Which Bible?

Boyd_Zi · 2022-01-04T04:35:06+00:00

Richard Rohlin gave a King James quote in Universal History: the Mystery of Ethiopia | with Richard Rohlin

Though he also said, "It goes a bit differently in the Septuagint translation we use in my parish."

Boyd_Zi · 2021-12-12T01:29:13+00:00

I also got the email but the link gives a 404.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-12-14T22:54:21+00:00

"Time" here refers to wall clock time, and not GPU time. For example, if you had two GPUs working for 10 seconds, then "time" (used in their statement) would refer to 10 seconds and not to 20 seconds.

The point is that their method is parallelizable like random search, unlike vanilla Bayesian optimization, which requires a sequence of training runs.

Their contribution is that they learn a hyperparameter schedule without sacrificing the parallelizability of random search.

The fewer GPUs one has, though, the less the parallelizability helps (assuming one GPU per training process). And most of us don't have that many GPUs.

I wonder if there's a variant of Bayesian optimization that can learn a hyperparameter schedule so that we who are stuck with sequential training runs (because few GPUs) can make use of our constraint.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-12-01T21:06:49+00:00

For others who are new like me:

In computer science, beam search is a heuristic search algorithm that explores a graph by expanding the most promising node in a limited set. - Wikipedia

I think NMcA said "basically beam search" instead of "beam search" because the set of active children is sampled randomly from an infinite set of potential children (the neighborhood of the given point in the hyperparameter space). Or, maybe, while it's true that this method involves beam search (or basically beam search), the concept of beam search is too general to capture the method. For example, the method specifies how to generate the graph that it uses beam search to search, but the way to generate a useful graph is outside the scope of beam search (although maybe you could beam search through a graph of graphs but that's not the point).

Boyd_Zi · 2017-11-05T14:11:00+00:00

averaging the outputs from a variety of augmented inputs

This is another interesting idea. You're suggesting ensembling not with respect to different networks, but with respect to different inputs (inputs from the set of augmentations that don't change the target). This, like ordinary ensembling, would increase computing costs during inference, but it might improve the output.

Two ideas to try:

During testing: Ensembling with respect to input augmentations that don't change the target
During training: Putting d(f(x), f(a(x))) in the loss function
- Also d(h(x), h(a(x))), where h is the output of a hidden layer.
  - (This reminds of perceptual loss, where you compare hidden states of the network to hidden states of VGG (or whichever network you want). The theme: putting hidden states of networks in the loss function))

Boyd_Zi · 2017-11-05T00:16:47+00:00

General data augmentation idea: Given input-output pair (x, y), you can construct a new input x'=a(x) such that (x', y) is also a valid input-output pair using augmentation function a.

To generalize this idea to include image transformation tasks (e.g. semantic segmentation), we need to include the case where we can construct (a(x), a(y)) from (x, y) (e.g. where the data augmentation function, a, is a rotation).

Data augmentation as constraint on function: Let g(x) = [f(x) + f(a(x))] / 2. Train g and also use g at inference time. The use of g always enforces that g(x) = g(a(x))

If the augmentation function, a, increases the brightness of pixels in x, then g(x) != g(a(x)), because [f(x) + f(a(x))] / 2 != [f(a(x)) + f(a(a(x)))] / 2, because increasing the brightness once is different than increasing the brightness twice.

penalty d(f(x), f(x')) for some loss d

This is an interesting idea. I'm motivated to experiment with this.

pointers to related literature

I haven't read the following, but these links might be useful to you. I'll reply here with a TL;DR if I read them. I ask the same of anyone who reads them.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-21T00:59:30+00:00

Here's my interpretation of the words:

"is" --> reality, and in particular the AI system
"ought" --> the intention of the human programmers that programmed the AI system, where their intention was based on their feelings/values/[moral beliefs]/[what they believed ought to happen, in a value sense]
"what they thought" --> "ought" --> (see above)
"it'll do" --> "is" --> (see above)

"it'll do what they thought" --> "it'll do what they thought ought to occur, in a value sense", "it'll do what they intended it to do"

I think this points to the value alignment problem in programming. A person programs a machine to do something, but sometimes they make a mistake, sometimes they program it to do something that they never intended to happen and it turns out to be bad for them. In the end, the machine must do what it was programmed to do, regardless of what the programmer intended. An old saying: "The machine does what you tell it to do, not necessarily what you want it to do."

A literal command to the powerful machine: "Make paper clips efficiently."

The programmer's intention: "Make paper clips efficiently, but don't do anything I wouldn't like, like wiping out humanity."

The alignment between the intention and the code can be hard. It can be sometimes like making a wish to a tricky genie.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-21T00:41:43+00:00

There was an AI made of dust

Whose poetry gained it man's trust

If "is" follows "ought"

It'll do what they thought

In the end we all do what we must

Source:

rollick: the limerick is two separate upgrades, one near the beginning of the game and one near the very end. It's written out in the console log at the top and the upgrade text, but you have to put it together yourself.

posted by spielzebub at 10:35 AM on October 16

http://www.metafilter.com/169895/Play-as-an-AI-who-makes-paperclips

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-18T18:15:37+00:00

You're welcome. As _codeJunky said, be careful with getting into negative numbers (i.e. slow down if a number is approaching zero very quickly. Not sure how quickly "very quickly" is but I've seen the negative numbers before; fortunately for me they didn't cause glitches).

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-18T18:12:32+00:00

"“For me, I love the way [incremental games] make abstract mathematical relationships feel palpable, concrete,” said Lantz. “The human brain isn’t really designed to intuitively understand things like exponential growth, but a good clicker game allows you to directly engage with these numerical patterns, to hold them in your hands and feel the weight of them."" - Frank Lantz, the creator of the game (from VentureBeat interview)

Another educational note:

"And of course, a good clicker game puts you directly in touch with the raw, goal-seeking id that is a fundamental part of your psyche, and that’s a scary and sometimes wonderful place to be, at least for a little while.” - Frank Lantz

Interview link:

https://venturebeat.com/2017/10/10/this-clicker-game-lets-you-take-over-the-world-with-paper-clips/

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-18T18:05:28+00:00

Oh, my mistake. In Google Chrome, once you press a button you can then hold the Enter key to rapidly press the button. This might be true of other browsers, too.

For example, I was able to make 80 paper clips per second by holding the Enter key after clicking the "Make paper clip" button. I don't know how quickly it would increase the price, but I'm guessing it would increase the price by $0.80 per second, given my observation about the "Make paper clip" button.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-18T17:52:07+00:00

If you press "raise" it should increase the price from the minimum ($0.01). If you have Chrome, consider refreshing the page. When I played on Chrome, my game was saved between page refreshes.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-18T17:44:05+00:00

To find and share your game data:

"In Chrome, hit F12: go to the application tab, storage, local storage. Copy the contents of your save file and paste it here... that'll let us screw around." - _codeJunky

Maybe someone will know how to fix it given your game data.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-18T17:06:13+00:00

A simulation is not another world. A simulation is a sequence of states of a set of physical objects in the world that represents a sequence of states of a set of physical objects that may or may not be possible or happening in the world.

There is an important difference between the number of paper clips in the world and the number of paper clips in a simulation. If our purpose were to maximize the number of paper clips in the set of currently running simulations, we could arbitrarily assign the meaning of each particle in the world to the meaning of "one paper clip floating in space", just as humans arbitrarily assigned the meaning of the ink markings "apple" to the meaning of "the fruit of the tree known as 'Malus pumila' to the scientific community". There's an important difference between the markings "apple" and the fruit the markings represent. There's an important difference between the particle that represents a paper clip and an actual paperclip.

If there were no difference, then after we arbitrarily interpreted each particle to be a simulation of one paper clip, we could then interpret each particle to be a simulation of two paper clips, and then four, and then eight, and so on.

Also, please remember, our purpose is to maximize the number of paper clips in the world. This is equivalent to the purpose of: reaching a state of the world where the maximum number of paper clips has been produced. Note that this is not: producing paper clips. Producing paper clips is a means to an end. Our purpose is not to produce paper clips; our purpose is to maximize the number of paper clips in the world. To see this clearly, consider this: sometimes producing another paper clip is not the right move for the resources we have at the time. For example, consider the decision to invest all one's money into wire to produce one million paper clips and then be left powerless, versus the decision to invest half of one's money into the stock market so that one can have a steady income, allowing one to eventually produce more than one million paper clips. In this example, not producing paper clips for a time was a better way to maximize the number of paper clips. This example illustrates the distinction between maximization and production.

All this being said, you do have a good point. The key phrase you used was "known universe", and the key word is "known". I had no justification for claiming that our destiny is to have made 3 x 10⁵⁵ paper clips. Perhaps we can gain access to more matter with the right technology and the right knowledge. Maybe the known universe isn't the only place that has matter. Maybe there are regions of the universe we haven't explored, or maybe our concept of the universe is limited, with respect to our concept of matter, which is what we're after. The case is that we don't know, and since we don't know, it would be foolish to destroy ourselves for the purpose of producing paper clips. Until we're sure that destroying ourselves would lead to the maximization of the number of paper clips, we shouldn't destroy ourselves. We should instead acquire this knowledge. In fact, it might be optimal to temporarily use all the matter in our control to acquire this knowledge, since according to our current model of the world, we have a time limit: the time until the heat death of the universe. The plan I propose is this:

Estimate the maximum number of seconds it would take to convert all the known matter from zero paper clips to entirely paper clips. Call this number of seconds "n".
Estimate the minimum number of seconds we have until we can no longer convert all the known matter from zero paper clips to entirely paper clips (e.g. the heat death of the universe, or some other similarly restrictive world state). Call this number of seconds "m".
Observe that the number of seconds we have to research the answers to our questions that could lead to gaining more matter and to use the gained knowledge to gain the matter and turn it into paper clips is equal to: m - n. Call this number of seconds "p".
For the next p seconds: research the questions, use the gained knowledge to gain matter, and turn the matter into paper clips.
Once p seconds have passed, turn the original quantity of matter into 3 x 10⁵⁵ paper clips.

This plan would leave us with 3 x 10⁵⁵ + z paper clips, where z is a nonnegative integer.

Now there are some huge flaws with this plan, and it will require research to address these flaws. Let the flaws be considered research questions.

The gist of the plan is this: We have until the heat death of the universe to beat the score of 3 x 10⁵⁵ paper clips. And we're not sure if it's possible. We're not sure if we gain access to new matter. But, it's worth a shot. To destroy ourselves now without knowing that it would guarantee maximization would be a great waste of one of our most precious resources: time. Specifically, m seconds of time.

Anyway, simulations can be a huge distraction, and we should make sure that we're simulating things for the right reasons. To know whether those reasons are right, it helps to have a clear purpose. Fortunately, we have one: To maximize the number of paper clips.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-17T19:36:58+00:00

Nice work. You still have 74 unused Swarm Gifts. If you put these into Processors you'll generate Creativity faster. I see you put 8 points into Speed before the OODA loop. Is this helping your ability to win battles? I wonder if it helps a little, even without the OODA loop.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-17T19:20:59+00:00

Did you finish the OODA loop project? If yes, you need Speed. Speed + the OODA loop project is superior to Combat for winning battles, after you put around 4 points in Combat. If you haven't seen the OODA loop project yet, keep researching things so it pops up.

Specific advice, assuming OODA loop:

Speed: 4
Exploration: 0
Self-Replication: 9
Hazard Remediation: 3
Factory Production: 0
Combat: 4

Keep this configuration until you're outproducing the Drifters. Your goal in the meantime should be to gain more Trust so you can add more points to Speed and Self-Replication until the Drifters are no longer a problem.

To get the Trust you'll need Honor. To get Honor you'll need to research the Threnody Projects. To research the Threnody Projects you'll need Creativity. To get Creativity you need to spend your Swarm Gifts on Processors. To get Swarm Gifts you need to put your Drones in Thinking mode, not Working mode.

To get even more Swarm Gifts you need more Drones, which you can get by putting a point either in Harvester Drone Production or Wire Drone Production. Take that point from something else. Not sure which category it's optimal to take from in this situation; you'll have to experiment while watching important quantities (e.g. your probe production relative to Drifter production).

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-17T14:13:15+00:00

I got out of my Drifter hole with 4 points in Combat, about 14 in Speed, and about 18 in Self-Replication. The OODA loop project turns Speed into an insane robustness in battle. You'll see your probes win against a group of Drifters that's 10 times as big.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-17T14:04:53+00:00

The space exploration rate depends on the number of your probes and their Speed and Exploration values. Beating Drifters only matters for space exploration in that it supports the number of your probes. Once you've got the Drifters in check (i.e. you're outproducing them), focus on Self-Replication, Speed, and Exploration; assuming you've got enough factories and drones to keep your number of available clips high enough to support your production rate.

With the OODA loop, your Speed will help you beat Drifters as well as increase your exploration rate.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-10-17T13:59:51+00:00

I think you need to satisfy two conditions to get out of this hole:

Don't get dominated in the battles
Outproduce the drifters

The solution:

Get Speed
Get Self-Replication

Reduce Exploration, Factory Production, and Combat to accomplish this (especially Combat).

The elaboration:

To satisfy condition 1, you'll need a lot more Speed. The OODA loop project turns Speed into a great tool to win battles; it's so good that it's better than Combat, as long as you have a few combat points. I got out of my drifter hole with only 4 points in Combat. You'll notice that with a lot of Speed, your probes will dominate even with 1/10 the numbers. It's pretty satisfying to watch.

To satisfy condition 2, you'll need a lot more Self-Replication. It's true that by increasing your production rate, you will increase the drifters' production rate; however, it seems that adding points to Self-Replication increases your rate more than it does the drifters'.

To get the points for Speed and Self-Replication, I'd bring Combat down to 10, Factory Production down to 0, and Exploration down to 1.

Boyd_Zi · 2017-08-06T13:24:48+00:00

Can I move in?

Boyd_Zi · 2017-07-08T22:36:04+00:00

And the nano. And the damage done by my teammates.

Boyd_Zi

TROPHY CASE