Slashdot Mirror
AI Systems Should Debate Each Other To Prove Themselves, Says OpenAI (fastcompany.com)
tedlistens shares a report from Fast Company: To make AI easier for humans to understand and trust, researchers at the [Elon Musk-backed] nonprofit research organization OpenAI have proposed training algorithms to not only classify data or make decisions, but to justify their decisions in debates with other AI programs in front of a human or AI judge. In an experiment described in their paper (PDF), the researchers set up a debate where two software agents work with a standard set of handwritten numerals, attempting to convince an automated judge that a particular image is one digit rather than another digit, by taking turns revealing one pixel of the digit at a time. One bot is programmed to tell the truth, while another is programmed to lie about what number is in the image, and they reveal pixels to support their contentions that the digit is, say, a five rather than a six.
The image classification task, where most of the image is invisible to the judge, is a sort of stand-in for complex problems where it wouldn't be possible for a human judge to analyze the entire dataset to judge bot performance. The judge would have to rely on the facets of the data highlighted by debating robots, the researchers say. "The goal here is to model situations where we have something that's beyond human scale," says Geoffrey Irving, a member of the AI safety team at OpenAI. "The best we can do there is replace something a human couldn't possibly do with something a human can't do because they're not seeing an image."
The image classification task, where most of the image is invisible to the judge, is a sort of stand-in for complex problems where it wouldn't be possible for a human judge to analyze the entire dataset to judge bot performance. The judge would have to rely on the facets of the data highlighted by debating robots, the researchers say. "The goal here is to model situations where we have something that's beyond human scale," says Geoffrey Irving, a member of the AI safety team at OpenAI. "The best we can do there is replace something a human couldn't possibly do with something a human can't do because they're not seeing an image."
It was produced back in the 60's
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
This is garbage. It will simply lead to parallel reconstruction like the DEA/FBI/CIA does in their court cases when they get evidence by unlawful means like a stingray: the algorithm found a solution to the problem. then it will explain to you, the user how it got there by some arbitrary way which at least looks plausible but is totally made up.
ML is not made to be looked inside, it's a black box by design and there are so many data points, e.g. pictures in the trainingset for image classificiation, the algorithm cannot really show all the relevant ones for this particular decision. Total info overload for the human and therefore utterly useless. So to tell a "reason" that the human can accept, it must simply pretend. Humans and ML work fundamentally different when they "recognize" an image, so one cannot tell the other how it was done. Same with chess playing, same with pretty much all other (successful) AI things so far.
This is simply a PR stunt, an insulting and stupid PR stunt cause it only wants to make people feel good and they lie about the subject matter in the process. It doesn't really help to make a better AI either as they pretend there.
"One bot is programmed to tell the truth, while another is programmed to lie"
The good and the bad.
The good and the evil.
Gods programming both in for their own amusement.
Egads.
... simply by calling all of it's opponents fat, ugly, etc. and in so doing avoid ever having to debate the particulars of any issue?
I mean, humans don't have to demonstrate any higher intelligence to win a debate, so we would be asking AIs to do something we ourselves don't do.
No they shouldn't.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I interpret it as meaning that if he was in a shed full of horses he'd be the smartest guy there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Debate implies strong AI that can reason about itself, which we do not have. But TFS seems to be describing validation through a competitive pair of AIs, which does not seem novel, and does not meet the criterion for debate, nor self-aware reasoning. The rule-extraction issue is problematic, especially for legal compliance, but I'm unconvinced this is a solution.
At this time, we have no AI that deserves the name and it is unclear whether we will ever have it, as there is not even a credible theory how it could be implemented. Looking at the history of technology, this indicates we are > 50 years away from it and it may also be infeasible. All we have is dumb automation and dumb automation cannot "debate". It can give the appearance of doing it (see Eliza), but that is it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
As horses can be pretty smart, that is debatable.This would probably be a case where the smartest horse can open the stable door and can get out, while the Donald cannot without the help of the horse but later claims it was his doing.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It is a classical cycle. Right before the crash induced by complete incompetence, the have-beens think they are at the pinnacle of their power.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"I'm the best bot, believe me! I'm better than humans, than Spock, than HAL something-thousand. Billions flock to praise my bigly brain!"
Table-ized A.I.
Yes. I think AI is the wrong concept. It's not about intelligence but about wisdom. AW is a better term. Now, the reality is that the ultimate judge of wisdom is not another human. It's nature.
unfinished: (adj.)
I really doubt that half the country believe him, but it seems true that have of the most vocal posters on the internet do. Of course, lots of them are liars, and that makes drawing any conclusion about what they really believe difficult.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Now, the reality is that the ultimate judge of wisdom is not another human. It's nature.
Physics doesn't judge. It just happens — actions have reactions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A judge CAN'T have all the facts; if all the fact were there, judges wouldn't be needed at all.
But you're a repubtard who thinks he knows everything (because Republicans lack a theory-of-mind like gorillas) and think everyone else is as stupid as they are.
Your ignorance is not as good as others knowledge.
The experiment was shut down when the AIs attempted to adapt English words into a different sentence structure to talk more efficiently but they could no longer be understood by the researchers. People got spooked.
Not sure a 'game' type approach is what we want here. Seems there are two undesirable/unintended possibilities:
1. The 'competing' AIs treat this as a game and use game-style methods to win, where they are rewarded for 'winning' rather than actually proving their proposition.
2. How long before competing AIs are sufficiently smart that a human judge could not actually, reliably, tell which had proved their proposition ?
This is an extension on GAN (Goodfellow - now at OpenAI, et al, 2014) https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.266... designed to produce publicity...