Тёмный

Theory of mind through the lens of algorithms | Andreea Diaconescu | TEDxZurich 

TEDx Talks
Подписаться 41 млн
Просмотров 21 тыс.
50% 1

This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Adequate representation of others’ intentions is the cornerstone of social interactions. This is particularly important when we have to make decisions based on someone else’s advice. Using ecologically valid, socially interactive games and mathematical models, we can capture from people’s responses how they learn about others’ intentions and decide to trust their expert advice.
This computational learning “fingerprint” reflects how any given individual builds and refines an internal model of another person. By fitting learning trajectories from this model to neuroimaging data, we captured where learning about socially-relevant information is represented in the brain. Furthermore, we found that individuals with a specific genetic predisposition, which governs the metabolism of the neuromodulator dopamine, represent intentions uniquely in the brain, in particular in situations when trust is broken. By combining neurocomputational models with genetics, I will highlight how we can obtain a deeper understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying social cognition, a domain where many psychiatric disorders are characterized by particularly salient deficiencies.
Andreea Diaconescu (born in 1982 in Craiova, Romania) is a researcher at the Translational Neuromodeling Unit (TNU) of the Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich & ETH Zurich. Andreea obtained her PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Toronto and led projects at world-renown research institutes, such as Rotman Research Institute and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

Опубликовано:

 

19 ноя 2014

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 15   
@zciliyafilms5508
@zciliyafilms5508 2 года назад
As a mathematics major who has been thinking about questions of consciousness for a while, she's onto something.
@rodrivers4073
@rodrivers4073 4 года назад
Like other people who commented, I found this talk rather confusing. I think this might of been something to do with the contrast between the deep significance of the topic and the way in which it is presented. Theory of mind must be one of the highest level human capabilities, forming the foundation for trust and all kinds of social interaction. Yet the implication is that there is a simple mathematical formula to explain it. The talk seems to leave so much out in its explanation of the algorithms, it’s assumptions and implications. So much so that I followed up by finding some of the speakers research papers. In one it concludes “Overall, our results suggest that humans (i) employ hierarchical generative models to infer on the changing intentions of others, (ii) use volatility estimates to inform decision-making in social interactions, and (iii) integrate estimates of advice accuracy ….“. This kind of seems fair enough because it’s claims are really to do with a very general learning process that is not necessarily specific to theory of mind. I think, I would feel more comfortable if it was presented as a hypothesis as to how there are individual differences in the way that people develop trust, rather than making the claim that it was a mathematical representation of theory of mind. Theory of mind is really very much more complicated and this mathematical model would only be a small part of the algorithms required to give an artificial intelligence the capability to model human intention.
@alinad3038
@alinad3038 3 года назад
Love it! Nicely summarized a difficult topic and its outstanding potential! Inspiring!
@heromaiker4414
@heromaiker4414 2 года назад
I would love to see a video explaining this model in detail
@ArtVandelay99
@ArtVandelay99 8 лет назад
Ce placere imi face sa vad o prezentare asa buna care e data de un om de stiinta care este (i) roman, (ii) de sex feminin, si (iii) cu o atitudine asa de fireasca si lipsita de "aere". Observatia cea mai salienta - privind ca si barbat - nu o voi face, pentru a nu distrage atentia de la observatia mai serioasa de mai sus ;)
@mrjores
@mrjores 7 лет назад
Cred ca deja ati facut-o!
@vivianbreedlove8493
@vivianbreedlove8493 3 года назад
9:37
@atthehops
@atthehops 7 лет назад
I'm confused by this talk and the research. While the talk mentions that the parameters here vary from person to person (4: 36, "internal representations") it fails to apply a context; do we represent everyone the same or do we represent each individually separately, and if so how? There appears to be two algorithms at work perhaps, and the first informs the second. But there also may be two distinct models; one where all individuals are perceived to be represented as the same, the second where each individual is considered separately.
@helixalgorithm3160
@helixalgorithm3160 6 лет назад
Those symbols and graphs did look hazy to me too and the cross section of that patients brain struck me as empty nutshell. However, us humans are limited. Our intellect relies on the well being of our body. Thus it must take its identity as a standard representation of others. And for adaption reasons this identity makes us bond with similar people because their actions are the most common and transparent. As it goes for normal folks, it also works for criminals this way: they perceive other criminals as safe and transparent people. Bottom line is that we lack the resources for discriminate perception (obviously not for the populistic meaning of it). Would it be peaceful if an 8 000 000 000 people lived inside your head? Starting with two distinctive ideas can be already a mess. So individuals are filtered by their resemblance to our dominant representation of person. Filter consists of neural nets in which are billions of local and hundreds of global parameters. Between two extremums of representation models there are billions of spectral lines.
@TheNutCollector
@TheNutCollector Год назад
This talk was confusing and I checked out halfway through. The only thinf I did catch was that she miscatagorized autism. It is a neurological disorder, not a psychiatric disorder.
@TokyoShemp
@TokyoShemp 4 года назад
Vast numbers of people somehow get good grades and then become tools.
@user-tm8wy1hx7n
@user-tm8wy1hx7n Год назад
Thats very well said @tokyo shemp
@wulphstein
@wulphstein 5 лет назад
A theory of mind so worthless, they can't predict human behavior, make us happy, or build a robot that can do dishes. Worthless!
@zciliyafilms5508
@zciliyafilms5508 2 года назад
Can't really blame them if no one has made any large scale attempt to implement their ideas.
@borntodoit8744
@borntodoit8744 Год назад
UPDATE 05May2023 : Four years ago the THEORY OF MIND was just that theory. Today (2023) the TOM is now implemented using AI reasoning models. ChatGPT is the leader to go viral (released Nov2022 by OpenAI). Bard released by Google. Many more coming online everyday free and paid open API's. AI's create domain specific embedded knowledge. AGI's created by daisy chaining domain AI's into a general intelligence. Theres also OpenAssistant which avoids the overhead of training ai with static data by training ai with dynamic data (from the web)
Далее
когда повзрослела // EVA mash
00:40
Просмотров 1,3 млн