The Future Just Arrived
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: the Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril
Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril Michael Matheny, Sonoo Thadaney Israni, Mahnoor Ahmed, and Danielle Whicher, Editors WASHINGTON, DC NAM.EDU PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE • 500 Fifth Street, NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20001 NOTICE: This publication has undergone peer review according to procedures established by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). Publication by the NAM worthy of public attention, but does not constitute endorsement of conclusions and recommendationssignifies that it is the by productthe NAM. of The a carefully views presented considered in processthis publication and is a contributionare those of individual contributors and do not represent formal consensus positions of the authors’ organizations; the NAM; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data to Come Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: Matheny, M., S. Thadaney Israni, M. Ahmed, and D. Whicher, Editors. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril. NAM Special Publication. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine. PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” --GOETHE PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs ABOUT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE The National Academy of Medicine is one of three Academies constituting the Nation- al Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). The Na- tional Academies provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. -
AI Computer Wraps up 4-1 Victory Against Human Champion Nature Reports from Alphago's Victory in Seoul
The Go Files: AI computer wraps up 4-1 victory against human champion Nature reports from AlphaGo's victory in Seoul. Tanguy Chouard 15 March 2016 SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA Google DeepMind Lee Sedol, who has lost 4-1 to AlphaGo. Tanguy Chouard, an editor with Nature, saw Google-DeepMind’s AI system AlphaGo defeat a human professional for the first time last year at the ancient board game Go. This week, he is watching top professional Lee Sedol take on AlphaGo, in Seoul, for a $1 million prize. It’s all over at the Four Seasons Hotel in Seoul, where this morning AlphaGo wrapped up a 4-1 victory over Lee Sedol — incidentally, earning itself and its creators an honorary '9-dan professional' degree from the Korean Baduk Association. After winning the first three games, Google-DeepMind's computer looked impregnable. But the last two games may have revealed some weaknesses in its makeup. Game four totally changed the Go world’s view on AlphaGo’s dominance because it made it clear that the computer can 'bug' — or at least play very poor moves when on the losing side. It was obvious that Lee felt under much less pressure than in game three. And he adopted a different style, one based on taking large amounts of territory early on rather than immediately going for ‘street fighting’ such as making threats to capture stones. This style – called ‘amashi’ – seems to have paid off, because on move 78, Lee produced a play that somehow slipped under AlphaGo’s radar. David Silver, a scientist at DeepMind who's been leading the development of AlphaGo, said the program estimated its probability as 1 in 10,000. -
Much Has Been Written About the Turing Test in the Last Few Years, Some of It
1 Much has been written about the Turing Test in the last few years, some of it preposterously off the mark. People typically mis-imagine the test by orders of magnitude. This essay is an antidote, a prosthesis for the imagination, showing how huge the task posed by the Turing Test is, and hence how unlikely it is that any computer will ever pass it. It does not go far enough in the imagination-enhancement department, however, and I have updated the essay with a new postscript. Can Machines Think?1 Can machines think? This has been a conundrum for philosophers for years, but in their fascination with the pure conceptual issues they have for the most part overlooked the real social importance of the answer. It is of more than academic importance that we learn to think clearly about the actual cognitive powers of computers, for they are now being introduced into a variety of sensitive social roles, where their powers will be put to the ultimate test: In a wide variety of areas, we are on the verge of making ourselves dependent upon their cognitive powers. The cost of overestimating them could be enormous. One of the principal inventors of the computer was the great 1 Originally appeared in Shafto, M., ed., How We Know (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985). 2 British mathematician Alan Turing. It was he who first figured out, in highly abstract terms, how to design a programmable computing device--what we not call a universal Turing machine. All programmable computers in use today are in essence Turing machines. -
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit Presented by Josh Fried Background: Machine Learning Neural Networks: ● Multi Layer Perceptrons ● Recurrent Neural Networks (mostly LSTMs) ● Convolutional Neural Networks Synapse - each edge, has a weight Neuron - each node, sums weights and uses non-linear activation function over sum Propagating inputs through a layer of the NN is a matrix multiplication followed by an activation Background: Machine Learning Two phases: ● Training (offline) ○ relaxed deadlines ○ large batches to amortize costs of loading weights from DRAM ○ well suited to GPUs ○ Usually uses floating points ● Inference (online) ○ strict deadlines: 7-10ms at Google for some workloads ■ limited possibility for batching because of deadlines ○ Facebook uses CPUs for inference (last class) ○ Can use lower precision integers (faster/smaller/more efficient) ML Workloads @ Google 90% of ML workload time at Google spent on MLPs and LSTMs, despite broader focus on CNNs RankBrain (search) Inception (image classification), Google Translate AlphaGo (and others) Background: Hardware Trends End of Moore’s Law & Dennard Scaling ● Moore - transistor density is doubling every two years ● Dennard - power stays proportional to chip area as transistors shrink Machine Learning causing a huge growth in demand for compute ● 2006: Excess CPU capacity in datacenters is enough ● 2013: Projected 3 minutes per-day per-user of speech recognition ○ will require doubling datacenter compute capacity! Google’s Answer: Custom ASIC Goal: Build a chip that improves cost-performance for NN inference What are the main costs? Capital Costs Operational Costs (power bill!) TPU (V1) Design Goals Short design-deployment cycle: ~15 months! Plugs in to PCIe slot on existing servers Accelerates matrix multiplication operations Uses 8-bit integer operations instead of floating point How does the TPU work? CISC instructions, issued by host. -
Turing Test Does Not Work in Theory but in Practice
Int'l Conf. Artificial Intelligence | ICAI'15 | 433 Turing test does not work in theory but in practice Pertti Saariluoma1 and Matthias Rauterberg2 1Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland 2Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Abstract - The Turing test is considered one of the most im- Essentially, the Turing test is an imitation game. Like any portant thought experiments in the history of AI. It is argued good experiment, it has two conditions. In the case of control that the test shows how people think like computers, but is this conditions, it is assumed that there is an opaque screen. On actually true? In this paper, we discuss an entirely new per- one side of the screen is an interrogator whose task is to ask spective. Scientific languages have their foundational limita- questions and assess the nature of the answers. On the other tions, for example, in their power of expression. It is thus pos- side, there are two people, A and B. The task of A and B is to sible to discuss the limitations of formal concepts and theory answer the questions, and the task of the interrogator is to languages. In order to represent real world phenomena in guess who has given the answer. In the case of experimental formal concepts, formal symbols must be given semantics and conditions, B is replaced by a machine (computer) and again, information contents; that is, they must be given an interpreta- the interrogator must decide whether it was the human or the tion. They key argument is that it is not possible to express machine who answered the questions. -
THE TURING TEST RELIES on a MISTAKE ABOUT the BRAIN For
THE TURING TEST RELIES ON A MISTAKE ABOUT THE BRAIN K. L. KIRKPATRICK Abstract. There has been a long controversy about how to define and study intel- ligence in machines and whether machine intelligence is possible. In fact, both the Turing Test and the most important objection to it (called variously the Shannon- McCarthy, Blockhead, and Chinese Room arguments) are based on a mistake that Turing made about the brain in his 1948 paper \Intelligent Machinery," a paper that he never published but whose main assumption got embedded in his famous 1950 paper and the celebrated Imitation Game. In this paper I will show how the mistake is a false dichotomy and how it should be fixed, to provide a solid foundation for a new understanding of the brain and a new approach to artificial intelligence. In the process, I make an analogy between the brain and the ribosome, machines that translate information into action, and through this analogy I demonstrate how it is possible to go beyond the purely information-processing paradigm of computing and to derive meaning from syntax. For decades, the metaphor of the brain as an information processor has dominated both neuroscience and artificial intelligence research and allowed the fruitful appli- cations of Turing's computation theory and Shannon's information theory in both fields. But this metaphor may be leading us astray, because of its limitations and the deficiencies in our understanding of the brain and AI. In this paper I will present a new metaphor to consider, of the brain as both an information processor and a producer of physical effects. -
Deepfakes & Disinformation
DEEPFAKES & DISINFORMATION DEEPFAKES & DISINFORMATION Agnieszka M. Walorska ANALYSISANALYSE 2 DEEPFAKES & DISINFORMATION IMPRINT Publisher Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Karl-Marx-Straße 2 14482 Potsdam Germany /freiheit.org /FriedrichNaumannStiftungFreiheit /FNFreiheit Author Agnieszka M. Walorska Editors International Department Global Themes Unit Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Concept and layout TroNa GmbH Contact Phone: +49 (0)30 2201 2634 Fax: +49 (0)30 6908 8102 Email: [email protected] As of May 2020 Photo Credits Photomontages © Unsplash.de, © freepik.de, P. 30 © AdobeStock Screenshots P. 16 © https://youtu.be/mSaIrz8lM1U P. 18 © deepnude.to / Agnieszka M. Walorska P. 19 © thispersondoesnotexist.com P. 19 © linkedin.com P. 19 © talktotransformer.com P. 25 © gltr.io P. 26 © twitter.com All other photos © Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (Germany) P. 31 © Agnieszka M. Walorska Notes on using this publication This publication is an information service of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom. The publication is available free of charge and not for sale. It may not be used by parties or election workers during the purpose of election campaigning (Bundestags-, regional and local elections and elections to the European Parliament). Licence Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 DEEPFAKES & DISINFORMATION DEEPFAKES & DISINFORMATION 3 4 DEEPFAKES & DISINFORMATION CONTENTS Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 GLOSSARY 8 1.0 STATE OF DEVELOPMENT ARTIFICIAL -
Game Playing with Deep Q-Learning Using Openai Gym
Game Playing with Deep Q-Learning using OpenAI Gym Robert Chuchro Deepak Gupta [email protected] [email protected] Abstract sociated with performing a particular action in a given state. This information is fundamental to any reinforcement learn- Historically, designing game players requires domain- ing problem. specific knowledge of the particular game to be integrated The input to our model will be a sequence of pixel im- into the model for the game playing program. This leads ages as arrays (Width x Height x 3) generated by a particular to a program that can only learn to play a single particu- OpenAI Gym environment. We then use a Deep Q-Network lar game successfully. In this project, we explore the use of to output a action from the action space of the game. The general AI techniques, namely reinforcement learning and output that the model will learn is an action from the envi- neural networks, in order to architect a model which can ronments action space in order to maximize future reward be trained on more than one game. Our goal is to progress from a given state. In this paper, we explore using a neural from a simple convolutional neural network with a couple network with multiple convolutional layers as our model. fully connected layers, to experimenting with more complex additions, such as deeper layers or recurrent neural net- 2. Related Work works. The best known success story of classical reinforcement learning is TD-gammon, a backgammon playing program 1. Introduction which learned entirely by reinforcement learning [6]. TD- gammon used a model-free reinforcement learning algo- Game playing has recently emerged as a popular play- rithm similar to Q-learning. -
Reinforcement Learning with Tensorflow&Openai
Lecture 1: Introduction Reinforcement Learning with TensorFlow&OpenAI Gym Sung Kim <[email protected]> http://angelpawstherapy.org/positive-reinforcement-dog-training.html Nature of Learning • We learn from past experiences. - When an infant plays, waves its arms, or looks about, it has no explicit teacher - But it does have direct interaction to its environment. • Years of positive compliments as well as negative criticism have all helped shape who we are today. • Reinforcement learning: computational approach to learning from interaction. Richard Sutton and Andrew Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction Nishant Shukla , Machine Learning with TensorFlow Reinforcement Learning https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~eladlieb/RLRG.html Machine Learning, Tom Mitchell, 1997 Atari Breakout Game (2013, 2015) Atari Games Nature : Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning, Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7540/full/nature14236.html Figure courtesy of Mnih et al. "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning”, Nature 26 Feb. 2015 https://deepmind.com/blog/deep-reinforcement-learning/ https://deepmind.com/applied/deepmind-for-google/ Reinforcement Learning Applications • Robotics: torque at joints • Business operations - Inventory management: how much to purchase of inventory, spare parts - Resource allocation: e.g. in call center, who to service first • Finance: Investment decisions, portfolio design • E-commerce/media - What content to present to users (using click-through / visit time as reward) - What ads to present to users (avoiding ad fatigue) Audience • Want to understand basic reinforcement learning (RL) • No/weak math/computer science background - Q = r + Q • Want to use RL as black-box with basic understanding • Want to use TensorFlow and Python (optional labs) Schedule 1. -
Understanding & Generalizing Alphago Zero
Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2019 UNDERSTANDING &GENERALIZING ALPHAGO ZERO Anonymous authors Paper under double-blind review ABSTRACT AlphaGo Zero (AGZ) (Silver et al., 2017b) introduced a new tabula rasa rein- forcement learning algorithm that has achieved superhuman performance in the games of Go, Chess, and Shogi with no prior knowledge other than the rules of the game. This success naturally begs the question whether it is possible to develop similar high-performance reinforcement learning algorithms for generic sequential decision-making problems (beyond two-player games), using only the constraints of the environment as the “rules.” To address this challenge, we start by taking steps towards developing a formal understanding of AGZ. AGZ includes two key innovations: (1) it learns a policy (represented as a neural network) using super- vised learning with cross-entropy loss from samples generated via Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS); (2) it uses self-play to learn without training data. We argue that the self-play in AGZ corresponds to learning a Nash equilibrium for the two-player game; and the supervised learning with MCTS is attempting to learn the policy corresponding to the Nash equilibrium, by establishing a novel bound on the difference between the expected return achieved by two policies in terms of the expected KL divergence (cross-entropy) of their induced distributions. To extend AGZ to generic sequential decision-making problems, we introduce a robust MDP framework, in which the agent and nature effectively play a zero-sum game: the agent aims to take actions to maximize reward while nature seeks state transitions, subject to the constraints of that environment, that minimize the agent’s reward. -
AI for Broadcsaters, Future Has Already Begun…
AI for Broadcsaters, future has already begun… By Dr. Veysel Binbay, Specialist Engineer @ ABU Technology & Innovation Department 0 Dr. Veysel Binbay I have been working as Specialist Engineer at ABU Technology and Innovation Department for one year, before that I had worked at TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Corporation) for more than 20 years as a broadcast engineer, and also as an IT Director. I have wide experience on Radio and TV broadcasting technologies, including IT systems also. My experience includes to design, to setup, and to operate analogue/hybrid/digital radio and TV broadcast systems. I have also experienced on IT Networks. 1/25 What is Artificial Intelligence ? • Programs that behave externally like humans? • Programs that operate internally as humans do? • Computational systems that behave intelligently? 2 Some Definitions Trials for AI: The exciting new effort to make computers think … machines with minds, in the full literal sense. Haugeland, 1985 3 Some Definitions Trials for AI: The study of mental faculties through the use of computational models. Charniak and McDermott, 1985 A field of study that seeks to explain and emulate intelligent behavior in terms of computational processes. Schalkoff, 1990 4 Some Definitions Trials for AI: The study of how to make computers do things at which, at the moment, people are better. Rich & Knight, 1991 5 It’s obviously hard to define… (since we don’t have a commonly agreed definition of intelligence itself yet)… Lets try to focus to benefits, and solve definition problem later… 6 Brief history of AI 7 Brief history of AI . The history of AI begins with the following article: . -
The Turing Test and Other Design Detection Methodologies∗
Detecting Intelligence: The Turing Test and Other Design Detection Methodologies∗ George D. Montanez˜ 1 1Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA, USA [email protected] Keywords: Turing Test, Design Detection, Intelligent Agents Abstract: “Can machines think?” When faced with this “meaningless” question, Alan Turing suggested we ask a dif- ferent, more precise question: can a machine reliably fool a human interviewer into believing the machine is human? To answer this question, Turing outlined what came to be known as the Turing Test for artificial intel- ligence, namely, an imitation game where machines and humans interacted from remote locations and human judges had to distinguish between the human and machine participants. According to the test, machines that consistently fool human judges are to be viewed as intelligent. While popular culture champions the Turing Test as a scientific procedure for detecting artificial intelligence, doing so raises significant issues. First, a simple argument establishes the equivalence of the Turing Test to intelligent design methodology in several fundamental respects. Constructed with similar goals, shared assumptions and identical observational models, both projects attempt to detect intelligent agents through the examination of generated artifacts of uncertain origin. Second, if the Turing Test rests on scientifically defensible assumptions then design inferences become possible and cannot, in general, be wholly unscientific. Third, if passing the Turing Test reliably indicates intelligence, this implies the likely existence of a designing intelligence in nature. 1 THE IMITATION GAME gin et al., 2003), this paper presents a novel critique of the Turing Test in the spirit of a reductio ad ab- In his seminal paper on artificial intelligence (Tur- surdum.