I find these kind of articles just perplexing. Research is incremental, tiny steps pushing the boundaries of knowledge. DeepMind has done things that were thought to be decades away using deep reinforcement learning. These research advancements may or may not end up being important for AGI in the future, but that's just what research is.
It's refuting the premise that supervised RL becomes less supervised because you put the feedback in a handcrafted function and use a neural network. Deep RL in its current state should be grouped with Supervised RL, in other words (which is why I personally think that imitation learning is a great way forward, in contrast with the author). The issue is the amount of interactive tweaking and lack of a natural reward function that prevents DeepRL from being unsupervised.
AlphaZero is not supervised, in the sense that it learned from known correct actions (earlier versions of AlphGo did learn from online games). So although it needed human supervision, sure, it didn’t need us to provide correct answers.
The authors point does somewhat stand that you don’t have the problem of reward engineering in board games so they are a dead end from that point of view - they skirt around the core problem instead of tackling it.
AlphaZero only works on video games. If you remove its ability to judge progress by game score, which is a reward function (though not the one used, due to delayed reward issues), then it's not capable of finding its feedback. It only works in constructed environments where the environment provides the reward function implicitly. Maybe we can video-game-ify laundry folding sufficiently? I'm doubtful.
Nothing perplexing about it, there have been a multitude of grandiose promises by the AI area and I think people are just getting tired of it so they might expect more radical results at the current point of time.
Research is indeed incremental and revolutions only happen after critical mass has been accumulated in one or more areas, leading to a breakthrough that wasn't possible before. Sure.
And since that's true, let's just temper the expectations of the wider public. Investors and governments might need the grandiose claims in order for the area to receive money but everybody else needs a balanced and objective take on the question "Where is the area right now?"
If it can't fold laundry, or cook by physically picking stuff up from the fridge, well, let's just say it out loud and be done with it. That way nobody will be perplexed. :P
I don't agree with this article but it is not perplexing at all. Dead ends exist. The universe is highly, highly limited and everything eventually has a dead end. The question is, are we there yet?
For certain things yes, for other things no. But to assume there is never a dead end and that everything can be overcome through incremental development and research is patently a false assumption. There are many examples of dead ends within research and development.
Thus in short his proposal is likely wrong, but it is not a perplexing proposal. Nor is his proposal guaranteed to be wrong and there is a possibility he may be right. For example Elon predicted self driving will be a finished problem in a year. Guess what?
I actually sort of dislike this whole "perplexing" attitude that some people have. It's like yeah his opinion seems wrong or his opinion is not the norm, but there's no need to treat it as if it's "perplexing." It's like you observing animal behavior in a lab and your so "perplexed" on how someone can have a differing opinion.
People can have differing opinions and sometimes these opinions can be right and overturn an existing paradigm.
Instead of saying you find someone perplexing or strange, just say you disagree. It's more civil and it respects the underdogs of the past who fought against overwhelming odds to change entire schools of thought and bring our knowledge closer to answering the ultimate question.
So perplexing how some people are so rude nowadays. See what I did there?
I actually find this technique used a lot on HN. They disagree with someone but they want to insult them without violating HN rules so they treat the person as if they're some kind of lab experiment and observing how they're behavior is so "strange" or "perplexing". The admins likely fail to see just how insulting these kinds of comments are.
Perplexing is when someone jumps off a cliff while detonating a stick of dynamite. Someone with a differing opinion is NOT perplexing.
"I find it so perplexing that someone would think that... despite that... " and so on.
Really people should call it out. It's rude and manipulative.
It's possible they are actually perplexed. At least in my experience, there are a good number of people who can't hold in their head different perspectives on a topic. They just can't. The world is simple and black and white in their mind. And they aren't necessarily just plain old dumb, and they aren't uneducated. They just see black and white everywhere.
The world is full of gradients but also binary (aka black & white) systems. Charge is binary, computers are binary, life and death are binary. Systems can be either binary or gradients if one person believes something is binary or discreet that's his opinion and it's not automatically wrong.
This assumption that gradients are everywhere/ubiquitous/superior is not correct.
No wait let me reframe what I said.
How is it that someone can exist that can't comprehend the fact that many things in the universe aren't gradients and that they are in fact black and white? That is SO perplexing. It's baffling to me how someone can think like that and basically walk up to someone and examine them like some sort of sub human and announce that this other person is so perplexing because they don't think like them??
Like how come these people don't announce these things in public? They don't go to someones face and tell them that their opinions and behavior is so baffling? Why? Maybe it's because most people are aware that saying something like this is offensive. So they save it for HN where they can announce this garbage all the time without retribution from the other party.
It's just so perplexing to me how you, daniel, are unable to comprehend this. You say these "black and white" people are everywhere. Do you walk up to them in real life and tell them how "perplexing" you think they are? No. You don't. But you probably do it all the time on HN. So baffling this behavior.... I mean your not necessarily just plain old dumb and you aren't uneducated... yet you still do this on HN and can't see that it's an insult on HN just like it is in real life. So baffling that a human exists that thinks like this. I am truly perplexed.
This conclusion was arrived at because you found it perplexing that someone had a binary opinion on a topic and refused to consider a gradient.
Why would someone having a binary opinion on a topic be perplexing? Binary things exist. Thus it would only be perplexing if you felt that binary things didn't exist. That's the logic derived from reading your statements. Nothing is assumed here, it is a logical derivation.
Of course, reality is far more nuanced than that. You are fully aware that binary things exist. You're not stupid. But than again neither is the person you're "perplexed" about. He's fully aware that gradients exist as well. Nobody is actually so stupid that they believe binary things don't exist nor is anyone really so stupid as to believe gradients don't exist. Such a belief is completely ludicrous. We ALL know this. There is nothing to be "perplexed" about here.
The true nature of what's going on is that both of you only had a difference of opinion. But instead of discussing it in a civil way you decided to call anyone with a differing opinion than you "perplexing." Your opponent was OBVIOUSLY not someone who sees the world in black and white, just like you are OBVIOUSLY not someone who only sees the world in gradients.
But it gets even more nuanced then that. I'm willing to bet you weren't even aware you were being insulting at the time.Let me make this more clear. You don't suffer from brain damage, so you're also 100% aware that calling someones behavior "perplexing" to their face is insulting. Whether it'd be on HN or in real life.
You know this, you're aware of this yet at the very moment when you called someones behavior "perplexing" on HN you lost all awareness. The human mind is biased and contradictory. It lies to others and to itself to justify things such that certain actions can be taken at certain times.
Your brain was too busy constructing a retort to use against an opponent that you never were able to see the hypocrisy within yourself. Would I call that perplexing? No. It's actually normal. Lots of people use the "perplexing" tactic on HN, and likely all of them have the same hypocritical blindness to the rudeness of such an action. It's not you who was biased it's always your opponent who sees everything as black and white. People are ironically biased towards always seeing other people as biased rather than themselves.
In fact, the people who are the least biased aren't the people calling out others, the person who is the least biased is the person who is aware of their own biases.
Well. Now you're aware. And hopefully you'll wise up and be less rude. Instead of asking me to re-read your content, why don't you re-read my content. The whole point of the example is to illustrate the hypocrisy and unreasonableness and rudeness of the "perplexing" tactic. Yeah, I'm fully aware you're not so stupid as to think the world is never black and white, the whole point was to illustrate how you're likely fully aware that your opponent isn't so stupid as to think the world can never be a gradient.
everywhere is in my sentence. Some people see black and white everywhere. That's perplexing. Given the word everywhere is there, I'm going to guess that you can now see that your derivation isn't logical.
It's an internet forum, so no big deal, but you've gone on quite an accusatory rant without actually reading my comment properly.
Yeah it isn't a big deal. That's why your able to call someone perplexing to their face on an internet forum. You're clearly not doing this in real life.
>Some people see black and white everywhere.
Very unlikely someone is actually like this. We see gradients with our physical eyes with brightness and saturation, we hear gradients with sound for volume. Our human bodies are tuned to analyze and perceive gradients. It is fundamentally impossible to see black and white everywhere.
These people only see black and white in certain topics you are discussing with them, and it is not automatically "perplexing" that they disagree with you on those topics.
People like you are everywhere as well. What type of person are you? Someone who accuses people who disagree with you as people who see things only in terms of black and white.
>It's an internet forum, so no big deal, but you've gone on quite an accusatory rant without actually reading my comment properly.
Not only am I accusatory. But I'm accusing you of something that is 100% true. And I would tell you this to your face in real life. Think about it.
In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior intended to dominate – to enhance one's status over – other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man's basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers.
Why isn't the person I responded to replying to what I wrote? Probably because he's been dominated.
This post serves to win the game and lay out ammunition for others to use in the future.
Every culture and conversational arena has rules that must be obeyed when playing the dominance game. By pointing out how someone is violating the spirit of HN etiquette I dominate the other party by elucidating how the other person isn't playing by the rules. I can link to this thread in the future for anyone who wants to call someone "perplexing" in the future.
You should note that dominance games exist in both men and women. Everybody flexes sometimes but most people are never self aware about it.
You should also know that relating gender to behavior even though it's scientifically valid is a cultural no no. Expect to lose the dominance game should you ever go this route as you'll be labelled as sexist or people will become incredulous. "Are you literally implying men and women can behave differently? That's preposterous!!"
There's a subtle veiled insult here when you called me a woman. It's also a little off topic, but whatever. The obvious move would be to call you sexist as the rules of our modern culture say it's an easy win. I can also just be silent and you automatically lose as others vote you down. But you aren't technically wrong about the differences between male and female behavior. So I won't take that route because it's cheap.
Either way you are completely off. I'm a dude. I'm a heterosexual male doing what heterosexual male humans typically do in the wild. I seek to dominate ass holes who call others perplexing. I dominate by being fucking completely right and not by using cheap conversational tactics. This entire post was the typical male testosterone fueled maneuver. I'm curious as to why you weren't able to see that? Maybe it's because you're female? Go read a psychology book on gender. Maybe that will help you understand the male mind better.
