias is minimal, and it puts most other mainstream news outlets to shame.

    2. Re:Christian Science Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time, before most stuff got moved online, we read news printed on pieces of paper.

    3. Re:Christian Science Monitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but monitors are so eighties. Today it is all about VR headsets.

  11. Re: not a real gym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly, this is true for most of the collective here.

  12. AI wars.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, next thing is - spammers start train AI to send "legit" emails. Wondering, where this gonna end...

  13. Oh no by m76 · · Score: 1

    Nothing like a competitive environment to do half assed uninspired work with major corner cuts.

    1. Re: Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says local poor, stupid motherfucker, who never accomplished anything and is jealous of other's success. News at 11.

  14. Elon is still a duche egomaniac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of funding the existing open source projects that have spent years on machine learning, he has to create his own company. Why people worship this duche is beyond me.

    1. Re:Elon is still a duche egomaniac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're resentful, and can't handle basic spelling. That's pretty embarrassing for you.

    2. Re:Elon is still a duche egomaniac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "duche"? What's that? North Korea's core philosophy, WWII Italy's leader, what?

  15. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't be sharing my work at all. Fucking ridiculous to even expect that.

  16. Got the Singularity Badge by ssssssssssssssssssss · · Score: 1

    Now AIs up to level 50 will obey you.

  17. Wait, what by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Nothing beats a competitive environment to motivate developers

    Wait, really? Because I see when people try to motivate me with a "competitive environment" they're not motivating me with, say money. Which is fine for academics (the Underhanded C guy), but I wouldn't expect group with a $1 billion to do that.

    Also, I don't really think I would send algorithms with high value, and low ability to detect theft (if even protectable) to an offsite location, or especially this offsite location

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  18. One More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Things like this already exist, but these guys are pushing the social, sharing, and gamification of this much more than the others. The existing 'gyms' are more domain specific. Many of them are started by research students or professors and then eventually left to rot right when they're getting useful. I wonder how long this one will last.

    What makes the environment competitive is the ranked 'score board', nothing more. No prizes, etc... I expect people will quickly try to start gaming the system. AI systems are full of trade offs. You can always take someone's code, make a minor tweak to a variable or even just use a different random seed and get a slightly better result.

  19. Want to fund Ai? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    If you want to fund AI, just assemble a team that knows their stuff. AI isn't as mysterious as it sounds. You just need good vision recognition to know your environment and then do goal oriented tasks on obects in the enviornment. www.botcraft.biz

    --
    God spoke to me
  20. why?!! by zlives · · Score: 1

    arn't these the same asshats that said the Al bundy is going to destroy the world?

  21. AI Gym Membership by Digital+Mage · · Score: 1

    You'll know that the AI has surpassed humanity when its able to successfully escape from its monthly gym membership fees.

  22. competition vs humanitarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being competitive is great for business. Teamwork is small and focused. Not so great for humanitarian needs which need to scale fast, be sustainable and benefit everyone.

    AI Gym sounds great for the bro culture of tech. Maybe not so for the rest of tech.