渺小的人类想要无我的活一次_请人类可以教我如何

渺小的人类想要无我的活一次

How can we obtain an AI -whatsoever intelligent- to be human-like, or how can we human teach an Artificial General Intelligence to be itself?

我们如何获得像人类一样的AI(无论什么智能)，或者人类如何教自己成为人工智能？

In the exploding era of computing (ubiquitous, mobile, quantum or whatever suits you better) there’s still a sacred Graal we struggle to reach without success, even if we look closer every Moore’s law step we advance: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

在计算技术的爆炸性时代(无处不在，移动，量子或任何更适合您的情况)，即使我们仔细观察每一个摩尔定律步骤，即人工通用情报(AGI)，我们仍然难以达到神圣的Graal，但没有成功。

Back in 2010 or so, in my days as Bioengineering MSc at University, I had my 10 minutes epiphany. I suddenly pictured that, some day, a reinforcement learning implementation general enough on a hardware powerful and beautiful enough might have led to a so-called strong artificial intelligence or artificial general intelligence. Indeed for those who do not chew machine learning at breakfast, this may look something really cool, but moving to a more concrete reality my realization was much more pragmatic.

回到2010年左右，当我在大学担任生物工程理学硕士时，我经历了10分钟的顿悟。 我突然想象的是，有一天，一个强化学习实现足够一般在硬件强大和美丽的足够有可能导致所谓的强大的人工智能或强人工智能。 确实，对于那些不喜欢在早餐时学习机器学习的人来说，这看起来确实很酷，但是进入一个更具体的现实，我的认识更加务实。

狭窄的人工智能 (Narrow Artificial Intelligence)

In “traditional” Artificial Intelligence approaches, you pick for a task (the one you think it is worthy enough to be tackled) and put in place a supervised learning technique. This means you take some pre-computed couples of problem data and related results, you put an AI to sit and learn them, and you expect it to generalize so to solve correctly a new situation whose data it has never experienced. Just as a very abstract micro-example, if you want an AI to turn lights on when someone’s at home, you provide a set of people-at-home input data with corresponding lights-on outputs, as well as some nobody-at-home and lights-off. Conversely, Reinforcement Learning mimics animal (also human) learning process (you don’t say?), so the AI is equipped with a reward function: it starts with no precise strategy, but every time it turns light on with someone at home it is given a cookie, the same with the opposite condition (no people, no light), while wrong behaviors are discouraged (do the laundry?). Out of the metaphor, it may now be clear how the supervised learning may not look the right way to reach AGI, but a possible way to generate only narrow artificial intelligence: you cannot expect it to be taught anything and to generalize anything.

在“传统”人工智能方法中，您选择一项任务(您认为值得解决的任务)，并采用了监督学习技术。 这意味着您需要预先计算一些问题数据和相关结果，然后坐上一台AI来学习它们，并期望它能够得到概括，以便正确解决其数据从未经历过的新情况。 就像一个非常抽象的微型示例一样，如果您希望AI在某人在家时打开灯，则需要提供一组在家中人的输入数据以及相应的开灯输出，以及一些人在家和熄灯。 相反，强化学习模仿了动物(也是人类)的学习过程(您不说吗？)，因此AI具备奖励功能：它没有精确的策略开始，但是每次当有人在家时它就会亮起来。会得到一个曲奇，条件相反(没有人，没有灯光)，但不鼓励错误行为(洗衣服吗？)。 从这个比喻中，现在可以清楚地看出，有监督的学习可能不是达到AGI的正确方法，而是仅生成狭义的人工智能的一种可能方法：您不能指望它能被教给任何人和推广任何东西。

Coming back to my epiphany I was (not) quite surprised to learn, some-ten-years-later, one of the past days, that one of the most promising approach towards AGI is currently Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL). I could not help it, but I started to think and fantasize of how could be it designed to spawn an AGI. And I found myself stuck right away in a three-fold lock.

回到我的顿悟中，过去十年的其中之一，我(并不)感到惊讶，过去十年来，AGI最有希望的方法之一是深度强化学习(DRL)。 我忍不住了，但是我开始思考并幻想它是如何产生AGI的。 我发现自己立刻陷入了三折锁。

人类有本能 (Humans have instinct)

We (and most of the animal world) come with a pre-installed software we simply refer to as instinct. This helps us to build rewarding strategies and to take steps when all options seem equal. The baby looking for mom’s breast to feed, the need to cry when we feel discomfort, the meaning of staring in each-others eyes are powerful driver. They are also the basis for other reinforcement strategies.

我们(以及大多数动物世界)都带有预装的软件，我们将其简单地称为本能。 这有助于我们制定有益的策略，并在所有选择似乎都相等时采取措施。 婴儿在寻找妈妈的母乳喂养，感到不舒服时需要哭泣，凝视对方眼睛的意思是有力的驱动力。 它们也是其他加强策略的基础。

What should an AGI instinct be like? Can it exist without it?

AGI的本能应该是什么样？ 没有它可以存在吗？

Photo by Ana Tablas on Unsplash

Ana Tablas在 Unsplash上 拍摄的照片

人类的身体和大脑具有物理结构(Humans have a body and a brain with a physical structure)

The way our brain perceives the world with sight, hearing, our movements tuning and coordination, and countless other features of the human marvel come thanks to hardware configurations. Our body moreover has its needs and we share them, they drive our choices and condition our thoughs.

硬件配置使我们的大脑通过视觉，听觉，动作调整和协调以及无数其他奇迹功能感知世界的方式得以出现。 此外，我们的身体有自己的需求，我们与他们分享，它们驱动我们的选择并调节我们的需求。

How should we design the AGI hardware? Should it be a human-like or designed from scratch? Should it quack? Should it need to sleep?

我们应该如何设计AGI硬件？ 应该像人一样还是从头开始设计？ 应该嘎嘎吗？ 需要睡觉吗？

Photo by JOSHUA COLEMAN on Unsplash

乔舒亚·科尔曼(JoSHUA COLEMAN)在 Unsplash上的 照片

人类学习如何人类(Humans LEARN how to human)

In our first 20 years (even 30 sometimes) of existence we basically have no idea of what we are doing. We experiment, we try to achieve independence, to learn how to learn. What do we expect from Mowgli, raised by apes or wolves? He cannot even wolf nor ape properly, but damn, he is intelligent indeed. We got countless generations of learning and teaching and evolution made it suited for us as a species.

在我们存在的最初20年(有时甚至30年)中，我们基本上不知道我们在做什么。 我们进行实验，尝试实现独立性，学习如何学习。 我们对猿猴或狼抚养的Mowgli有什么期望？ 他甚至不能狼也不能适当地猿猴，但是该死，他确实很聪明。 我们经历了无数代的学习和教学，进化使其适合我们作为一个物种。

Is it suited to teach an AGI how to human? How can we teach an AGI to be itself? Will we be able to recognize its genuine intelligence?

教AGI如何操作人适合吗？ 我们如何教导AGI本身？ 我们将能够认识到它的真正情报吗？

Pang Yuhao on 庞吁貉上 Unsplash Unsplash

After some days of spiritual discomfort in accepting the growing awareness that some other decades may be necessary to solve these questions, I came to a final realization. I pictured Lorentz and his ducklings: as higher intelligence beings we may be intelligent enough to teach a duck how to duck, with an existing model of its physical structure and a replica of its main instinctive traits we may be able even to create a “robotic duck”. I really can’t imagine a human, raised by the ducks, no matter how hard I try.

在经历了几天的精神不适之后，我逐渐意识到，要解决这些问题可能还需要几十年，我才最终意识到。 我给洛伦兹和他的小鸭画了个像：作为高智商，我们可能足够聪明，可以教鸭子如何做鸭子，利用其物理结构的现有模型以及其主要本能特征的复制品，我们甚至可以创造出“机器人”鸭”。 我真的很难想象，无论我多么努力，都会被鸭子养大。

How can we pretend to create something we may not be ready to understand, even once we obtained it?

我们如何假装创建某些东西，即使获得了它却可能还不准备理解。

Corollary: is the Turing test too strict?

结论：图灵考试太严格了吗？

As a last punchline, I would like to mention the following consequence of these ideas. In a first instance, a non-human synthetic intelligence may be goofy enough to be evidently not human. But are we sure this is not tricking us, throwing away all the silver while looking for a gold coin?

最后，我想提到这些想法的以下结果。 首先，非人类的合成情报可能愚蠢到显然不是人类。 但是我们确定这不是在欺骗我们，而是在寻找金币时扔掉了所有的银子吗？

相关读物 (Related Readings)

翻译自: https://medium.com/@fveronese85/please-human-can-you-teach-me-how-to-ai-9b272920f16f

渺小的人类想要无我的活一次