Even sticks can count as technology, if implemented as tools in some way. (Combination of tools and methods to achieve some goals. Usually making a task easier, or doing something else that improves conditions for the tool user.) Obviously such is not the latest and greatest technology, which seems to be the definition this video is going for.
When I was a kid I definitely would have said no. But I remember at some point being taught that anything along the line of a pencil or chair was technology, and that sunk in. But I imagine a lot of people still have that initial instinct.
Your point still stands, but neverless the scissors have a butt load of tech in the background that us normies aren't aware of (material science). Just wanted to mention that the humble pair of scissors deserves some praise.
I was thinking the same thing. We take for granted a lot of the cool tech around us all the time. Levers and Pulleys and other simple machines most of all. But rob makes a good point that people dont commonly think of them as tech even though perhaps they should. Language is a cruel mistress.
Would you consider a scissors company a "tech company" the same way you'd consider Apple and SpaceX tech companies? What about post-its? Is 3M a tech company?
@@columbus8myhw 3M's company description is literally: "applies science and innovation to make a real impact by igniting progress and inspiring innovation in lives and communities across the globe." That sounds really tech company to me
I think if you took someone to a scissors factory and showed them all the machines and equipment of the production line, they'd call that technology. But not so much the scissors themselves
"Like, there's no point asking for feedback if you're already pretty sure you know what the answer is, right?" …Do you want me to answer that question?
If you think about it, this is a lot closer to how a human learns. A human won't constantly bug you for feedback every single time it does something, nor will it learn how to do something properly from a standardised function (e.g. exam mark schemes). A human will independently use its available knowledge, and occasionally ask for help when it's unsure what to do.
@@dannygjk You don't correct a kid every time they talk using improper grammar or mix up word order. You correct them every now and then, and they learn over time combined with observing how other humans talk.
Damn, that actually sounds likely... - Here is my idea: since AI will take all our jobs... There will be one job of the future: *Specifying preference.* - I actually don't hate it. :D
... thinking about it: It kind of is the ideal job, isn't it? Do we, as humans, even want to do anything more than that? - Our job will be saying what we want in the world, and how we want things to work... It will even work as a voting mechanism for policies since they will be run by AI - that figures out how to best match our preferences... - I think this is the way... (or at least a good direction for now ^^)
I can already imagine a complex AI which is surprisingly good at a wide variety of tasks... and turns out to have hired a load of people in India to do its work for it.
@@GrixM lol i did exactly what you and OP did, only I was like 'okay okay that's enough of that' after about 2 minutes. still a brilliant video overall though xd.
Maybe your evaluation of his teaching is: Good teacher = true Because he brings understanding lesser teachers could not in the same time and effort on your part.
I have watched all of Robert's videos several times. Its perfectly paced, well considered and clearly communicated. There is so much there its interesting to watch, sleep on it, and watch again later to catch more. I also enjoy the presentation and multiple interesting ways of presenting things like word popups and cut to screen as well as some graphics and clips. If it helps with demographics I am a former software engineer and still work in I.T.
@@DDvargas123 I mean the input already exist its just need to be collected, its kinda going full circle but it would be interesting to see if you can speed up the reward model that way
@@thehypnotoad5184 but the ai will find ways to exploit it. Nothing stops us from giving the footage and having a human checking it from time to time telling it to stop using it's head as a catapult when the ai was supposed to be running
I am in a room by myself and I audibly cussed when I heard that openai and deepmind we're working together on something. Google's apparent lack of concern with safety is one of the reasons I want your videos sir
Brian Doe why is two AIs with different modes of thought working together a problem? Humans have different modes(parts of the brain specialized for different tasks) that combine the inputs from these disparate programs into a coherent idea of the world. Imagine trying to learn about your surroundings when the only sense you have is the ability to differentiate temperature and you will understand why certain AIs need others to help with things.
@@naturegirl1999 my main concern with AI is not the expediency that it gets to general intelligence. My concern with a i is the safety mechanisms and their capabilities when it gets to general intelligence. Google has multiple times proven to be unconcerned about the safety question in This is highly concerning
Humans being able to simulate problems in their head to predict different outcomes is one of their greatest strengths, it means they can be confronted with new experiences they haven’t evolved specifically for and come up with a solution from a list of possible solutions and stand a much greater chance of overcoming the problem without dying
You, sir, remain one of the most interesting educators in RU-vid. The effort you've put in to making this video watchable and entertaining really shows. There's not too many people I can watch for nearly 18 minutes in front of a beige backdrop and still be hooked.
>We'll talk about them in a later video //Gets hyped, realises that it's the latest video on the channel, gets reminded of Patreon, enlists to see the video a bit sooner
It's definitely funny when you frame it this way, but it's also interesting to note the similarity here with the brain. The brain is a system of interconnected neural networks which each are responsible for certain aspects of our thinking capabilities. It's not too hard to imagine the connection between the logical extension of the results in this video and the architecture of the human brain.
@@wilhem13 means that your content information density is quite high. No way I can speed up mathologer for example. But easily 2-3x some non-narrated restoration videos
12:19 I approve very greatly of your use of "eachother" as one word. The world needs this change. I don't know if you and I talked about this at all at the EA Hotel, but I've been trying to convince everyone to write it like that.
I started to do that, but "spell correct" too often comes on and I've gotten used to following automated corrections. I'm wondering if automated (or even AI writing assistants) will slow the evolution of language and grammar, and perhaps even pronunciation will remain in stasis not because of any changing dialect cues of social status, origin (or adopted location), or otherwise, but because of how our "correcting" algorithms are programmed in communication devices.
I've been writing "eachother" for 15 years now. I've even told off some of my English teachers for trying to correct me. Heck... I remember back in 6th grade, I think, telling off my teacher for incorrectly correcting another student that had written "ain't". I was an opinionated 11-year-old, haha.
@@discipleoferis549 I told my high school English teach that I was attempting to turn "eachother" into one word, and if she'd be willing to not mark it wrong when I used it. She was super on board.
I'm not surprised this result is amazing considering both OpenAI and DeepMind worked on it. I dream of working for one of them after uni. Thank you for explaining the paper so clearly and in an entertaining way!
With regards to puppeteering the robot to perform a backflip. There is a whole community of the Toribash game who do exactly that. It is a game in which every time period (measured in ms) you decide which joints to flex, extend, hold rigid and relax.
Mate, you are brilliant. Great content with a philosophical flavour. The last part about Patreon is probably the only thing that actually convinced me about supporting content creators on Patreon. Well done mate. Well done.
This is what I always thought of making a good robot - you give a feedback to it, while it learns, just like parents to a child. Very good, that this concept has been put into practice. It is definitely going to be helpful for AI companies making robots for their clients, who do not know exactly, what they need. The guy from "two minute papers" would say "what a great time to be alive!" :-)
hmm. If samples are chosen based on unusual examples where the ensemble disagrees, what happens if the exploiting strategy has high agreement among members of the ensemble? It would never show up to the human for "correction" right, because the ensemble is confident about it? So rather then having to trust the network that performs the task, we now have to trust the ensemble training the reward function?
This is really on point for a problem I am trying to solve now. I do some computer vision for which it is way too complicated to create training data and way too complicated to write reward function, but it's the "You know it, when you see it" type of thing. Thanks for making this video ;)
This is something I've been thinking a lot about as it could work similarly to how we tend to train children. It seems like you could first train a machine learning algorithm to recognize social cues (lingual and physical responses) regarding it's behavior and build a reward function based on that. I think you still run into some complicated reward hacking situations like the machine wanting to force certain reactions. But it seems like it would get us closer.
This way of thinking is exactly what's getting me interested in this field. I cannot help but feel there is a comparison to be made between the in-exact nature of child raising, and trying to "teach" artificial intelligence. General or otherwise. Hell, think of an individual cell within the body as an AGI and the totality of what humans are seems like a miracle.
This way of thinking is exactly what's getting me interested in this field. I cannot help but feel there is a comparison to be made between the in-exact nature of child raising, and trying to "teach" artificial intelligence. General or otherwise. Hell, think of an individual cell within the body as an AGI and the totality of what humans are seems like a miracle.
This is a tough problem since watching to the end is probably valued by RU-vid's AI, and even though you and I wouldn't mind, some would. So how do the short term gains of the sponsorship compare to the long term dividends of the RU-vid algorithm and extra subscribers, which increase visibility over time (perhaps by a minor amount) ?
9:00 There's a game called Toribash where you do exactly this, but with a more complex body. It lets you specify the states of all the joints in 1 second tine segments, playing out like speed clocks from chess when playing multiplayer.
I remember that game! You could pull someones head off and stuff. Pretty difficult to master though. Also, the game kept sending me happy birthday emails for years and years. I didn't get one last time :(
"It is easier to write a program to evaluate a solution". This is also why artificial music composition does not produce even half-decent outcomes yet. Creating an artificial listener (or many of them) is still far down on the to-do list.
There have been no research (that I know of) that uses human reward modeling for music generation. It could be the next breakthrough in music generation!
Hi Rob, Firstly many thanks for the amazing videos you produce - as a fellow Dev and Techie i find your content and delivery style some of the best and most informative on RU-vid. Could i request a future video in which you explain the coding side of developing a basic AI Agent? It would be great to learn how to explore some of the concepts and interesting problems your videos highlight. There's a lot of frameworks, open source projects and tutorials out there already, but they present a very black box, end result focused approach rather than explaining what components we have and how they are working together to reach the end result..the type of complexity you seem to be fantastic at explaining :)
Technology is just another word for "Tool". Everything created by humans of some utility is a tool, and is therefore technology. I wasnt aware there was confusion around the definition.
Queueing was created by humans and is of some utility. Queueing is not technology. Stand-up comedy was created by humans, and is of some utility. Stand-up comedy is not technology. It is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to write a definition that doesn’t raise exceptions, which I suspect was the point Robert was trying to make. Your example only confirms the point.
Not to get into a huge discussion here, but both of those could be loosely defined as technologies. What are jokes if not tools of social interaction? What is queuing if not a tool for social order (assuming you mean standing in line and not the computer science definition, which is also a technology)
@@BinaryReader I continue to agree, and disagree. A joke and a queue might be tools, but 'technology' is more of a push. technology /tɛkˈnɒlədʒi/ - noun the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry. "advances in computer technology" machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge. "it will reduce the industry's ability to spend money on new technology" the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences. There is perhaps some science to comedy, but a social convention like queueing is hardly an application of science, so much as an emergent social expediency, or whatever. I'm not getting 'engineering' from either, except in the loosest sense. Alternatively, to take the definition to its logical conclusion, all human action is technology and the definition loses its usefulness. But you're right - no potential for confusion whatsoever ;) At best, there is comparative 'technology-ness' - a joke might be technology, but it's less technology than a smartphone. Maybe moreso than a punch to the face. Maybe it depends on context. Still works to make the 'this is not straightforward to define' point.
@@BinaryReader Perhaps it's an Americanism, but there's another definition of "tool", and you're well on your way towards demonstrating it. Both of you actually, because none of us need or want an in depth discussion of the definitions of either word. Rob's brief mention of it doesn't warrant further commentary.
Rob’s definition kind of closely matches Strong Bad’s definition, of “anything that’s really cool and you don’t know how it works”. Ryan North’s definition includes language, and I think basically any technique which has been invented. But yeah, like Rob says, it isn’t a big deal how we define it. Slightly different definitions can can be used in different social circles, or even in different conversations among the same people.
The year is 2069. A computer is granted the prize for solving the P vs NP problem. Despite the judges being unable to confirm that the overly-complex thesis the computer came up with was correct or not, it looked quite correct to all experts. A mathematician was quoted saying: "...I mean, in the two new branches of mathematics that the computer invented, the math does check out." It is unknown what the computer will do with the prize, but several paperclip factories report being contacted shortly after the prize money was deposited.
The first videos I saw u in were the computerphile videos on AI which I enjoyed a lot, and thanks, this video was very interesting too! Also thank you for not wanting to waste 60 seconds of our time ^^
...i don't know much about this area of IT, but the first thing that came to my mind after reading the video title was: "oh, yeah, what's a better idea than creating a black box that nobody knows how and why it works, and what its boundary conditions actually are? why, yes, creating such a black box without even explaining to it what is good and what is bad! BRILLIANT!"
@@Vode_ika True, I was thinking in the context of someone sitting there teaching you, like in this video. So I guess the answer is just unsupervised learning? Although I could have sworn Rob already did a video on that... Maybe it was someone else on Computerphile?
Isn’t the answer “think very hard, write things down, and when you can do so safely, try many options, test your previous ideas both by the results of the options you took and by more thinking, repeat”?
@@drdca8263 but that all requires some way of evaluating your results (aka having a reward function that teaches you)... It seems weird that there would be a way without that. I mean... the information has to come from somewhere...
I would suspect the answer is, in fact, something like googling it, but this, of course, requires a pretty complete internal model of the world to start generating and testing against your own predictions. I'm struggling to think of alternatives that aren't just this in disguise though: the best I have is looking at a small set of successful examples and trying to break down from the solution used what the problem is, so you have something to test your own solutions against. If there's a decent way to describe that that isn't going to fall prey to small training data issues like overfitting, I'm excited: that's starting to really sound like the casual meaning of learning!
I think your opening question (what is technology) exemplifies the difficulties in making an intelligent AI (and the statement I just made is another example). Humans have a good ability to interpret things, or simply put, we know it when we see it. we know what technology is a, we understand what pollution is a, but trying to put those terms and a definite box is very difficult and, and unfortunately that's how computers pretty much operate. We give them specific instructions, and that's what they do. Your channel is excellent, thanks for the interesting content!
Watching this video made be realize how much corporations are like poorly programmed artificial intelligence, like the stamp collecting AI that decided to "Kill all humans." We take our instrumental goal of maximizing profits and assign that as the corporation's terminal goal. In pursuing it's terminal goal of maximising profits, the corporation decides to "Kill all humans." 😲
It seems like this method of evaluation could also help AI's learn to do much more arbitrary things. Like if you wanted a “pretty” pattern, you could train it to make more patterns that you find pretty using this.
I wholeheartedly agree: it is MUCH easier to evaluate a solution than to generate a solution. You could pretty much define mathematics that way: trying to evaluate as many known solutions as possible, to get new information, and generate a solution, if-and-only-if previous solution evaluations proved unsuccessful.
Thank you for not accepting sponsorship from a company that wanted you to do a 60-second spiel. There are companies who sponsor videos and are happy with just having their logo displayed in the corner once or twice. At most, they have the presenter start out with, "This video is sponsored by So-and-So. [One or two brief sentences.] Link in the description below." These are the companies that get it.
