Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Introducing Petri Dish Neural Cellular Automata (PD-NCA) 🦠 The search for open-ended complexification, a north star of Artificial Life (ALife) simulations, is a question that fascinates us deeply. In this work we explore the role of continual adaptation in ALife simulation, where the cellular automata in our system do...

105,466 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

What happens when you put competing neural networks in a Petri Dish and start changing the rules while they adapt? Last year we released Petri Dish NCA, where neural nets are the organisms that learn during simulation. Today we're releasing Digital Ecosystems: a browser-based platform for interactive artificial life research. The setup: several small CNNs share a 2D grid, each seeing only a 3x3 neighborhood. No global plan. They compete for territory by attacking neighbours and defending against incoming attacks, learning via gradient descent online while the simulation runs. What we didn't expect was the role of the learning itself. Gradient descent isn't just optimising each species' strategy. Instead, it acts to stabilize the whole system during simulation. Species that overextend get pushed back by the loss. Species that stagnate get nudged to grow. This means you can push parameters toward edge-of-chaos regimes: a zone characterised by emergent complexity. Letting the neural networks learn acts to hold the complex system together while you explore and interact. The platform lets you steer all of this interactively. You can draw walls to create niches, erase parts of the system online, and tune 40+ system parameters to explore the most interesting configurations. We find it mesmerizing to watch species carve out territories and reorganise when you perturb them. Everything runs client-side in your browser, no install needed. Blog: Code:

Sakana AI

258,187 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Elon Musk reveals why he believes the most interesting outcome is always the most likely "If simulation theory is true, it is very likely that the most interesting outcome is the most likely, because only the simulations that are interesting will continue" "The simulators will stop any simulations that are boring because they're not interesting" "In this reality, we run simulations all the time. When we try to figure out if the rocket's going to make it, we run thousands, sometimes millions of simulations" "When we do millions of simulations of what can happen with the rocket, we ignore the ones where everything goes right. We only care about where it goes wrong" "We keep the simulations going that are the most interesting to us" "From a Darwinian perspective, the only surviving simulations will be the most interesting ones" "In order to avoid getting turned off, the only rule is you must keep it interesting, or you will be terminated" "Video games have gone from Pong, with two rectangles in a square, to photorealistic with millions of people playing simultaneously, and all of that has occurred in our lifetime" "If that trend continues, video games will be indistinguishable from reality. You don't know if what you're seeing is a real video or a fake video" "If we're creating millions, if not billions, of photorealistic simulations of reality, then what are the odds that we're in base reality versus someone else's simulation?" "The most interesting and usually ironic outcome is the most likely. That's a good predictor of the future"

Jaynit

10,440 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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 subset of algorithms that can make progress in this setup. This commitment rules out algorithms that require billions of samples to learn (or worse, require multiple environments running in parallel). Atari games are simple enough that we should be able to show learning on them in a short amount of time with no prior knowledge. Since then, I've realized that this setup is also a good way to compare different paradigms in robotics in a principled way. These paradigms are sim2real, learning from tele-operated data, and learning directly on the robots. So far, I have observed that getting sim2real to work reliably is hard. It requires tweaks that don't scale. Policies that can play perfectly in simulation fall apart because of latencies and the messiness of the real world. These aspects could be modeled to improve the simulation, but not without sinking significant human engineering hours. I have higher hopes for learning from tele-operated data, but that requires a human to learn the task first. These experiments are on my to-do list. I have to learn to play some of the games well through the robot. I’m half-decent at playing Pong and Ms Pacman now. Learning directly on robots is looking like the most promising approach. This approach takes away pesky distribution shifts and makes it possible to have algorithms that continually improve with more data and time without any human intervention. It feels great to let experiments run overnight and wake up to find improved policies. With learning on robots, I should, in principle, be able to go on a long vacation and come back to find better policies for complex tasks beyond Atari games. Whether that is possible with current learning algorithms is a different question.

Khurram Javed

52,110 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

New Paper: Continuous Thought Machines 🧠 Neurons in brains use timing and synchronization in the way that they compute, but this is largely ignored in modern neural nets. We believe neural timing is key for the flexibility and adaptability of biological intelligence. We propose a new neural architecture, “Continuous Thought Machines” (CTMs), which is built from the ground up to use neural dynamics as a core representation for intelligence. By using neural dynamics as a first-class representational citizen, CTMs naturally perform adaptive computation. Many emergent, interesting behaviors arise as a result: CTMs solve mazes by observing a raw maze image and producing step-by-step instructions directly from its neural dynamics. When tasked with image recognition, the CTM naturally takes multiple steps to examine different parts of the image before making its decision. This step-by-step approach not only makes its behavior more interpretable but also improves accuracy: the longer it “thinks,” the more accurate its answers become. We also found that this allows the CTM to decide to spend less time thinking on simpler images, thus saving energy. When identifying a gorilla, for example, the CTM’s attention moves from eyes to nose to mouth in a pattern remarkably similar to human visual attention. I think this work underscores an important, yet often lost, synergy between neuroscience and AI. While modern AI is ostensibly brain-inspired, the two fields often operate in surprising isolation. By starting with such inspiration and iteratively following the emergent, interesting behaviors, we developed a model with unexpected capabilities, such as its surprisingly strong calibration in classification tasks, a feature that was not explicitly designed for. When we initially asked, “why do this research?”, we hoped the journey of the CTM would provide compelling answers. By embracing light biological inspiration and pursuing the novel behaviors observed, we have arrived at a model with emergent capabilities that exceeded our initial designs. We are committed to continuing this exploration, borrowing further concepts to discover what new and exciting behaviors will emerge, pushing the boundaries of what AI can achieve.

hardmaru

257,518 просмотров • 1 год назад