| ▲ | schiffern 5 hours ago |
| What if we ultimately find there are two different, internally consistent but mutually incompatible, representations? What if one of them is a Republican and one is a Democrat? We already see this in some systems today. More worrying, what if one is (for lack of a better word, what we might describe as) God and one is the Devil? |
|
| ▲ | IsTom 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If that results in testable predictions, we check them, compare with representations and then are left with just one. And if it doesn't result in testable predictions it can be left for people to write papers on. |
| |
| ▲ | schiffern 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This quietly assumes that "representations" of reality only encode neutral objective facts (that can be objectively judged, good luck finding a judge everyone agrees on), and "representations" does not encode intentions and value judgements, ie internalized training logic. But that leaks in, and of course it does! If training only rewards "objective truth" we might expect that sort of neat ontological cleanliness, but we all know real training goals are more complicated. There doesn't appear to be a bright clear distinction between objective facts and subjective values/intentions in neural networks. The distinction is perhaps illusory, just another of our preconceived notion about the nature of thought... Fascinating to contemplate, thanks |
|
|
| ▲ | search_facility 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nothing will happen, we already have kind of translation activities happen between "incompatible views" in real life, it works. Besides, in weights there are no real incompatibility can happen, all is unified with same math chain through architecture. Different set of local minimums/maximums can have different strong/weak consequences but nothing incompatible. Different consistent representations also mean that model probably can be simplier for the same task, sign of excessive capacity, imho |
| |
| ▲ | schiffern an hour ago | parent [-] | | >Besides, in weights there are no real incompatibility can happen, all is unified with same math chain through architecture. Different set of local minimums/maximums can have different strong/weak consequences but nothing incompatible.
How do you know you're not stuck in a local minimum, always re-generating the God (or worse, the Demon) configuration and thinking it's universal?This argument that incompatibility is impossible has an easy counterexample by looking at loss of coherence between two networks. You can still mash the weights together (so they're not "incompatible" in the basic number crunching, sure), but the resulting neural net is meaningless. By "incompatible" I meant not in a software sense, but like two logical axiom systems can be incompatible. |
|
|
| ▲ | andsoitis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > More worrying, what if one is (for lack of a better word, what we might describe as) God and one is the Devil? In this framing, are God and Devil stand-ins for Good and Evil? |
| |
