Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Experiments in progress. The one on the right has been learning for ~3 hours, the one in the middle for ~1 hour, and the one on the left just started a few minutes ago. The initial motivation for making the physical Atari was just to commit ourselves to a...

52,110 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Everybody is talking about recursive self-improvement (RSI) and meta learning. Here is my old 2020 talk about this [1]. It has aged well. Example: humans still define the starts & ends of trials of many modern meta learners. My RSI systems since 1994 LEARN to (re)define them [2]! [1] Meta Learning Machines in a Single Lifelong Trial (talk for workshops at ICML 2020 and NeurIPS 2021, based on earlier talks since 1994). Abstract: the most widely used machine learning algorithms were designed by humans and thus are hindered by our cognitive biases and limitations. Can we also construct meta learning algorithms that can learn better learning algorithms so that our self-improving AIs have no limits other than those inherited from computability and physics? This question has been a main driver of my research since I wrote a thesis on it in 1987 [2]. Here I summarize our work on meta reinforcement learning with self-modifying policies in a single lifelong trial (since 1994), and mathematically optimal meta-learning through the self-referential Gödel Machine (since 2003). Many additional publications on meta-learning since 1987 can be found in the RSI overview [2]. [2] J. Schmidhuber (AI Blog, 2020-2025). 1/3 century anniversary of first publication on recursive self-improvement (RSI) and meta learning machines that learn to learn (1987). For its cover I drew a robot that bootstraps itself. 1992-: gradient descent-based neural meta learning. 1994-: meta reinforcement learning with self-modifying policies. 1997: meta RL plus artificial curiosity and intrinsic motivation. 2002-: asymptotically optimal meta learning for curriculum learning. 2003-: mathematically optimal Gödel Machine. 2020-: new stuff!

Jürgen Schmidhuber

217,809 views • 4 months ago

I don’t know if we live in a Matrix, but I know for sure that robots will spend most of their lives in simulation. Let machines train machines. I’m excited to introduce DexMimicGen, a massive-scale synthetic data generator that enables a humanoid robot to learn complex skills from only a handful of human demonstrations. Yes, as few as 5! DexMimicGen addresses the biggest pain point in robotics: where do we get data? Unlike with LLMs, where vast amounts of texts are readily available, you cannot simply download motor control signals from the internet. So researchers teleoperate the robots to collect motion data via XR headsets. They have to repeat the same skill over and over and over again, because neural nets are data hungry. This is a very slow and uncomfortable process. At NVIDIA, we believe the majority of high-quality tokens for robot foundation models will come from simulation. What DexMimicGen does is to trade GPU compute time for human time. It takes one motion trajectory from human, and multiplies into 1000s of new trajectories. A robot brain trained on this augmented dataset will generalize far better in the real world. Think of DexMimicGen as a learning signal amplifier. It maps a small dataset to a large (de facto infinite) dataset, using physics simulation in the loop. In this way, we free humans from babysitting the bots all day. The future of robot data is generative. The future of the entire robot learning pipeline will also be generative. 🧵

Jim Fan

165,246 views • 1 year ago

Would you want to be a teacher on your staff as a principal? I have often asked teachers, would you want to be a learner in your own classroom, but the question above for administrators could be even more critical. If we do not support those closest to students every day in an effective manner, it is much harder for things to improve in schools. If we want learning to look different in classrooms, then leadership must also evolve. This doesn’t mean that everything done in the past has been wrong. Some things that mattered 50 years ago will matter now, both in learning and leadership. But replicating everything that was done in the past, whether it was effective or not, isn’t a great strategy for moving schools forward. I was blessed to learn from some amazing principals in my career, but I also learned about things that I hated as a teacher and swore that I would do my best not to replicate those strategies. I wrote this in my upcoming book co-authored with Allyson Apsey (Allyson Apsey) titled, “What Makes a Great Principal”: “If we do things in our schools and classrooms that were done hundreds of years ago that still work today, we should continue to do them. On the other hand, if we do new stuff just because it is new, but it doesn’t work, we shouldn’t be doing it. Whatever works for our community is where our focus should be, no matter when it originated.” What worked in the past? What would you change? What would you have wanted as a teacher, and how can you make that happen? Simply replicating the strategies of the past, whether good or bad, will not necessarily lead education to a better future. Innovation is crucial to leadership as much as it is to teaching and learning.

George Couros

22,738 views • 2 years ago