Science against Fiction

lsai_0001_0001_0_img0031.jpg

Rodney Brooks on designing artificial intelligence:

Abstract. The idea of planning and plan execution is just an intuition based decomposition. There is no reason it has to be that way. Most likely in the long term, real empirical evidence from systems we know to be built that way (from designing them like that) will determine whether its a very good idea or not. Any particular planner is simply an abstraction barrier. Below that level we get a choice of whether to slot in another planner or to place a program which does the right thing. Why stop there? Maybe we can go up the hierarchy and eliminate the planners there too. To do this we must move from a state based way of reasoning to a process based way of acting.

giuseppe_arcimboldi_002.jpg

McDermott (1987) recently asked the following questions in regard to the need to do resarch in interleaving planning and run-time monitoring of senors:

Are sensors good enough yet for us to be thinking about how to reason about their inputs? Is planning research just a typical AI moonshine enterprise, thinking about hypothetical scenarios that don’t resemble what will actually be possible once high-quality sensors are available? We can distinguish three positions on this question: Theism: Execution monitoring is important enough, and the issues clear enough, for us to be thinking about them right now.

Atheism: The whole idea of plan execution and the run-time maintenance of something called a “plan” is misguided. Controlling the behavior of a robot is a matter of putting sensors and effectors together using a program.

Agnosticism: We won’t be able to settle the issue until much better sensor technology is available.

This is my reply to McDermott.

I am an atheist in McDermott’s sense:

An atheist usually has very little hope of convincing a theist of his folly. The theist afterall has his own self consistent set of beliefs. Likewise I expect to make little progress arguing with planning theists. I expect they will make little progress arguing with me.

But religous theists and atheists have an extra problem to deal with. The only possible resolution of the debate involves one of the participants dying, and even then at most one of them learns the true facts. In the matter of plan execution, however, we have an empirical test available! We can try to build real robots that operate in real environments and see which ones work better and appear more intelligent; those with traditional AI planning and execution monitoring systems or those with reflexive or subsumption architectures. One of us will have to eat our words!

But will this happen soon; aren’t our computers too small yet? Heck no. Part of my thesis is that it actually takes very little computational power; we’ve just been organizing it all wrong up until now.

…without having designed a device yourself, or thought through a design completely, you may very well make completely the wrong functional decomposition by simply observing its behavior. The same is true of observing human behavior. Ethologists have discovered this in observing insects and lower animals. Early and folk or intuitive explanations of what the creature is doing have had to undergo radical change when more careful observation and experiment with the total system (creature and environment) have been carried out.

The idea of planning and plan execution is just an intuition based decomposition. It may well be the wrong decomposition. There may be no reason it has to be that way. All we have to go on is our intuition of how we work — historically that intuition has been wrong. Most likely in the long term, real empirical evidence from systems we know to be built with planners and plan execution modules (from designing them like that) will determine whether its a very good idea or not.

lsai_0001_0001_0_img0010.jpg

A simple difference engine forces the robot to move towards B while other parallel activities take care of avoiding obstacles (even dynamic ones). Essentially the idea is to set up appropriate, well conditioned, tight feedback loops between sensing and action, with the external world as the medium for the loop.

So it looks like we can get rid of all the planners that normally exist below a traditional AI planner. Why stop there? Maybe we can go up the hierarchy and eliminate the planners there too. But how can we do this?

We need to move away from state as the primary abstraction for thinking about the world. Rather we should think about processes which implement the right thing. We arrange for certain processes to be predisposed to be active and then given the right physical circumstances the goal will be achieved. The behaviors are gated on sensory inputs and so are only active under circumstances where they might be appropriate. Of course, one needs to have a number of pre-disposed behaviors to provide robustness when the primary behavior fails due to being gated out.

snipedy.jpg

 

The basic problem is that simulation is a very dangerous weapon indeed. It is full of temptations to be mis-used. At any level there is a temptation to over idealize just what the sensors can deliver. Worse, the user may make a genuine mistake, not realizing just how much noise exists in the real world. Even worse than that however, is the temptation to simulate the ‘perception’ system. Now we jump right into making up a decomposition and stating requirements on what the perception system will deliver. Typically it is supposed to deliver the identity and location of objects. There exists no computer perception system today that can do such a thing except under very controlled circumstances (e.g., a small library of machined parts can be localized and recognized in a small field of view from a fixed camera). I don’t believe a general such system is even possible; for instance I don’t believe humans have such a perception system. The idea that it is possible is based on the wrong-headed decomposition that gives us planning systems.

.

124.jpg

rousseaudream.jpg

 

039_8892planet-of-the-apes-posters.jpg

 

sandroid.jpg

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Science against Fiction”

  1. jonquille de camembert Says:

    One sees what developing artificial intelligence can do to persons’ social life…Kurzweil ends up looking like Bill Maher + cockroach, despite all the ‘nutritionals’; and THIS bitch looks like he just wants to say ‘You’ll LOVE your hair….’

  2. You’re tracing the motivation for moving away from knowledge-based systems toward neural nets. This is also a reason for moving away from static structuralist accounts of human cognition, where a specially-designed brain reproduces and manipulates prestructured and hierarchical cognitivie-linguistic architectures, toward incremental usage-based accounts, where layers of simple processors actively construct distributed linkages between elements from the ground up based on feedback loops from the environment. The neural nets rely on motivation to learn from one’s mistakes, which in a raw biological sense is motivation to survive and to reproduce. But if humans evolved a more generic instinct to learn pretty much anything, then the same basic loose assembly of neurons and the same simple ability to build interneural connections might enable minds to generate all sorts of useless knowledge.

    Presumably lots of animals can learn this way; i.e., build up usable knowledge of the environment through attention to various kinds of inputs and use of feedback loops from consequences of using the newly-assembled and tenuously-held bit of knowledge. The human motivation to learn from one another, to see the other’s motivations as being like one’s own, is quite different from apes and is the source of most human learning. But once that motivation is in place then similar kinds of simple brain architectures could be directed toward the task of social learning, including language acquisition. See Tomasello.

  3. Eric Marlon Bishop – Jamie Foxx…

    Foxx recorded hissecond studio album, Unpredictable, in December 2005. It debuted at number two, selling 598,000 copies in its first week….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: