HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

yldedly

89 karma · joined September 21, 2021

submissionscomments
yldedly··on DeepMind’s New Language Model, Chinchilla
>It is not true that a piecewise-linear model trained on a set of data points will produce only outputs which are a convex combination of outputs that appear in the training set.

No, and I didn't claim that. I said that, outside the training sample, the model is linear (or quadratic in the case of transformers, thanks for pointing that out) Whether linear or quadratic, a model that has a fixed structure outside the training sample, will obviously not fit data which lies far away from the training sample - i.e. it will not extrapolate. This isn't controversial - it's just something people like to forget about.

>A model trained on images which produced only convex combinations of images in its training set, would clearly be producing what could be called “interpolations between images in its training set”, and taking convex combinations of images is unimpressive.

True! I should have clarified that it's not linear interpolation in pixel space (or input space generally), but interpolation on the latent manifold. This is where the power, as well as limitations of deep learning come from. It's definitely non-trivial to identify the latent manifold of data - different dimensions of the manifold may sometimes even correspond to independent components, as you mention (position of eyes, skin tone,...) (though empirically, finding disentangled latent codes is mostly a function of the random seed).

How does an NN process a new input? It maps the input to the latent manifold.

In the input space, it will be some highly non-linear, non-trivial combination of points, which in terms of Euclidean distance in the input space, could be arbitrarily close or far away.

In the latent space, the output will be some convex combination of nearby points.

Here's the kicker - even if your problem happens to be well-modeled as a continuous, low-dimensional manifold embedded in a high-dimensional space (and many, many problems aren't), and even if you manage to obtain a super dense sampling of input space, so that the manifold can be well-approximated (which is impractical or impossible for most problems),

you will never be able to generalize beyond the data distribution.

Our brains don't stop working as soon as conditions are slightly different from what we've seen before. If there's a slight fog on a Stop sign, we can still see a stop sign. If the Go board is 9x9 rather than 19x19, we can still play Go. If we can play Starcraft on one map, we're pretty much as good on a different map, we don't need to relearn the game over the next several thousand years.

How come? Because we aren't just latent space interpolators. We can extrapolate.

yldedly··on DeepMind’s New Language Model, Chinchilla
It's impossible for a piecewise linear function to be anything other than linear outside the training sample. They are by their definition unable to do anything but interpolate.
yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
I'm not saying that's what they did. I'm saying it's functionally equivalent.
yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
Take 100k joke and explanation tuples as training. Pattern match input joke to training jokes. Edit amalgamation of most structuraly similar training jokes to match content of input joke. Edit corresponding training explanation with same substitutions. Output explanation. Repeat with 100 input jokes, pick the best one.
yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
>I don't know why you think language models are fundamentally unable to deduce the knowledge of the points you mention.

Because the knowledge is not there in the text, the models are not able to represent it, and as seen in the demonstration above, they don't have it.

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
>There is much structural regularity in a large text corpus that is descriptive of relationships in the world.

Sure, there is a lot. But let's say we want to learn what apples are. So we look at occurrences of "apple" in the text corpus, and learn that apples can be eaten, they can be sweet, sometimes they are sour, red, sometimes green, and so on.

Can apples spontaneously change size? Hmm, no idea, no mention of that in the text. Can they be used as a knife? Dunno. If I had an apple in New York 4 minutes ago, can someone else be eating the same apple in Hong Kong now? Dunno. Did apples exist in France two million years ago? Dunno. Can you drive to Saturn in an apple? Dunno.

In short, there's no actual model of what an apple is, as an object in space, connected to other objects by various relationships. If there were, the model could figure out the answers to the questions above by inheritance.

Maybe these particular questions happen to be answered correctly by PaLM. Maybe not, but the next LLM will include this comment in the training corpus.

But the reason GPT-3 and other models tend to make no sense is because their output is not constrained by reality. The text in the training corpus tends to conform to reality, but when you prompt the model with questions that nobody would ever write text about, the illusion falls away:

Q: How many eyes does a giraffe have? A: A giraffe has two eyes.

Q: How many eyes does my foot have? A: Your foot has two eyes.

Q: How many eyes does a spider have? A: A spider has eight eyes.

Q: How many eyes does the sun have? A: The sun has one eye.

Q: How many eyes does a blade of grass have? A: A blade of grass has one eye.

Q: How do you sporgle a morgle? A: You sporgle a morgle by using a sporgle.

Q: How many bonks are in a quoit? A: There are three bonks in a quoit.

Q: How many rainbows does it take to jump from Hawaii to seventeen? A: It takes two rainbows to jump from Hawaii to seventeen.

Q: Which colorless green ideas sleep furiously? A: Ideas that are colorless, green, and sleep furiously are the ideas of a sleep furiously.

Q: Do you understand these questions? A: I understand these questions.

(from https://lacker.io/ai/2020/07/06/giving-gpt-3-a-turing-test.h...)

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
Understanding of what? What the joke is about? Then no, it has no idea what any of it means. The syntactic structure of jokes? Sure. Feed it 10 thousand jokes that are based on a word found in two otherwise disjoint clusters (pod of whales, pod of TPUs), with a subsequent explanation. It's fair to say it understands that joke format.

If you somehow manage to invent a kind of joke never before seen in the vast training corpus, that alone would be impressive. If PaLM can then explain that joke, I will change my mind about language models, and then probably join the "NNs are magic you guys" crowd, because it wouldn't make any sense.

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
It's a pretty big deal, and there's a big difference between a Markov chain and a deep language model - the Markov chain will quickly converge, while the language model can scale with the data.

But the way these models are talked about is misleading. They don't "answer questions", "translate", "explain jokes", or anything of that sort. They predict missing words. Since the network is so large, and the dataset has so many examples, it can scale up the method of 1) Find a part of the network which encodes training data that is most similar to the prompt 2) Put the words from the prompt in place of the corresponding words in the encoding of the training data

i.e. pattern matching. So if it has seen a similar question to the one given in the prompt (and given that it's trained on most of the internet, it will find thousands of uncannily similar questions), it will produce a convincing answer.

How is that different from a human answering questions? A human uses pattern matching as part of the process, sure. But they also use, well, all the other abilities that together make up intelligence. They connect that meaningless symbols of the sentence to the mental representations that model the world - the ones pertaining to whatever the question is about.

If I ask a librarian "What is the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics?", and they come back with a textbook and proceed to read the answer from page 345, my reaction is not "Wow, you must be a genius physicist!", it's "Wow, you sure know where to find the right book for any question!". In the same way, I'm impressed with GPT for being a nifty search engine, but then again, Google search does a pretty good job of that already.

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
>At any rate, I don't care if it only works one in ten times

>you are asking me to disbelieve plain evidence

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
It doesn't. It's pattern matching, and you're seeing cherry picked examples. The pattern matching is enough to give the illusion of understanding. There's plenty of articles where more thorough testing reveals the difference. Here are two: https://medium.com/@melaniemitchell.me/can-gpt-3-make-analog...

But you could also just try one of these models, and see for yourself. It's not exactly subtle.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/22/1007539/gpt3-ope...

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
Sounds like no amount of math will convince you otherwise.
yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
https://medium.com/analytics-vidhya/you-dont-understand-neur...
yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
The point is that not only is it impossible to infer the structure of the world from text, deep learning is incapable of learning about or even representing the world.

The reason language makes sense to us is that it triggers the right representations. It does not make sense intrinsically, it's just a sequence of symbols.

Learning about the world requires at least causal inference, modular and compact representations such as programming languages, and much smarter learning algorithms than random search or gradient descent.

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
No, no matter how many piecewise linear functions you compose, the result is still piecewise linear.
yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
Really? Better inform all the researchers working on this that they're wasting their time then: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.05016

More fundamentally, any finite neural net is either constant or linear outside the training sample,depending on the activation function. Unless you design special neurons like in the paper above, which solves this specific problem for arithmetic, but not the general problem of extrapolation.

yldedly··on Pathways Language Model (PaLM): Scaling to 540B parameters
The structure of having X apples in Y buckets is the same as the structure in the expression "X * Y", as long as the expression exists in a context that can parse it using the rules of arithmetic, such as a human, or a calculator.

These language models lack context, not just for arithmetic, but for everything. They can't parse "X * Y" for any X and Y, they've just associated the expression with the right answer for so many values of X and Y, that we get fooled into thinking they know the rules.

We get fooled into thinking they've learned the structure of the world. But they've only learned the structure of text.

yldedly··on Neurosymbolic Programming (2021) [pdf]
I got a lot out of this course https://people.csail.mit.edu/asolar/SynthesisCourse/ from one of the authors of OP.
yldedly··on Neurosymbolic Programming (2021) [pdf]
I dabble in it. FlashFill in Excel uses program synthesis, but yeah, not many applications exist yet. Have you seen DreamCoder?
yldedly··on Probabilistic Machine Learning: Advanced Topics
But you make the assumption that the data can be generated by your model, and your variance estimate only holds asymptotically.
yldedly··on Probabilistic Machine Learning: Advanced Topics
Yes, but that's true of all statistics. You have to make some assumptions to get off the ground. If you estimate parameter variance the frequentist way, you also make assumptions about the parameter distribution.
yldedly··on Probabilistic Machine Learning: Advanced Topics
Of course it does. You can put hyperpriors on the priors, and hyper hyperpriors on the hyperpriors, but the regress has to stop somewhere. What is your point?
yldedly··on Probabilistic Machine Learning: Advanced Topics
To get the prediction variance in a Bayesian treatment, you integrate over the posterior of the parameters - surely computing or approximating the posterior counts as considering parameter variance?
yldedly··on Not everyone should meditate
From personal experience and what I've read, there's a clear dose response relationship. If you meditate enough, especially if do a lot of insight (vipassana) meditation without doing much concentration (samatha) or Metta meditation, you will begin to deconstruct yourself. That's what it does. Often you will find a new, and better way to relate to your conscious experience, but sometimes you break things and they don't get fixed.
yldedly··on Machine learning is still too hard for software engineers
Right, I see. That's not really possible imo. For things like mlops, sure. But model development, selection, evaluation? From what I've seen, it's exactly when engineers reach for standard tools without giving thought to how it applies to the given problem that they do a bad job.
yldedly··on Machine learning is still too hard for software engineers
In my experience, both are true. I'm more on the ML side, and I can tell I don't have the kind of routine and habits that good software engineers have, though I'm learning. But on the other hand, and I've seen this from software engineers who've made the transition to ML, and clearly have a good handle on the concepts (in one case even published papers in ML journals), they don't seem to have the intuition that allows them to select the right tool for the job, or understand when a given technique is appropriate; you could call that "modeling maturity" - a combination of mathematical maturity and the skill of relating domain knowledge to modeling choices.
yldedly··on Scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and competition (2017)
I started a PhD believing that scientists still held on to the habit of truth. The gradual realization that modern science rewards bullshit artists, and that great research happens in spite, not because of today's science culture, is one of the most bitter disappointments of my life. I feel robbed of one of the main reasons to be proud of being human.
yldedly··on The dawn of post-theory science?
>There's no guarantee that the phenomenon we're interested in will be expressible in an F=ma manner. Complexity exists.

That's a fair point. But having a good theory doesn't necessarily mean that it's expressible as a succinct equation. The theory of how metabolism works is insanely complicated, but it's a good theory nonetheless, because every part of it plays a functional role, it explains a wide range of phenomena and it's logically compatible with other successful theories. None of that holds for deep learning models.

yldedly··on The dawn of post-theory science?
Karl Popper just turned in his grave.
yldedly··on Scientists recreated classic origin-of-life experiment and made a new discovery
Can't find a good general intro, but these articles take this viewpoint:

https://science.mit.edu/life-away-from-equilibrium/

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/3/423

Edit: Here's a good intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10cVVHKCRWw

yldedly··on Scientists recreated classic origin-of-life experiment and made a new discovery
One interesting aspect is that living organisms are in thermodynamic non-equilibrium, while most dead matter always evolves towards equilibrium.
← PreviousPage 2 of 3Next →