Next Page: 10000

          

Conflict and Cooperation: AI Research and Development in terms of the Economy of Conventions

 Cache   
David Solans, Christopher Tauchmann, Aideen Farrell, Karolin Kappler, Hans-Hendrik Huber & Carlos Castillo (2019) Paper in Progress. arXiv. Abstract. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its relation with societies is increas-ingly becoming an interesting object of study from the perspective of sociology and other disciplines. Theories such as the Economy of Conventions (EC) are usually applied in the context of interpersonal relations but there is still a clear lack of studies around how this and other theories can shed light on interactions between human and autonomous … Continuer la lecture de Conflict and Cooperation: AI Research and Development in terms of the Economy of Conventions
          

L'Estat arxiva dos permisos per buscar hidrocarburs davant la Costa Brava

 Cache   
Els havia promogut Cairn Energy i la zona se solapava amb el corredor de migració de cetacis

L"Estat arxiva dos permisos per buscar hidrocarburs davant la Costa Brava


          

arXiv.org blog: Our Moderation Process

 Cache   
« (…) This year, on average, over 10,000 articles were submitted to one of the 8 scientific categories and their 149 … Continuer la lecture de « arXiv.org blog: Our Moderation Process »
          

Technical Considerations for arXiv Compliance with Plan S

 Cache   
« We acknowledge the importance of Plan S, and are committed to continue to monitor the developments and assess how we … Continuer la lecture de « Technical Considerations for arXiv Compliance with Plan S »
          

Des identifiants ouverts pour la science ouverte : synthèse

 Cache   
« (…) Action concertée au bénéfice des chercheurs et des institutions IdHal, OrcID, WosId, ArXivID, DOI, ISSN, ISBN, Handle, IdRef, VIAF, … Continuer la lecture de « Des identifiants ouverts pour la science ouverte : synthèse »
          

On the mass mismatch between simulations and weak-lensing measurements

 Cache   

On the mass mismatch between simulations and weak-lensing measurements

Svensmark, J., Martizzi, D. & Agnello, A., 3 Jun 2019, In : arXiv.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearch

The recently discovered discrepancy between galaxy mass measurements from weak lensing and predictions from abundance matching questions our understanding of cosmology, or of the galaxy-halo connection, or of both. We re-examined this tension by considering, as models, different cosmological simulations in the Illustris suite. We produced excess profiles $R\Delta\Sigma$ from subhalo snapshots at different redshifts in Illustris-1 and IllustrisTNG (TNG100 and TNG300) simulations, enabling a direct comparison with weak-lensing measurements. We separate the individual contributions of stars, dark matter and gas within $\approx1$ Mpc (comoving length), beyond which correlated two-halo terms dominate. The mismatch between measurements and predictions is more severe than in previous studies: $R\Delta\Sigma$ profiles from IllustrisTNG are $\approx2$ times higher than the measured ones. Contrary to abundance matching results, the mismatch is mostly unchanged with increasing redshifts. The contribution of gas to the $R\Delta\Sigma$ profiles is $5-10\%$ over the scales dominated by one-halo terms. Different procedures to link stellar and halo masses (abundance matching, cosmological simulations) are still significantly discrepant with weak lensing measurements, but their trends are different. Therefore, the change in cosmological parameters advocated through abundance-matching arguments may not resolve this tension. Also, current criteria to select isolated massive galaxies in simulations are susceptible to resolution issues and may not correspond to observational criteria. The (currently subdominant) contribution of gas is non-negligible, and even if the major discrepancy within stellar and halo masses is resolved, it will be an appreciable source of systematics in the LSST era, when uncertainties on the $R\Delta\Sigma$ profiles are expected to be $\approx10$ times smaller.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
JournalarXiv
Publication statusPublished - 3 Jun 2019

          

Estimating the dark matter velocity anisotropy to the cluster edge

 Cache   

Estimating the dark matter velocity anisotropy to the cluster edge

Svensmark, J., Hansen, S. H., Martizzi, D., Moore, B. & Teyssier, R., 8 Apr 2019, In : arXiv.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearch

Dark matter dominates the properties of large cosmological structures such as galaxy clusters, and the mass profiles of the dark matter have been measured for these equilibrated structures for years using X-rays, lensing or galaxy velocities. A new method has been proposed, which should allow us to estimate a dynamical property of the dark matter, namely the velocity anisotropy. For the gas a similar velocity anisotropy is zero due to frequent collisions, however, the collisionless nature of dark matter allows it to be non-trivial. Numerical simulations have for years found non-zero and radially varying dark matter velocity anisotropies. Here we employ the method proposed by Hansen and Pifaretti (2007), and developed by Host et al. (2009) to estimate the dark matter velocity anisotropy in the bright galaxy cluster Perseus, to near 5 times the radii previously obtained. We find the dark matter velocity anisotropy to be consistent with the results of numerical simulations, however, still with large error-bars. At half the virial radius we find the velocity anisotropy to be non-zero at 1.7$\,\sigma$, lending support to the collisionless nature of dark matter.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
JournalarXiv
Publication statusPublished - 8 Apr 2019

          

The Ion and Charged Aerosol Growth Enhancement (ION-CAGE) code: A numerical model for the growth of charged and neutral aerosols

 Cache   

The Ion and Charged Aerosol Growth Enhancement (ION-CAGE) code: A numerical model for the growth of charged and neutral aerosols

Svensmark, J., Shaviv, N. J., Enghoff, M. B. & Svensmark, H., 19 Sep 2019, In : arXiv.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearch

The presence of small ions influences the growth dynamics of a size distribution of aerosols. Specifically the often neglected mass of small ions influences the aerosol growth rate, which may be important for terrestrial cloud formation. To this end, we develop a numerical model to calculate the growth of a species of aerosols in the presence of charge, which explicitly includes terms for ion-condensation. It is shown that a positive contribution to aerosol growth rate is obtained by increasing the ion-pair concentration through this effect, consistent with recent experimental findings. The ion-condensation effect is then compared to aerosol growth from charged aerosol coagulation, which is seen to be independent of ion-pair concentration. The model source code is made available through a public repository.
Original languageEnglish
JournalarXiv
Publication statusPublished - 19 Sep 2019

          

Recently Accepted Manuscript to the Astronomical Journal.

 Cache   
Dr. Charles Schambeau and co-authors, Yanga Fernandez, Nalin Samarasinha, Laura Woodney, Arunav Kundu’s manuscript, “Analysis of HST WFPC2 Observations of Centaur 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 while in Outburst to Place Constraints on the Nucleus’ Rotation State,” has been recently accepted to the Astronomical Journal. A preprint version of the article has been uploaded and accepted on arXiv Read More ...
          

#25 Drömkåken

 Cache   

Det har varit mycket bostad i tankarna bland poddens värdar då både Martin och Daniel nyligen köpt bostäder. Därför kommer dagens avsnitt att handla om olika typer av boende och dess för- och nackdelar. Vi pratar om saker att tänka på när man köper ett boende och vad vi själva tänkt på. Det blir också en längre diskussion om tekniska system i villor, från uppvärmning till att logga mätningar över tid för att på ett ingenjörsmässigt sätt lösa uppvärmningen av en villa. Avslutningsvis kommer vi in på dagens spaning som handlar att använda maskininlärning för att hitta optimala platser för att placera ut laddstationer för elbilar.

Länkar:
- Avsnitt 16: Bostadspriser - en ständigt aktuell fråga
- Borättsköparskolan
- Amorteringskrav
- Ränteavdraget
- allabrf.se
- Raspberry Pi
- Amazon Alexa
- Predicting popularity of EV charging infrastructure from GIS data
- Livscykelanalys
- Optimeringsproblem (engelska wikipedia, svenska saknade tyvärr mycket info)
- Open Street Map
- Open Charge Map

Dagens spaning (41:35):
- Predicting popularity of EV charging infrastructure from GIS data

Vi har för närvarande inga externa samarbeten och alla åsikter är våra egna. Inget vi pratar om är någon typ av investeringsrekommendationer och alla investeringar är förenade med risk.

Medverkande i avsnittet:
- Henning Hammar, driver tjänsten Börslabbet, doktor i fysik, @investerarfys
- Daniel Constanda, IT-konsult i finansbranchen på Clara Financial Consulting, @DanielConstanda
- Martin Nordgren, ingenjör på Tobii, tidigare på Dirac, @martinjnordgren

Kontakta oss:
dataspaning.se
@dataspaning @ Twitter
dataspaning@gmail.com


          

Building Intuitions On Non-Empirical Arguments In Science by Scott Alexander

 Cache   

I.

Aeon: Post-Em­piri­cal Science Is An Oxy­moron And It is Danger­ous:

There is no agreed crite­rion to dis­t­in­guish sci­ence from pseu­do­science, or just plain or­di­nary bul­lshit, open­ing the door to all man­ner of meta­physics mas­querad­ing as sci­ence. This is ‘post-em­piri­cal’ sci­ence, where truth no longer mat­ters, and it is po­ten­tially very dan­ger­ous.

It’s not difficult to find re­cent ex­am­ples. On 8 June 2019, the front cover of New Scien­tist mag­a­z­ine boldly de­clared that we’re ‘In­side the Mir­ror­verse’. Its ed­i­tors bid us ‘Wel­come to the par­allel re­al­ity that’s hid­ing in plain sight’. […]

[Some physi­cists] claim that neu­trons [are] flit­ting be­tween par­allel uni­verses. They ad­mit that the chances of prov­ing this are ‘low’, or even ‘zero’, but it doesn’t re­ally mat­ter. When it comes to grab­bing at­ten­tion, invit­ing that all-im­por­tant click, or pur­chase, spec­u­la­tive meta­physics wins hands down.

Th­ese the­o­ries are based on the no­tion that our Uni­verse is not unique, that there ex­ists a large num­ber of other uni­verses that some­how sit alongside or par­allel to our own. For ex­am­ple, in the so-called Many-Wor­lds in­ter­pre­ta­tion of quan­tum me­chan­ics, there are uni­verses con­tain­ing our par­allel selves, iden­ti­cal to us but for their differ­ent ex­pe­riences of quan­tum physics. Th­ese the­o­ries are at­trac­tive to some few the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cists and philoso­phers, but there is ab­solutely no em­piri­cal ev­i­dence for them. And, as it seems we can’t ever ex­pe­rience these other uni­verses, there will never be any ev­i­dence for them. As Brous­sard ex­plained, these the­o­ries are suffi­ciently slip­pery to duck any kind of challenge that ex­per­i­men­tal­ists might try to throw at them, and there’s always some­one happy to keep the idea al­ive.

Is this re­ally sci­ence? The an­swer de­pends on what you think so­ciety needs from sci­ence. In our post-truth age of ca­sual lies, fake news and al­ter­na­tive facts, so­ciety is un­der ex­traor­di­nary pres­sure from those push­ing po­ten­tially dan­ger­ous an­ti­scien­tific pro­pa­ganda – rang­ing from cli­mate-change de­nial to the anti-vaxxer move­ment to home­o­pathic medicines. I, for one, pre­fer a sci­ence that is ra­tio­nal and based on ev­i­dence, a sci­ence that is con­cerned with the­o­ries and em­piri­cal facts, a sci­ence that pro­motes the search for truth, no mat­ter how tran­sient or con­tin­gent. I pre­fer a sci­ence that does not read­ily ad­mit the­o­ries so vague and slip­pery that em­piri­cal tests are ei­ther im­pos­si­ble or they mean ab­solutely noth­ing at all.

As always, a sin­gle quote doesn’t do the ar­gu­ment jus­tice, so go read the ar­ti­cle. But I think this cap­tures the ba­sic ar­gu­ment: mul­ti­verse the­o­ries are bad, be­cause they’re untestable, and untestable sci­ence is pseu­do­science.

Many great peo­ple, both philoso­phers of sci­ence and prac­tic­ing sci­en­tists, have already dis­cussed the prob­lems with this point of view. But none of them lay out their ar­gu­ment in quite the way that makes the most sense to me. I want to do that here, with­out claiming any origi­nal­ity or spe­cial ex­per­tise in the sub­ject, to see if it helps con­vince any­one else.

II.

Con­sider a clas­sic ex­am­ple: mod­ern pa­le­on­tol­ogy does a good job at pre­dict­ing dinosaur fos­sils. But the cre­ation­ist ex­pla­na­tion – Satan buried fake dinosaur fos­sils to mis­lead us – also pre­dicts the same fos­sils (we as­sume Satan is good at dis­guis­ing his ex­is­tence, so that the lack of other strong ev­i­dence for Satan doesn’t con­tra­dict the the­ory). What prin­ci­ples help us re­al­ize that the Satan hy­poth­e­sis is ob­vi­ously stupid and the usual pa­le­on­tolog­i­cal one more plau­si­ble?

One bad re­sponse: pa­le­on­tol­ogy can bet­ter pre­dict char­ac­ter­is­tics of dinosaur fos­sils, us­ing ar­gu­ments like “since ple­siosaurs are aquatic, they will be found in ar­eas that were un­der­wa­ter dur­ing the Me­so­zoic, but since tyran­nosaurs are ter­res­trial, they will be found in ar­eas that were on land”, and this makes it bet­ter than the Satan hy­poth­e­sis, which can only retro­d­ict these char­ac­ter­is­tics. But this isn’t quite true: since Satan is try­ing to fool us into be­liev­ing the mod­ern pa­le­on­tol­ogy paradigm, he’ll hide the fos­sils in ways that con­form to its pre­dic­tions, so we will pre­dict ple­siosaur fos­sils will only be found at sea – oth­er­wise the gig would be up!

A sec­ond bad re­sponse: “The hy­poth­e­sis that all our find­ings were planted to de­ceive us bleeds into con­spir­acy the­o­ries and touches on the prob­lem of skep­ti­cism. Th­ese things are in­her­ently out­side the realm of sci­ence.” But ar­chae­olog­i­cal find­ings are very of­ten de­liber­ate hoaxes planted to de­ceive ar­chae­ol­o­gists, and in prac­tice ar­chae­ol­o­gists con­sider and test that hy­poth­e­sis the same way they con­sider and test ev­ery other hy­poth­e­sis. Rule this out by fiat and we have to ac­cept Pilt­down Man, or at least claim that the peo­ple ar­gu­ing against the ve­rac­ity of Pilt­down Man were do­ing some­thing other than Science.

A third bad re­sponse: “Satan is su­per­nat­u­ral and sci­ence is not al­lowed to con­sider su­per­nat­u­ral ex­pla­na­tions.” Fine then, re­place Satan with an alien. I think this is a stupid dis­tinc­tion – if demons re­ally did in­terfere in earthly af­fairs, then we could in­ves­ti­gate their ac­tions us­ing the same meth­ods we use to in­ves­ti­gate ev­ery other pro­cess. But this would take a long time to ar­gue well, so for now let’s just stick with the alien.

A fourth bad re­sponse: “There is no em­piri­cal test that dis­t­in­guishes the Satan hy­poth­e­sis from the pa­le­on­tol­ogy hy­poth­e­sis, there­fore the Satan hy­poth­e­sis is in­her­ently un­falsifi­able and there­fore pseu­do­scien­tific.” But this can’t be right. After all, there’s no em­piri­cal test that dis­t­in­guishes the pa­le­on­tol­ogy hy­poth­e­sis from the Satan hy­poth­e­sis! If we call one of them pseu­do­science based on their in­sep­a­ra­bil­ity, we have to call the other one pseu­do­science too!

A naive Pop­pe­rian (which maybe no­body re­ally is) would have to stop here, and say that we pre­dict dinosaur fos­sils will have such-and-such char­ac­ter­is­tics, but that ques­tions like that pro­cess that drives this pat­tern – a long-dead ecosys­tem of ac­tual dinosaurs, or the Devil plant­ing dinosaur bones to de­ceive us – is a mys­ti­cal ques­tion be­yond the abil­ity of Science to even con­ceiv­ably solve.

I think the cor­rect re­sponse is to say that both the­o­ries ex­plain the data, and one can­not em­piri­cally test which the­ory is true, but the pa­le­on­tol­ogy the­ory is more el­e­gant (I am tempted to say “sim­pler”, but that might im­ply I have a rigor­ous math­e­mat­i­cal defi­ni­tion of the form of sim­plic­ity in­volved, which I don’t). It re­quires fewer other weird things to be true. It in­volves fewer other hid­den vari­ables. It trans­forms our wor­ld­view less. It gets a cleaner shave with Oc­cam’s Ra­zor. This el­e­gance is so im­por­tant to us that it ex­plains our vast prefer­ence for the first the­ory over the sec­ond.

A long tra­di­tion of philoso­phers of sci­ence have already writ­ten elo­quently about this, summed up by Sean Car­roll here:

What makes an ex­pla­na­tion “the best.” Thomas Kuhn ,af­ter his in­fluen­tial book The Struc­ture of Scien­tific Revolu­tions led many peo­ple to think of him as a rel­a­tivist when it came to sci­en­tific claims, at­tempted to cor­rect this mis­im­pres­sion by offer­ing a list of crite­ria that sci­en­tists use in prac­tice to judge one the­ory bet­ter than an­other one: ac­cu­racy, con­sis­tency, broad scope, sim­plic­ity, and fruit­ful­ness. “Ac­cu­racy” (fit­ting the data) is one of these crite­ria, but by no means the sole one. Any work­ing sci­en­tist can think of cases where each of these con­cepts has been in­voked in fa­vor of one the­ory or an­other. But there is no un­am­bigu­ous al­gorithm ac­cord­ing to which we can feed in these crite­ria, a list of the­o­ries, and a set of data, and ex­pect the best the­ory to pop out. The way in which we judge sci­en­tific the­o­ries is in­escapably re­flec­tive, messy, and hu­man. That’s the re­al­ity of how sci­ence is ac­tu­ally done; it’s a mat­ter of judg­ment, not of draw­ing bright lines be­tween truth and falsity or sci­ence and non-sci­ence. For­tu­nately, in typ­i­cal cases the ac­cu­mu­la­tion of ev­i­dence even­tu­ally leaves only one vi­able the­ory in the eyes of most rea­son­able ob­servers.

The dinosaur hy­poth­e­sis and the Satan hy­poth­e­sis both fit the data, but the dinosaur hy­poth­e­sis wins hands-down on sim­plic­ity. As Car­roll pre­dicts, most rea­son­able ob­servers are able to con­verge on the same solu­tion here, de­spite the philo­soph­i­cal com­plex­ity.

III.

I’m start­ing with this ex­treme case be­cause its very ex­trem­ity makes it eas­ier to see the mechanism in ac­tion. But I think the same pro­cess ap­plies to other cases that peo­ple re­ally worry about.

Con­sider the rid­dle of the Sphinx. There’s pretty good ar­chae­olog­i­cal ev­i­dence sup­port­ing the con­sen­sus po­si­tion that it was built by Pharaoh Khafre. But there are a few holes in that story, and a few scat­tered ar­ti­facts sug­gest it was ac­tu­ally built by Pharaoh Khufu; a re­spectable minor­ity of ar­chae­ol­o­gists be­lieve this. And there are a few anoma­lies which, if taken wildly out of con­text, you can use to tell a story that it was built long be­fore Egypt ex­isted at all, maybe by At­lantis or aliens.

So there are three com­pet­ing hy­pothe­ses. All of them are con­sis­tent with cur­rent ev­i­dence (even the At­lantis one, which was writ­ten af­ter the cur­rent ev­i­dence was found and care­fully adds enough epicy­cles not to blatantly con­tra­dict it). Per­haps one day ev­i­dence will come to light that sup­ports one above the oth­ers; maybe in some un­ex­ca­vated tomb, a hi­ero­glyphic tablet says “I cre­ated the Sphinx, sincerely yours, Pharaoh Khufu”. But maybe this won’t hap­pen. Maybe we already have all the Sphinx-re­lated ev­i­dence we’re go­ing to get. Maybe the in­for­ma­tion nec­es­sary to dis­t­in­guish among these hy­pothe­ses has been ut­terly lost be­yond any con­ceiv­able abil­ity to re­con­struct.

I don’t want to say “No hy­poth­e­sis can be tested any fur­ther, so Science is use­less to us here”, be­cause then we’re forced to con­clude stupid things like “Science has no opinion on whether the Sphinx was built by Khafre or At­lanteans,” whereas I think most sci­en­tists would ac­tu­ally have very strong opinions on that.

But what about the ques­tion of whether the Sphinx was built by Khafre or Khufu? This is a real open ques­tion with re­spectable ar­chae­ol­o­gists on both sides; what can we do about it?

I think the an­swer would have to be: the same thing we did with the Satan vs. pa­le­on­tol­ogy ques­tion, only now it’s a lot harder. We try to figure out which the­ory re­quires fewer other weird things to be true, fewer hid­den vari­ables, less trans­for­ma­tion of our wor­ld­view – which the­ory works bet­ter with Oc­cam’s Ra­zor. This is rel­a­tively easy in the At­lantis case, and hard but po­ten­tially pos­si­ble in the Khafre vs. Khufu case.

(Bayesi­ans can rephrase this to: given that we have a cer­tain amount of ev­i­dence for each, can we quan­tify ex­actly how much ev­i­dence, and what our pri­ors for each should be. It would end not with a de­ci­sive vic­tory of one or the other, but with a prob­a­bil­ity dis­tri­bu­tion, maybe 80% chance it was Khafre, 20% chance it was Khufu)

I think this is a to­tally le­gi­t­i­mate thing for Egyp­tol­o­gists to do, even if it never re­sults in a par­tic­u­lar testable claim that gets tested. If you don’t think it’s a le­gi­t­i­mate thing for Egyp­tol­o­gists to do, I have trou­ble figur­ing out how you can jus­tify Egyp­tol­o­gists re­ject­ing the At­lantis the­ory.

(Again, Bayesi­ans would start with a very low prior for At­lantis, and as­sess the ev­i­dence as very low, and end up with a prob­a­bil­ity dis­tri­bu­tion some­thing like Khafre 80%, Khufu 19.999999%, At­lantis 0.000001%)

IV.

How does this re­late to things like mul­ti­verse the­ory? Be­fore we get there, one more hokey ex­am­ple:

Sup­pose sci­en­tists mea­sure the mass of one par­ti­cle at 32.604 units, the mass of an­other re­lated par­ti­cle at 204.897 units, and the mass of a third re­lated par­ti­cle at 4452.767 units. For a while, this is just how things are – it seems to be an ir­re­ducible brute fact about the uni­verse. Then some the­o­rist no­tices that if you set the mass of the first par­ti­cle as x, then the sec­ond is 2πx and the third is 43 πx^2. They the­o­rize that per­haps the quan­tum field forms some sort of ex­tradi­men­sional sphere, the first par­ti­cle rep­re­sents a di­ame­ter of a great cir­cle of the sphere, the sec­ond the cir­cum­fer­ence of the great cir­cle, and the third the vol­ume of the sphere.

(please ex­cuse the stu­pidity of my ex­am­ple, I don’t know enough about physics to come up with some­thing that isn’t stupid, but I hope it will illus­trate my point)

In fact, imag­ine that there are a hun­dred differ­ent par­ti­cles, all with differ­ent masses, and all one hun­dred have masses that perfectly cor­re­spond to var­i­ous math­e­mat­i­cal prop­er­ties of spheres.

Is the per­son who made this dis­cov­ery do­ing Science? And should we con­sider their the­ory a use­ful con­tri­bu­tion to physics?

I think the an­swer is clearly yes. But con­sider what this com­mits us to. Sup­pose the sci­en­tist came up with their Ex­tradi­men­sional Sphere hy­poth­e­sis af­ter learn­ing the masses of the rele­vant par­ti­cles, and so it has not pre­dicted any­thing. Sup­pose the ex­tradi­men­sional sphere is out­side nor­mal space, curled up into some di­men­sion we can’t pos­si­bly ac­cess or test with­out a par­ti­cle ac­cel­er­a­tor the size of the moon. Sup­pose there are no undis­cov­ered par­ti­cles in this set that can be tested to see if they also re­flect sphere-re­lated pa­ram­e­ters. This the­ory is ex­actly the kind of postem­piri­cal, meta­phys­i­cal con­struct that the Aeon ar­ti­cle sav­ages.

But it’s re­ally com­pel­ling. We have a hun­dred differ­ent par­ti­cles, and this the­ory retro­d­icts the prop­er­ties of each of them perfectly. And it’s so sim­ple – just say the word “sphere” and the rest falls out nat­u­rally! You would have to be crazy not to think it was at least pretty plau­si­ble, or that the sci­en­tist who de­vel­oped it had done some good work.

Nor do I think it seems right to say “The dis­cov­ery that all of our un­ex­plained vari­ables perfectly match the pa­ram­e­ters of a sphere is good, but the hy­poth­e­sis that there re­ally is a sphere is out­side the bounds of Science.” That sounds too much like say­ing “It’s fine to say dinosaur bones have such-and-such char­ac­ter­is­tics, but we must never spec­u­late about what kind of pro­cess pro­duced them, or whether it in­volved ac­tual dinosaurs”.

V.

My un­der­stand­ing of the mul­ti­verse de­bate is that it works the same way. Scien­tists ob­serve the be­hav­ior of par­ti­cles, and find that a mul­ti­verse ex­plains that be­hav­ior more sim­ply and el­e­gantly than not-a-mul­ti­verse.

One (doubtless ex­ag­ger­ated) way I’ve heard mul­ti­verse pro­po­nents ex­plain their po­si­tion is like this: in cer­tain situ­a­tions the math de­clares two con­tra­dic­tory an­swers – in the clas­sic ex­am­ple, Schrod­inger’s cat will be both al­ive and dead. But when we open the box, we see only a dead cat or an al­ive cat, not both. Mul­ti­verse op­po­nents say “Some un­known force steps in at the last sec­ond and de­stroys one of the pos­si­bil­ity branches”. Mul­ti­verse pro­po­nents say “No it doesn’t, both pos­si­bil­ity branches hap­pen ex­actly the way the math says, and we end up in one of them.”

Tak­ing this ex­ag­ger­ated dumbed-down ac­count as ex­actly right, this sounds about as hard as the dinosaurs-vs-Satan ex­am­ple, in terms of figur­ing out which is more Oc­cam’s Ra­zor com­pli­ant. I’m sure the re­al­ity is more nu­anced, but I think it can be judged by the same pro­cess. Per­haps this is the kind of rea­son­ing that only gets us to a 90% prob­a­bil­ity there is a mul­ti­verse, rather than a 99.999999% one. But I think de­ter­min­ing that the­o­ries have 90% prob­a­bil­ity is a rea­son­able sci­en­tific thing to do.

VI.

At times, the Aeon ar­ti­cle seems to flirt with ad­mit­ting that some­thing like this is nec­es­sary:

Such prob­lems were judged by philoso­phers of sci­ence to be in­sur­mountable, and Pop­per’s falsifi­a­bil­ity crite­rion was aban­doned (though, cu­ri­ously, it still lives on in the minds of many prac­tis­ing sci­en­tists). But rather than seek an al­ter­na­tive, in 1983 the philoso­pher Larry Lau­dan de­clared that the de­mar­ca­tion prob­lem is ac­tu­ally in­tractable, and must there­fore be a pseudo-prob­lem. He ar­gued that the real dis­tinc­tion is be­tween knowl­edge that is re­li­able or un­re­li­able, ir­re­spec­tive of its prove­nance, and claimed that terms such as ‘pseu­do­science’ and ‘un­scien­tific’ have no real mean­ing.

But it always jumps back from the precipice:

So, if we can’t make use of falsifi­a­bil­ity, what do we use in­stead? I don’t think we have any real al­ter­na­tive but to adopt what I might call the em­piri­cal crite­rion. De­mar­ca­tion is not some kind of bi­nary yes-or-no, right-or-wrong, black-or-white judg­ment. We have to ad­mit shades of grey. Pop­per him­self was ready to ac­cept this, [say­ing]:

“The crite­rion of de­mar­ca­tion can­not be an ab­solutely sharp one but will it­self have de­grees. There will be well-testable the­o­ries, hardly testable the­o­ries, and non-testable the­o­ries. Those which are non-testable are of no in­ter­est to em­piri­cal sci­en­tists. They may be de­scribed as meta­phys­i­cal.”

Here, ‘testa­bil­ity’ im­plies only that a the­ory ei­ther makes con­tact, or holds some promise of mak­ing con­tact, with em­piri­cal ev­i­dence. It makes no pre­sump­tions about what we might do in light of the ev­i­dence. If the ev­i­dence ver­ifies the the­ory, that’s great – we cel­e­brate and start look­ing for an­other test. If the ev­i­dence fails to sup­port the the­ory, then we might pon­der for a while or tin­ker with the aux­iliary as­sump­tions. Either way, there’s a ten­sion be­tween the meta­phys­i­cal con­tent of the the­ory and the em­piri­cal data – a ten­sion be­tween the ideas and the facts – which pre­vents the meta­physics from get­ting com­pletely out of hand. In this way, the meta­physics is tamed or ‘nat­u­ral­ised’, and we have some­thing to work with. This is sci­ence.

But as we’ve seen, many things we re­ally want to in­clude as sci­ence are not testable: our cre­dence for real dinosaurs over Satan plant­ing fos­sils, our cre­dence for Khafre build­ing the Sphinx over Khufu or At­lanteans, or el­e­gant pat­terns that ex­plain the fea­tures of the uni­verse like the Ex­tradi­men­sional-Sphere The­ory.

The Aeon ar­ti­cle is aware of Car­roll’s work – which, along with the para­graph quoted in Sec­tion II above, in­cludes a lot of de­tailed Bayesian rea­son­ing en­com­pass­ing ev­ery­thing I’ve dis­cussed. But the ar­ti­cle dis­misses it in a few sen­tences:

Sean Car­roll, a vo­cal ad­vo­cate for the Many-Wor­lds in­ter­pre­ta­tion, prefers ab­duc­tion, or what he calls ‘in­fer­ence to the best ex­pla­na­tion’, which leaves us with the­o­ries that are merely ‘par­si­mo­nious’, a mat­ter of judg­ment, and ‘still might rea­son­ably be true’. But whose judg­ment? In the ab­sence of facts, what con­sti­tutes ‘the best ex­pla­na­tion’?

Car­roll seeks to dress his no­tion of in­fer­ence in the cloth of re­spectabil­ity pro­vided by some­thing called Bayesian prob­a­bil­ity the­ory, hap­pily over­look­ing its en­tirely sub­jec­tive na­ture. It’s a short step from here to the the­o­rist-turned-philoso­pher Richard Dawid’s efforts to jus­tify the string the­ory pro­gramme in terms of ‘the­o­ret­i­cally con­firmed the­ory’ and ‘non-em­piri­cal the­ory as­sess­ment’. The ‘best ex­pla­na­tion’ is then based on a choice be­tween purely meta­phys­i­cal con­structs, with­out refer­ence to em­piri­cal ev­i­dence, based on the ap­pli­ca­tion of a prob­a­bil­ity the­ory that can be read­ily en­g­ineered to suit per­sonal prej­u­dices.

“A choice be­tween purely meta­phys­i­cal con­structs, with­out refer­ence to em­piri­cal ev­i­dence” sounds pretty bad, un­til you re­al­ize he’s talk­ing about the same rea­son­ing we use to de­ter­mine that real dinosaurs are more likely than Satan plant­ing fos­sils.

I don’t want to go over the ex­act ways in which Bayesian meth­ods are sub­jec­tive (which I think are over­es­ti­mated) vs. ob­jec­tive. I think it’s more fruit­ful to point out that your brain is already us­ing Bayesian meth­ods to in­ter­pret the pho­tons strik­ing your eyes into this sen­tence, to make snap de­ci­sions about what sense the words are used in, and to in­te­grate them into your model of the world. If Bayesian meth­ods are good enough to give you ev­ery sin­gle piece of ev­i­dence about the na­ture of the ex­ter­nal world that you have ever en­coun­tered in your en­tire life, I say they’re good enough for sci­ence.

Or if you don’t like that, you can use the ex­pla­na­tion above, which barely uses the word “Bayes” at all and just de­scribes ev­ery­thing in terms like “Oc­cam’s Ra­zor” and “you wouldn’t want to con­clude some­thing like that, would you?”

I know there are sep­a­rate de­bates about whether this kind of rea­son­ing-from-sim­plic­ity is ac­tu­ally good enough, when used by or­di­nary peo­ple, to con­sis­tently ar­rive at truth. Or whether it’s a pro­duc­tive way to con­duct sci­ence that will give us good new the­o­ries, or a waste of ev­ery­body’s time. I sym­pa­thize with some these con­cerns, though I am nowhere near sci­en­tifi­cally ed­u­cated enough to have an ac­tual opinion on the ques­tions at play.

But I think it’s im­por­tant to ar­gue that even be­fore you de­scribe the ad­van­tages and dis­ad­van­tages of the com­pli­cated Bayesian math that lets you do this, some­thing like this has to be done. The untestable is a fun­da­men­tal part of sci­ence, im­pos­si­ble to re­move. We can de­bate how to ex­plain it. But deny­ing it isn’t an op­tion.


          

[AN #72]: Alignment, robustness, methodology, and system building as research priorities for AI safety by rohinmshah

 Cache   

Find all Align­ment Newslet­ter re­sources here. In par­tic­u­lar, you can sign up, or look through this spread­sheet of all sum­maries that have ever been in the newslet­ter. I’m always happy to hear feed­back; you can send it to me by re­ply­ing to this email.

Au­dio ver­sion here (may not be up yet).

Highlights

AI Align­ment Re­search Overview (Ja­cob Stein­hardt) (sum­ma­rized by Dan H): It has been over three years since Con­crete Prob­lems in AI Safety. Since that time we have learned more about the struc­ture of the safety prob­lem. This doc­u­ment rep­re­sents an up­dated tax­on­omy of prob­lems rele­vant for AI al­ign­ment. Ja­cob Stein­hardt de­com­poses the re­main­ing tech­ni­cal work into “tech­ni­cal al­ign­ment (the over­com­ing of con­cep­tual or en­g­ineer­ing is­sues needed to cre­ate al­igned AI), de­tect­ing failures (the de­vel­op­ment of tools for proac­tively as­sess­ing the safety/​al­ign­ment of a sys­tem or ap­proach), method­olog­i­cal un­der­stand­ing (best prac­tices backed up by ex­pe­rience), and sys­tem-build­ing (how to tie to­gether the three pre­ced­ing cat­e­gories in the con­text of many en­g­ineers work­ing on a large sys­tem).”

The first topic un­der “tech­ni­cal al­ign­ment” is “Out-of-Distri­bu­tion Ro­bust­ness,” which re­ceives more em­pha­sis than it did in Con­crete Prob­lems. Out-of-Distri­bu­tion Ro­bust­ness is in part mo­ti­vated by the fact that trans­for­ma­tive AI will lead to sub­stan­tial changes to the real world, and we should like our sys­tems to perform well even un­der these large and pos­si­bly rapid data shifts. Spe­cific sub­prob­lems in­clude some work on ad­ver­sar­ial ex­am­ples and out-of-dis­tri­bu­tion de­tec­tion. Next, the prob­lem of Re­ward Learn­ing is de­scribed. For this, there are challenges in­clud­ing learn­ing hu­man val­ues and en­sur­ing those loss­ily rep­re­sented hu­man val­ues can re­main al­igned un­der ex­treme op­ti­miza­tion. While we have at­tained more con­cep­tual clar­ity about re­ward learn­ing since Con­crete Prob­lems, re­ward learn­ing still re­mains largely “un­charted,” and it is still not clear “how ap­proach the prob­lem.” The next sec­tion on Scal­able Re­ward Gen­er­a­tion points out that, in the fu­ture, la­bel­ing mean­ing or pro­vid­ing hu­man over­sight will prove in­creas­ingly difficult. Next, he pro­poses that we ought to study how to make sys­tems “act con­ser­va­tively,” such as en­dow­ing sys­tems with the abil­ity to ac­ti­vate a con­ser­va­tive fal­lback rou­tine when they are un­cer­tain. The fi­nal topic un­der tech­ni­cal al­ign­ment is Coun­ter­fac­tual Rea­son­ing. Here one pos­si­ble di­rec­tion is gen­er­at­ing a fam­ily of simu­lated en­vi­ron­ments to gen­er­ate coun­ter­fac­tu­als.

The “tech­ni­cal al­ign­ment” sec­tion is the ma­jor­ity of this doc­u­ment. Later sec­tions such as “De­tect­ing Failures in Ad­vance” high­light the im­por­tance of deep neu­ral net­work vi­su­al­iza­tion and re­cent model stress-test datasets. “Method­olog­i­cal Un­der­stand­ing” sug­gests that we are more likely to build al­igned AI sys­tems if we im­prove our best prac­tices for build­ing and eval­u­at­ing mod­els, and “Sys­tem Build­ing” spec­u­lates about how to do this for fu­ture multi-faceted ML sys­tems.

Dan H’s opinion: This is a wel­come up­date to Con­crete Prob­lems since it is slightly more con­crete, cur­rent, and dis­cusses im­prov­ing safety in both deep learn­ing and RL rather than mostly RL. While the doc­u­ment men­tions many prob­lems, the set of prob­lems re­tains pre­ci­sion and for­tu­nately does not in­clude ev­ery ca­pa­bil­ities con­cern that may pos­si­bly one day im­pact safety. A take­away is that value learn­ing and model trans­parency still need ground­work, but for­tu­nately other prob­lems in­clud­ing out-of-dis­tri­bu­tion ro­bust­ness are more con­cretized and mostly need time and con­tinued effort.

Ro­hin’s opinion: One thing I par­tic­u­larly like about this agenda is that the con­nec­tion to AI al­ign­ment is sig­nifi­cantly clearer than in Con­crete Prob­lems.

Tech­ni­cal AI alignment

Iter­ated amplification

Ought Progress Up­date Oc­to­ber 2019 (Jung­won Byun and An­dreas Stuh­lmüller) (sum­ma­rized by Ro­hin): While this up­date pro­vides de­tails about Ought as a whole, I will fo­cus only on the re­search they’ve done. As a re­minder, Ought’s goal is to un­der­stand how we can del­e­gate hard ques­tions to ma­chine and hu­man ex­perts. They ini­tially fo­cused on Fac­tored Cog­ni­tion (AN #36), where each ques­tion was re­cur­sively de­com­posed into sub­ques­tions that would help find the an­swer. They now call this “Fac­tored Gen­er­a­tion”, and use “Fac­tored Cog­ni­tion” as the um­brella term for any ap­proach that helps an­swer hard ques­tions us­ing some kind of de­com­po­si­tion.

While Ought has run some ML ex­per­i­ments aimed at au­tomat­ing de­com­po­si­tions, they have pri­mar­ily worked on hu­man ex­per­i­ments for Fac­tored Eval­u­a­tion (AN #62), where the de­com­po­si­tions are used to help eval­u­ate an­swers. They are fo­cus­ing on eval­u­at­ing an­swers in­stead of find­ing an­swers for a few rea­sons. First, there may already ex­ist ex­perts whose an­swers we can use: this can be di­rectly plugged into Fac­tored Eval­u­a­tion, but not Fac­tored Gen­er­a­tion. Se­cond, eval­u­a­tion is of­ten eas­ier than gen­er­a­tion. Third, fac­tored eval­u­a­tion is more amenable to time-sav­ing tricks like only fo­cus­ing on a sin­gle branch of the tree (as in AI safety via de­bate (AN #5)). Fi­nally, when train­ing ML sys­tems, if a model is un­able to ex­actly imi­tate the ex­perts, we need some­thing that can dis­t­in­guish be­tween bet­ter and worse be­hav­ior, which is pos­si­ble with Fac­tored Eval­u­a­tion but not Fac­tored Gen­er­a­tion. (See also Against Mimicry.)

The ex­per­i­ments in­volve a judge try­ing to de­cide which of two an­swers to a ques­tion is best, where one an­swer is pro­vided by an hon­est ex­pert and one by a mal­i­cious ex­pert. (Subques­tions may also get differ­ent an­swers from the two ex­perts.) The goal is to find a setup where the judge re­li­ably picks the hon­est an­swer, re­gard­less of how pow­er­ful the mal­i­cious ex­pert is: if this could be es­tab­lished, it would be strong ev­i­dence that the setup in­cen­tivizes hon­est an­swers. Of course, this re­quires us to quan­tify over all mal­i­cious strate­gies, but hu­mans may not find the best mal­i­cious strate­gies. To miti­gate this, the ex­per­i­ments provide the mal­i­cious ex­pert with lots of ad­van­tages that the hon­est one doesn’t have, to simu­late very pow­er­ful mal­i­cious ex­perts.

They have already learned from their ex­per­i­ments. Ini­tially, they hoped par­ti­ci­pants would de­velop good meta-level strate­gies for de­ter­min­ing the truth. (Meta-level here means that the strate­gies would gen­er­al­ize to other do­mains, e.g. a heuris­tic of always split­ting an an­swer into sep­a­rate claims and ask­ing for the ev­i­dence for each claim sep­a­rately.) They found that these strate­gies don’t emerge or­gan­i­cally, and so are plan­ning to spend con­cen­trated staff time on find­ing good strate­gies. They also found that mal­i­cious ex­perts some­times won due to avoid­able mis­takes, and are hop­ing to elimi­nate this by en­sem­bling work from mul­ti­ple peo­ple for in­creased ro­bust­ness.

Ro­hin’s opinion: This is dis­tinct progress since the last up­date, though I think the ex­per­i­ments are still ex­plo­ra­tory enough that it’s hard to have any big take­aways. The difficulty of gen­er­at­ing good strate­gies sug­gests that it’s par­tic­u­larly im­por­tant that we train our hu­man over­seers (as sug­gested in AI Safety Needs So­cial Scien­tists (AN #47)) to provide the right kind of feed­back, for ex­am­ple if we would like them to re­ward only cor­rigible rea­son­ing (AN #35). I’m par­tic­u­larly ex­cited for the next up­date, where we could see ex­per­i­ments pow­er­ful enough to come to more solid con­clu­sions.

Learn­ing hu­man intent

Norms, Re­wards, and the In­ten­tional Stance: Com­par­ing Ma­chine Learn­ing Ap­proaches to Eth­i­cal Train­ing (Daniel Kasen­berg et al) (sum­ma­rized by Asya) (H/​T Xuan Tan): This pa­per ar­gues that norm in­fer­ence is a plau­si­ble al­ter­na­tive to in­verse re­in­force­ment learn­ing (IRL) for teach­ing a sys­tem what peo­ple want. Ex­ist­ing IRL al­gorithms rely on the Markov as­sump­tion: that the next state of the world de­pends only on the pre­vi­ous state of the world and the ac­tion that the agent takes from that state, rather than on the agent’s en­tire his­tory. In cases where in­for­ma­tion about the past mat­ters, IRL will ei­ther fail to in­fer the right re­ward func­tion, or will be forced to make challeng­ing guesses about what past in­for­ma­tion to en­code in each state. By con­trast, norm in­fer­ence tries to in­fer what (po­ten­tially tem­po­ral) propo­si­tions en­code the re­ward of the sys­tem, keep­ing around only past in­for­ma­tion that is rele­vant to eval­u­at­ing po­ten­tial propo­si­tions. The pa­per ar­gues that norm in­fer­ence re­sults in more in­ter­pretable sys­tems that gen­er­al­ize bet­ter than IRL—sys­tems that use norm in­fer­ence can suc­cess­fully model re­ward-driven agents, but sys­tems that use IRL do poorly at learn­ing tem­po­ral norms.

Asya’s opinion: This pa­per pre­sents an in­ter­est­ing novel al­ter­na­tive to in­verse re­in­force­ment learn­ing and does a good job of ac­knowl­edg­ing po­ten­tial ob­jec­tions. De­cid­ing whether and how to store in­for­ma­tion about the past seems like an im­por­tant prob­lem that in­verse re­in­force­ment learn­ing has to reckon with. My main con­cern with norm in­fer­ence, which the pa­per men­tions, is that op­ti­miz­ing over all pos­si­ble propo­si­tions is in prac­tice ex­tremely slow. I don’t an­ti­ci­pate that norm in­fer­ence will be a perfor­mance-tractable strat­egy un­less a lot of com­pu­ta­tion power is available.

Ro­hin’s opinion: The idea of “norms” used here is very differ­ent from what I usu­ally imag­ine, as in e.g. Fol­low­ing hu­man norms (AN #42). Usu­ally, I think of norms as im­pos­ing a con­straint upon poli­cies rather than defin­ing an op­ti­mal policy, (of­ten) spec­i­fy­ing what not to do rather than what to do, and be­ing a prop­erty of groups of agents, rather than of a sin­gle agent. (See also this com­ment.) The “norms” in this pa­per don’t satisfy any of these prop­er­ties: I would de­scribe their norm in­fer­ence as perform­ing IRL with his­tory-de­pen­dent re­ward func­tions, with a strong in­duc­tive bias to­wards “log­i­cal” re­ward func­tions (which comes from their use of Lin­ear Tem­po­ral Logic). Note that some in­duc­tive bias is nec­es­sary, as with­out in­duc­tive bias his­tory-de­pen­dent re­ward func­tions are far too ex­pres­sive, and noth­ing could be rea­son­ably learned. I think de­spite how it’s writ­ten, the pa­per should be taken not as a de­nounce­ment of IRL-the-paradigm, but a pro­posal for bet­ter IRL al­gorithms that are quite differ­ent from the ones we cur­rently have.

Im­prov­ing Deep Re­in­force­ment Learn­ing in Minecraft with Ac­tion Ad­vice (Spencer Fra­zier et al) (sum­ma­rized by Asya): This pa­per uses maze-traver­sal in Minecraft to look at the ex­tent to which hu­man ad­vice can help with ali­as­ing in 3D en­vi­ron­ments, the prob­lem where many states share nearly iden­ti­cal vi­sual fea­tures. The pa­per com­pares two ad­vice-giv­ing al­gorithms that rely on neu­ral nets which are trained to ex­plore and pre­dict the util­ities of pos­si­ble ac­tions they can take, some­times ac­cept­ing hu­man ad­vice. The two al­gorithms differ pri­mar­ily in whether they provide ad­vice for the cur­rent ac­tion, or provide ad­vice that per­sists for sev­eral ac­tions.

Ex­per­i­men­tal re­sults sug­gest that both al­gorithms, but es­pe­cially the one that ap­plies to mul­ti­ple ac­tions, help with the prob­lem of 3D ali­as­ing, po­ten­tially be­cause the sys­tem can rely on the move­ment ad­vice it got in pre­vi­ous timesteps rather than hav­ing to dis­cern tricky vi­sual fea­tures in the mo­ment. The pa­per also varies the fre­quency and ac­cu­racy of the ad­vice given, and finds that re­ceiv­ing more ad­vice sig­nifi­cantly im­proves perfor­mance, even if that ad­vice is only 50% ac­cu­rate.

Asya’s opinion: I like this pa­per, largely be­cause learn­ing from ad­vice hasn’t been ap­plied much to 3D wor­lds, and this is a com­pel­ling proof of con­cept. I think it’s also a note­wor­thy though ex­pected re­sult that ad­vice that sticks tem­po­rally helps a lot when the ground truth vi­sual ev­i­dence is difficult to in­ter­pret.

Forecasting

Two ex­pla­na­tions for vari­a­tion in hu­man abil­ities (Matthew Bar­nett) (sum­ma­rized by Flo): How quickly might AI ex­ceed hu­man ca­pa­bil­ities? One piece of ev­i­dence is the vari­a­tion of in­tel­li­gence within hu­mans: if there isn’t much vari­a­tion, we might ex­pect AI not to stay at hu­man level in­tel­li­gence for long. It has been ar­gued that vari­a­tion in hu­man cog­ni­tive abil­ities is small com­pared to such vari­a­tion for ar­bi­trary agents. How­ever, the vari­a­tion of hu­man abil­ity in games like chess seems to be quite pro­nounced, and it took chess com­put­ers more than forty years to tran­si­tion from be­gin­ner level to beat­ing the best hu­mans. The blog post pre­sents two ar­gu­ments to rec­on­cile these per­spec­tives:

First, similar minds could have large vari­a­tion in learn­ing abil­ity: If we break a ran­dom part of a com­plex ma­chine, it might perform worse or stop work­ing al­to­gether, even if the bro­ken ma­chine is very similar to the un­bro­ken one. Vari­a­tion in hu­man learn­ing abil­ity might be mostly ex­plain­able by lots of small “bro­ken parts” like harm­ful mu­ta­tions.

Se­cond, small vari­a­tion in learn­ing abil­ity can be con­sis­tent with large vari­a­tion in com­pe­tence, if the lat­ter is ex­plained by vari­a­tion in an­other fac­tor like prac­tice time. For ex­am­ple, a chess match is not very use­ful to de­ter­mine who’s smarter, if one of the play­ers has played a lot more games than the other. This per­spec­tive also re­frames AlphaGo’s su­per­hu­man­ity: the ver­sion that beat Lee Sedol had played around 2000 times as many games as him.

Flo’s opinion: I liked this post and am glad it high­lighted the dis­tinc­tion be­tween learn­ing abil­ity and com­pe­tence that seems to of­ten be ig­nored in de­bates about AI progress. I would be ex­cited to see some fur­ther ex­plo­ra­tion of the “bro­ken parts” model and its im­pli­ca­tion about differ­ing var­i­ances in cog­ni­tive abil­ities be­tween hu­mans and ar­bi­trary in­tel­li­gences.

Mis­cel­la­neous (Align­ment)

Chris Olah’s views on AGI safety (Evan Hub­inger) (sum­ma­rized by Matthew): This post is Evan’s best at­tempt to sum­ma­rize Chris Olah’s views on how trans­parency is a vi­tal com­po­nent for build­ing safe ar­tifi­cial in­tel­li­gence, which he dis­t­in­guishes into four sep­a­rate ap­proaches:

First, we can ap­ply in­ter­pretabil­ity to au­dit our neu­ral net­works, or in other words, catch prob­le­matic rea­son­ing in our mod­els. Se­cond, trans­parency can help safety by al­low­ing re­searchers to de­liber­ately struc­ture their mod­els in ways that sys­tem­at­i­cally work, rather than us­ing ma­chine learn­ing as a black box. Third, un­der­stand­ing trans­parency al­lows us to di­rectly in­cen­tivize for trans­parency in model de­sign and de­ci­sions—similar to how we grade hu­mans on their rea­son­ing (not just the cor­rect an­swer) by hav­ing them show their work. Fourth, trans­parency might al­low us to re­ori­ent the field of AI to­wards micro­scope AI: AI that gives us new ways of un­der­stand­ing the world, en­abling us to be more ca­pa­ble, with­out it­self tak­ing au­tonomous ac­tions.

Chris ex­pects that his main dis­agree­ment with oth­ers is whether good trans­parency is pos­si­ble as mod­els be­come more com­plex. He hy­poth­e­sizes that as mod­els be­come more ad­vanced, they will coun­ter­in­tu­itively be­come more in­ter­pretable, as they will be­gin us­ing more crisp hu­man-re­lat­able ab­strac­tions. Fi­nally, Chris rec­og­nizes that his view im­plies that we might have to re-al­ign the ML com­mu­nity, but he re­mains op­ti­mistic be­cause he be­lieves there’s a lot of low-hang­ing fruit, re­search into in­ter­pretabil­ity al­lows low-bud­get labs to re­main com­pet­i­tive, and in­ter­pretabil­ity is al­igned with the sci­en­tific virtue to un­der­stand our tools.

Matthew’s opinion: Devel­op­ing trans­parency tools is cur­rently my best guess for how we can avoid de­cep­tion and catas­trophic plan­ning in our AI sys­tems. I’m most ex­cited about ap­ply­ing trans­parency tech­niques via the first and third routes, which pri­mar­ily help us au­dit our mod­els. I’m more pes­simistic about the fourth ap­proach be­cause it pre­dictably in­volves re­struc­tur­ing the in­cen­tives for ma­chine learn­ing as a field, which is quite difficult. My opinion might be differ­ent if we could some­how co­or­di­nate the de­vel­op­ment of these tech­nolo­gies.

Mis­con­cep­tions about con­tin­u­ous take­off (Matthew Bar­nett) (sum­ma­rized by Flo): This post at­tempts to clar­ify the au­thor’s no­tion of con­tin­u­ous AI take­off, defined as the growth of fu­ture AI ca­pa­bil­ities be­ing in line with ex­trap­o­la­tion from cur­rent trends. In par­tic­u­lar, that means that no AI pro­ject is go­ing to bring sud­den large gains in ca­pa­bil­ities com­pared to its pre­de­ces­sors.

Such a con­tin­u­ous take­off does not nec­es­sar­ily have to be slow. For ex­am­ple, gen­er­a­tive ad­ver­sar­ial net­works have be­come bet­ter quite rapidly dur­ing the last five years, but progress has still been piece­meal. Fur­ther­more, ex­po­nen­tial gains, for ex­am­ple due to re­cur­sive self-im­prove­ment, can be con­sis­tent with a con­tin­u­ous take­off, as long as the gains from one iter­a­tion of the im­prove­ment pro­cess are mod­est. How­ever, this means that a con­tin­u­ous take­off does not pre­clude large power differ­en­tials from aris­ing: slight ad­van­tages can com­pound over time and ac­tors might use their lead in AI de­vel­op­ment to their strate­gic ad­van­tage even ab­sent dis­con­tin­u­ous progress, much like west­ern Europe used its tech­nolog­i­cal ad­van­tage to con­quer most of the world.

Know­ing whether or not AI take­off hap­pens con­tin­u­ously is im­por­tant for al­ign­ment re­search: A con­tin­u­ous take­off would al­low for more of an at­ti­tude of “deal­ing with things as they come up” and we should shift our fo­cus on spe­cific as­pects that are hard to deal with as they come up. If the take­off is not con­tin­u­ous, an agent might rapidly gain ca­pa­bil­ities rel­a­tive to the rest of civ­i­liza­tion and it be­comes im­por­tant to rule out prob­lems, long be­fore they come up.

Flo’s opinion: I be­lieve that it is quite im­por­tant to be aware of the im­pli­ca­tions that differ­ent forms of take­off should have on our pri­ori­ti­za­tion and am glad that the ar­ti­cle high­lights this. How­ever, I am a bit wor­ried that this very broad defi­ni­tion of con­tin­u­ous progress limits the use­ful­ness of the con­cept. For ex­am­ple, it seems plau­si­ble that a re­cur­sively self-im­prov­ing agent which is very hard to deal with once de­ployed still im­proves its ca­pa­bil­ities slow enough to fit the defi­ni­tion, es­pe­cially if its de­vel­oper has a sig­nifi­cant lead over oth­ers.

AI strat­egy and policy

Spe­cial Re­port: AI Policy and China – Real­ities of State-Led Development

Other progress in AI

Re­in­force­ment learning

Let’s Dis­cuss OpenAI’s Ru­bik’s Cube Re­sult (Alex Ir­pan) (sum­ma­rized by Ro­hin): This post makes many points about OpenAI’s Ru­bik’s cube re­sult (AN #70), but I’m only go­ing to fo­cus on two. First, the re­sult is a ma­jor suc­cess for OpenAI’s fo­cus on de­sign de­ci­sions that en­courage long-term re­search suc­cess. In par­tic­u­lar, it re­lied heav­ily on the en­g­ineer­ing-heavy model surgery and policy dis­til­la­tion ca­pa­bil­ities that al­low them to mod­ify e.g. the ar­chi­tec­ture in the mid­dle of a train­ing run (which we’ve seen with OpenAI Five (AN #19)). Se­cond, the do­main ran­dom­iza­tion doesn’t help as much as you might think: OpenAI needed to put a sig­nifi­cant amount of effort into im­prov­ing the simu­la­tion to get these re­sults, tripling the num­ber of suc­cesses on a face ro­ta­tion task. In­tu­itively, we still need to put in a lot of effort to get­ting the simu­la­tion to be “near” re­al­ity, and then do­main ran­dom­iza­tion can take care of the last lit­tle bit needed to ro­bustly trans­fer to re­al­ity. Given that do­main ran­dom­iza­tion isn’t do­ing that much, it’s not clear if the paradigm of zero-shot sim-to-real trans­fer is the right one to pur­sue. To quote the post’s con­clu­sion: I see two endgames here. In one, robot learn­ing re­duces to build­ing rich simu­la­tors that are well-in­stru­mented for ran­dom­iza­tion, then us­ing lu­dicrous amounts of com­pute across those simu­la­tors. In the other, ran­dom­iza­tion is never good enough to be more than a boot­strap­ping step be­fore real robot data, no mat­ter what the com­pute situ­a­tion looks like. Both seem plau­si­ble to me, and we’ll see how things shake out.

Ro­hin’s opinion: As usual, Alex’s anal­y­sis is spot on, and I have noth­ing to add be­yond strong agree­ment.


          

On the Mass Assembly History of the Local Group. (arXiv:1910.12865v1 [astro-ph.GA])

 Cache   
Volume: 14, Issue 44 - Article #4
Authors: Edoardo Carlesi, Yehuda Hoffman, Stefan Gottlöber, Noam I. Libeskind, Alexander Knebe, Gustavo Yepes, Sergey V. Pilipenko
          

Fine-scale explosive energy release at sites of prospective magnetic flux cancellation in the core of the solar active region observed by Hi-C 2.1, IRIS and SDO. (arXiv:1911.01424v1 [astro-ph.SR])

 Cache   
Fine-scale explosive energy release at sites of prospective magnetic flux cancellation in the core of the solar active region observed by Hi-C 2.1, IRIS and SDO. (arXiv:1911.01424v1 [astro-ph.SR]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Tiwari_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Sanjiv K. Tiwari</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Panesar_N/0/1/0/all/0/1">Navdeep K. Panesar</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Moore_R/0/1/0/all/0/1">Ronald L. Moore</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Pontieu_B/0/1/0/all/0/1">Bart De Pontieu</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Winebarger_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Amy R. Winebarger</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Golub_L/0/1/0/all/0/1">Leon Golub</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Savage_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Sabrina L. Savage</a>, […]
          

Mass Segregation in Eccentric Nuclear Disks: Enhanced Tidal Disruption Event Rates for High Mass Stars. (arXiv:1911.01426v1 [astro-ph.GA])

 Cache   
Mass Segregation in Eccentric Nuclear Disks: Enhanced Tidal Disruption Event Rates for High Mass Stars. (arXiv:1911.01426v1 [astro-ph.GA]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Foote_H/0/1/0/all/0/1">Hayden R. Foote</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Generozov_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Aleksey Generozov</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Madigan_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Ann-Marie Madigan</a> Eccentric nuclear disks (ENDs) are a type of star cluster in which the stars lie on eccentric, apsidally–aligned orbits in a disk around a central supermassive black hole […]
          

Planet-disk interaction in disks with cooling: basic theory. (arXiv:1911.01428v1 [astro-ph.EP])

 Cache   
Planet-disk interaction in disks with cooling: basic theory. (arXiv:1911.01428v1 [astro-ph.EP]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Miranda_R/0/1/0/all/0/1">Ryan Miranda</a> (1), <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Rafikov_R/0/1/0/all/0/1">Roman R. Rafikov</a> (1,2) ((1) IAS, (2) DAMTP, Cambridge) Gravitational coupling between young planets and their parent disks is often explored using numerical simulations, which typically treat the disk thermodynamics in a highly simplified manner. In particular, many studies adopt […]
          

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey extended Point Spread Functions. (arXiv:1911.01430v1 [astro-ph.IM])

 Cache   
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey extended Point Spread Functions. (arXiv:1911.01430v1 [astro-ph.IM]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Infante_Sainz_R/0/1/0/all/0/1">Ra&#xfa;l Infante-Sainz</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Trujillo_I/0/1/0/all/0/1">Ignacio Trujillo</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Roman_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Javier Rom&#xe1;n</a> A robust and extended characterization of the Point Spread Function (PSF) is crucial to extract the photometric information produced by deep imaging surveys. Here we present the extended PSFs of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey […]
          

Differential Rotation in Convective Envelopes: Constraints from Eclipsing Binaries. (arXiv:1911.01431v1 [astro-ph.SR])

 Cache   
Differential Rotation in Convective Envelopes: Constraints from Eclipsing Binaries. (arXiv:1911.01431v1 [astro-ph.SR]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Jermyn_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Adam S. Jermyn</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Tayar_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Jamie Tayar</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Fuller_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Jim Fuller</a> Over time, tides synchronize the rotation periods of stars in a binary system to the orbital period. However, if the star exhibits differential rotation then only a portion of it can rotate at the […]
          

QCD Baryogenesis. (arXiv:1911.01432v1 [hep-ph])

 Cache   
QCD Baryogenesis. (arXiv:1911.01432v1 [hep-ph]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Croon_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">Djuna Croon</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Howard_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Jessica N. Howard</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Ipek_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Seyda Ipek</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/hep-ph/1/au:+Tait_T/0/1/0/all/0/1">Timothy M.P. Tait</a> We explore a simple model which naturally explains the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe. In this model the strong coupling is promoted to a dynamical quantity, which evolves through the vacuum expectation value of a singlet […]
          

The SAMI Galaxy Survey: The contribution of different kinematic classes to the stellar mass function of nearby galaxies. (arXiv:1911.01433v1 [astro-ph.GA])

 Cache   
The SAMI Galaxy Survey: The contribution of different kinematic classes to the stellar mass function of nearby galaxies. (arXiv:1911.01433v1 [astro-ph.GA]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Guo_K/0/1/0/all/0/1">Kexin Guo</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Cortese_L/0/1/0/all/0/1">Luca Cortese</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Obreschkow_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">Danail Obreschkow</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Catinella_B/0/1/0/all/0/1">Barbara Catinella</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Sande_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Jesse van de Sande</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Croom_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Scott M. Croom</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Brough_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Sarah Brough</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Sweet_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Sarah Sweet</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bryant_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Julia J. Bryant</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Medling_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Anne Medling</a>, <a […]
          

Binary black holes in the pair-instability mass gap. (arXiv:1911.01434v1 [astro-ph.HE])

 Cache   
Binary black holes in the pair-instability mass gap. (arXiv:1911.01434v1 [astro-ph.HE]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Carlo_U/0/1/0/all/0/1">Ugo N. Di Carlo</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Mapelli_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">Michela Mapelli</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bouffanais_Y/0/1/0/all/0/1">Yann Bouffanais</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Giacobbo_N/0/1/0/all/0/1">Nicola Giacobbo</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bressan_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Sandro Bressan</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Spera_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">Mario Spera</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Haardt_F/0/1/0/all/0/1">Francesco Haardt</a> Pair instability (PI) and pulsational PI prevent the formation of black holes (BHs) with mass $gtrsim{}60$ M$_odot$ from single star evolution. Here, […]
          

Have we seen all the galaxies that comprise the cosmic infrared background at 250,$mu$m $le lambda le$ 500,$mu$m?. (arXiv:1911.01437v1 [astro-ph.GA])

 Cache   
Have we seen all the galaxies that comprise the cosmic infrared background at 250,$mu$m $le lambda le$ 500,$mu$m?. (arXiv:1911.01437v1 [astro-ph.GA]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Duivenvoorden_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">S. Duivenvoorden</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Oliver_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">S. Oliver</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Bethermin_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">M. Bethermin</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Clements_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">D. L. Clements</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Zotti_G/0/1/0/all/0/1">G. De Zotti</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Efstathiou_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">A. Efstathiou</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Farrah_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">D. Farrah</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Hurley_P/0/1/0/all/0/1">P. D. Hurley</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Ivison_R/0/1/0/all/0/1">R. J. Ivison</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Lagache_G/0/1/0/all/0/1">G. Lagache</a>, <a […]
          

Dusty star-forming galaxy MAMBO-9 investigated in detail

 Cache   
Dusty star-forming galaxy MAMBO-9 investigated in detail Using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), an international team of astronomers has conducted detailed observations of the dusty star-forming galaxy MMJ100026.36+021527.9, better known as MAMBO-9. The study, described in a paper published October 29 on arXiv.org, provides physical characterization of this galaxy, shedding more light on its […]
          

The Fundamental Plane of cluster spheroidal galaxies at z$sim1.3$. Evidence for mass-dependent evolution. (arXiv:1911.01438v1 [astro-ph.GA])

 Cache   
The Fundamental Plane of cluster spheroidal galaxies at z$sim1.3$. Evidence for mass-dependent evolution. (arXiv:1911.01438v1 [astro-ph.GA]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Saracco_P/0/1/0/all/0/1">P. Saracco</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Gargiulo_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">A. Gargiulo</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Barbera_F/0/1/0/all/0/1">F. La Barbera</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Annunziatella_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">M. Annunziatella</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Marchesini_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">D. Marchesini</a> We present spectroscopic observations obtained at the {it Large Binocular Telescope} in the field of the cluster XLSSJ0223-0436 at $z=1.22$. We confirm 12 spheroids […]
          

Jets from Tidal Disruption Events. (arXiv:1911.01442v1 [astro-ph.HE])

 Cache   
Jets from Tidal Disruption Events. (arXiv:1911.01442v1 [astro-ph.HE]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Colle_F/0/1/0/all/0/1">Fabio De Colle</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Lu_W/0/1/0/all/0/1">Wenbin Lu</a> The discovery of jets from tidal disruption events (TDEs) rejuvenated the old field of relativistic jets powered by accretion onto supermassive black holes. In this Chapter, we first review the extensive multi-wavelength observations of jetted TDEs. Then, we show that these […]
          

Core-Envelope Coupling in Intermediate-Mass Core-Helium Burning Stars. (arXiv:1911.01443v1 [astro-ph.SR])

 Cache   
Core-Envelope Coupling in Intermediate-Mass Core-Helium Burning Stars. (arXiv:1911.01443v1 [astro-ph.SR]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Tayar_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Jamie Tayar</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Beck_P/0/1/0/all/0/1">Paul G. Beck</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Pinsonneault_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">Marc H. Pinsonneault</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Garcia_R/0/1/0/all/0/1">Rafael A. Garc&#xed;a</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Mathur_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Savita Mathur</a> Stars between two and three solar masses rotate rapidly on the main sequence, and the detection of slow core and surface rotation in the core-helium burning phase for […]
          

Gravitational waves in warped compactifications. (arXiv:1911.01444v1 [hep-th])

 Cache   
Gravitational waves in warped compactifications. (arXiv:1911.01444v1 [hep-th]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Andriot_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">David Andriot</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Tsimpis_D/0/1/0/all/0/1">Dimitrios Tsimpis</a> We study gravitational waves propagating on a warped Minkowski space-time with D-4 compact extra dimensions. While Kaluza-Klein scales are typically too high for any current detection, we analyse how the warp factor changes the Kaluza-Klein spectrum of gravitational waves. To that end […]
          

Stochastic Chemical Evolution of Radioactive Isotopes with a Monte Carlo Approach. (arXiv:1911.01457v1 [astro-ph.GA])

 Cache   
Stochastic Chemical Evolution of Radioactive Isotopes with a Monte Carlo Approach. (arXiv:1911.01457v1 [astro-ph.GA]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Cote_B/0/1/0/all/0/1">Benoit C&#xf4;t&#xe9;</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Yague_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Andr&#xe9;s Yag&#xfc;e</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Vilagos_B/0/1/0/all/0/1">Blanka Vil&#xe1;gos</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Lugaro_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">Maria Lugaro</a> Short-lived radionuclides (SLRs) with mean-lives $tau$ of a few to hundreds Myr provide unique opportunities to probe recent nucleosynthesis events in the interstellar medium, and the physical conditions in which […]
          

The effect of our local motion on the Sandage-Loeb test of the cosmic expansion. (arXiv:1911.01467v1 [astro-ph.CO])

 Cache   
The effect of our local motion on the Sandage-Loeb test of the cosmic expansion. (arXiv:1911.01467v1 [astro-ph.CO]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Inoue_T/0/1/0/all/0/1">Takuya Inoue</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Komatsu_E/0/1/0/all/0/1">Eiichiro Komatsu</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Aoki_W/0/1/0/all/0/1">Wako Aoki</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Chiba_T/0/1/0/all/0/1">Takeshi Chiba</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Misawa_T/0/1/0/all/0/1">Toru Misawa</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Usuda_T/0/1/0/all/0/1">Tomonori Usuda</a> Redshifts of an astronomical body measured at multiple epochs (e.g., separated by 10 years) are different due to the cosmic expansion. […]
          

Probabilistic Super-Resolution of Solar Magnetograms: Generating Many Explanations and Measuring Uncertainties. (arXiv:1911.01486v1 [cs.LG])

 Cache   
Probabilistic Super-Resolution of Solar Magnetograms: Generating Many Explanations and Measuring Uncertainties. (arXiv:1911.01486v1 [cs.LG]) <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Gitiaux_X/0/1/0/all/0/1">Xavier Gitiaux</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Maloney_S/0/1/0/all/0/1">Shane A. Maloney</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Jungbluth_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Anna Jungbluth</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Shneider_C/0/1/0/all/0/1">Carl Shneider</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Wright_P/0/1/0/all/0/1">Paul J. Wright</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Baydin_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">At&#x131;l&#x131;m G&#xfc;ne&#x15f; Baydin</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Deudon_M/0/1/0/all/0/1">Michel Deudon</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Gal_Y/0/1/0/all/0/1">Yarin Gal</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Kalaitzis_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Alfredo Kalaitzis</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/cs/1/au:+Munoz_Jaramillo_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">Andr&#xe9;s Mu&#xf1;oz-Jaramillo</a> Machine learning techniques have been successfully applied to super-resolution […]
          

Ingenious T-Shirt Design Makes You Invisible To AI’s Intrusive Eyes

 Cache   

Image via Shutterstock

There are several options claiming to help you bypass surveillance and AI sensors, and most of them look ridiculous. In time, though, you might be able to evade detection by wearing a simple t-shirt.

Researchers from Northeastern University, MIT, and IBM have created an innovative t-shirt that conceals you from image recognition systems. Like CAPTCHA, the garment fools bots into thinking the object is something else or that there’s nobody there.

The Adversarial T-Shirt features a special design that, when printed on a garment, makes the wearer indiscernible to AI detectors.

Unlike previous options, the t-shirt looks pretty natural, and works even when the top is wrinkled or deformed.

However, it’s still a work in progress. The researchers divulge that it currently has a 79-percent digital and 63-percent physical success rate.


Image via Northeastern University, MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and Massachusetts Institute of Technology



[via VICE, images via various sources]
          

Building Intuitions On Non-Empirical Arguments In Science

 Cache   
Published on November 7, 2019 6:50 AM UTC

I.

Aeon: Post-Empirical Science Is An Oxymoron And It is Dangerous:

There is no agreed criterion to distinguish science from pseudoscience, or just plain ordinary bullshit, opening the door to all manner of metaphysics masquerading as science. This is ‘post-empirical’ science, where truth no longer matters, and it is potentially very dangerous.

It’s not difficult to find recent examples. On 8 June 2019, the front cover of New Scientist magazine boldly declared that we’re ‘Inside the Mirrorverse’. Its editors bid us ‘Welcome to the parallel reality that’s hiding in plain sight’. […]

[Some physicists] claim that neutrons [are] flitting between parallel universes. They admit that the chances of proving this are ‘low’, or even ‘zero’, but it doesn’t really matter. When it comes to grabbing attention, inviting that all-important click, or purchase, speculative metaphysics wins hands down.

These theories are based on the notion that our Universe is not unique, that there exists a large number of other universes that somehow sit alongside or parallel to our own. For example, in the so-called Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are universes containing our parallel selves, identical to us but for their different experiences of quantum physics. These theories are attractive to some few theoretical physicists and philosophers, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence for them. And, as it seems we can’t ever experience these other universes, there will never be any evidence for them. As Broussard explained, these theories are sufficiently slippery to duck any kind of challenge that experimentalists might try to throw at them, and there’s always someone happy to keep the idea alive.

Is this really science? The answer depends on what you think society needs from science. In our post-truth age of casual lies, fake news and alternative facts, society is under extraordinary pressure from those pushing potentially dangerous antiscientific propaganda – ranging from climate-change denial to the anti-vaxxer movement to homeopathic medicines. I, for one, prefer a science that is rational and based on evidence, a science that is concerned with theories and empirical facts, a science that promotes the search for truth, no matter how transient or contingent. I prefer a science that does not readily admit theories so vague and slippery that empirical tests are either impossible or they mean absolutely nothing at all.

As always, a single quote doesn’t do the argument justice, so go read the article. But I think this captures the basic argument: multiverse theories are bad, because they’re untestable, and untestable science is pseudoscience.

Many great people, both philosophers of science and practicing scientists, have already discussed the problems with this point of view. But none of them lay out their argument in quite the way that makes the most sense to me. I want to do that here, without claiming any originality or special expertise in the subject, to see if it helps convince anyone else.

II.

Consider a classic example: modern paleontology does a good job at predicting dinosaur fossils. But the creationist explanation – Satan buried fake dinosaur fossils to mislead us – also predicts the same fossils (we assume Satan is good at disguising his existence, so that the lack of other strong evidence for Satan doesn’t contradict the theory). What principles help us realize that the Satan hypothesis is obviously stupid and the usual paleontological one more plausible?

One bad response: paleontology can better predict characteristics of dinosaur fossils, using arguments like “since plesiosaurs are aquatic, they will be found in areas that were underwater during the Mesozoic, but since tyrannosaurs are terrestrial, they will be found in areas that were on land”, and this makes it better than the Satan hypothesis, which can only retrodict these characteristics. But this isn’t quite true: since Satan is trying to fool us into believing the modern paleontology paradigm, he’ll hide the fossils in ways that conform to its predictions, so we will predict plesiosaur fossils will only be found at sea – otherwise the gig would be up!

A second bad response: “The hypothesis that all our findings were planted to deceive us bleeds into conspiracy theories and touches on the problem of skepticism. These things are inherently outside the realm of science.” But archaeological findings are very often deliberate hoaxes planted to deceive archaeologists, and in practice archaeologists consider and test that hypothesis the same way they consider and test every other hypothesis. Rule this out by fiat and we have to accept Piltdown Man, or at least claim that the people arguing against the veracity of Piltdown Man were doing something other than Science.

A third bad response: “Satan is supernatural and science is not allowed to consider supernatural explanations.” Fine then, replace Satan with an alien. I think this is a stupid distinction – if demons really did interfere in earthly affairs, then we could investigate their actions using the same methods we use to investigate every other process. But this would take a long time to argue well, so for now let’s just stick with the alien.

A fourth bad response: “There is no empirical test that distinguishes the Satan hypothesis from the paleontology hypothesis, therefore the Satan hypothesis is inherently unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscientific.” But this can’t be right. After all, there’s no empirical test that distinguishes the paleontology hypothesis from the Satan hypothesis! If we call one of them pseudoscience based on their inseparability, we have to call the other one pseudoscience too!

A naive Popperian (which maybe nobody really is) would have to stop here, and say that we predict dinosaur fossils will have such-and-such characteristics, but that questions like that process that drives this pattern – a long-dead ecosystem of actual dinosaurs, or the Devil planting dinosaur bones to deceive us – is a mystical question beyond the ability of Science to even conceivably solve.

I think the correct response is to say that both theories explain the data, and one cannot empirically test which theory is true, but the paleontology theory is more elegant (I am tempted to say “simpler”, but that might imply I have a rigorous mathematical definition of the form of simplicity involved, which I don’t). It requires fewer other weird things to be true. It involves fewer other hidden variables. It transforms our worldview less. It gets a cleaner shave with Occam’s Razor. This elegance is so important to us that it explains our vast preference for the first theory over the second.

A long tradition of philosophers of science have already written eloquently about this, summed up by Sean Carroll here:

What makes an explanation “the best.” Thomas Kuhn ,after his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions led many people to think of him as a relativist when it came to scientific claims, attempted to correct this misimpression by offering a list of criteria that scientists use in practice to judge one theory better than another one: accuracy, consistency, broad scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness. “Accuracy” (fitting the data) is one of these criteria, but by no means the sole one. Any working scientist can think of cases where each of these concepts has been invoked in favor of one theory or another. But there is no unambiguous algorithm according to which we can feed in these criteria, a list of theories, and a set of data, and expect the best theory to pop out. The way in which we judge scientific theories is inescapably reflective, messy, and human. That’s the reality of how science is actually done; it’s a matter of judgment, not of drawing bright lines between truth and falsity or science and non-science. Fortunately, in typical cases the accumulation of evidence eventually leaves only one viable theory in the eyes of most reasonable observers.

The dinosaur hypothesis and the Satan hypothesis both fit the data, but the dinosaur hypothesis wins hands-down on simplicity. As Carroll predicts, most reasonable observers are able to converge on the same solution here, despite the philosophical complexity.

III.

I’m starting with this extreme case because its very extremity makes it easier to see the mechanism in action. But I think the same process applies to other cases that people really worry about.

Consider the riddle of the Sphinx. There’s pretty good archaeological evidence supporting the consensus position that it was built by Pharaoh Khafre. But there are a few holes in that story, and a few scattered artifacts suggest it was actually built by Pharaoh Khufu; a respectable minority of archaeologists believe this. And there are a few anomalies which, if taken wildly out of context, you can use to tell a story that it was built long before Egypt existed at all, maybe by Atlantis or aliens.

So there are three competing hypotheses. All of them are consistent with current evidence (even the Atlantis one, which was written after the current evidence was found and carefully adds enough epicycles not to blatantly contradict it). Perhaps one day evidence will come to light that supports one above the others; maybe in some unexcavated tomb, a hieroglyphic tablet says “I created the Sphinx, sincerely yours, Pharaoh Khufu”. But maybe this won’t happen. Maybe we already have all the Sphinx-related evidence we’re going to get. Maybe the information necessary to distinguish among these hypotheses has been utterly lost beyond any conceivable ability to reconstruct.

I don’t want to say “No hypothesis can be tested any further, so Science is useless to us here”, because then we’re forced to conclude stupid things like “Science has no opinion on whether the Sphinx was built by Khafre or Atlanteans,” whereas I think most scientists would actually have very strong opinions on that.

But what about the question of whether the Sphinx was built by Khafre or Khufu? This is a real open question with respectable archaeologists on both sides; what can we do about it?

I think the answer would have to be: the same thing we did with the Satan vs. paleontology question, only now it’s a lot harder. We try to figure out which theory requires fewer other weird things to be true, fewer hidden variables, less transformation of our worldview – which theory works better with Occam’s Razor. This is relatively easy in the Atlantis case, and hard but potentially possible in the Khafre vs. Khufu case.

(Bayesians can rephrase this to: given that we have a certain amount of evidence for each, can we quantify exactly how much evidence, and what our priors for each should be. It would end not with a decisive victory of one or the other, but with a probability distribution, maybe 80% chance it was Khafre, 20% chance it was Khufu)

I think this is a totally legitimate thing for Egyptologists to do, even if it never results in a particular testable claim that gets tested. If you don’t think it’s a legitimate thing for Egyptologists to do, I have trouble figuring out how you can justify Egyptologists rejecting the Atlantis theory.

(Again, Bayesians would start with a very low prior for Atlantis, and assess the evidence as very low, and end up with a probability distribution something like Khafre 80%, Khufu 19.999999%, Atlantis 0.000001%)

IV.

How does this relate to things like multiverse theory? Before we get there, one more hokey example:

Suppose scientists measure the mass of one particle at 32.604 units, the mass of another related particle at 204.897 units, and the mass of a third related particle at 4452.767 units. For a while, this is just how things are – it seems to be an irreducible brute fact about the universe. Then some theorist notices that if you set the mass of the first particle as x, then the second is 2πx and the third is 4/3 πx^2. They theorize that perhaps the quantum field forms some sort of extradimensional sphere, the first particle represents a diameter of a great circle of the sphere, the second the circumference of the great circle, and the third the volume of the sphere.

(please excuse the stupidity of my example, I don’t know enough about physics to come up with something that isn’t stupid, but I hope it will illustrate my point)

In fact, imagine that there are a hundred different particles, all with different masses, and all one hundred have masses that perfectly correspond to various mathematical properties of spheres.

Is the person who made this discovery doing Science? And should we consider their theory a useful contribution to physics?

I think the answer is clearly yes. But consider what this commits us to. Suppose the scientist came up with their Extradimensional Sphere hypothesis after learning the masses of the relevant particles, and so it has not predicted anything. Suppose the extradimensional sphere is outside normal space, curled up into some dimension we can’t possibly access or test without a particle accelerator the size of the moon. Suppose there are no undiscovered particles in this set that can be tested to see if they also reflect sphere-related parameters. This theory is exactly the kind of postempirical, metaphysical construct that the Aeon article savages.

But it’s really compelling. We have a hundred different particles, and this theory retrodicts the properties of each of them perfectly. And it’s so simple – just say the word “sphere” and the rest falls out naturally! You would have to be crazy not to think it was at least pretty plausible, or that the scientist who developed it had done some good work.

Nor do I think it seems right to say “The discovery that all of our unexplained variables perfectly match the parameters of a sphere is good, but the hypothesis that there really is a sphere is outside the bounds of Science.” That sounds too much like saying “It’s fine to say dinosaur bones have such-and-such characteristics, but we must never speculate about what kind of process produced them, or whether it involved actual dinosaurs”.

V.

My understanding of the multiverse debate is that it works the same way. Scientists observe the behavior of particles, and find that a multiverse explains that behavior more simply and elegantly than not-a-multiverse.

One (doubtless exaggerated) way I’ve heard multiverse proponents explain their position is like this: in certain situations the math declares two contradictory answers – in the classic example, Schrodinger’s cat will be both alive and dead. But when we open the box, we see only a dead cat or an alive cat, not both. Multiverse opponents say “Some unknown force steps in at the last second and destroys one of the possibility branches”. Multiverse proponents say “No it doesn’t, both possibility branches happen exactly the way the math says, and we end up in one of them.”

Taking this exaggerated dumbed-down account as exactly right, this sounds about as hard as the dinosaurs-vs-Satan example, in terms of figuring out which is more Occam’s Razor compliant. I’m sure the reality is more nuanced, but I think it can be judged by the same process. Perhaps this is the kind of reasoning that only gets us to a 90% probability there is a multiverse, rather than a 99.999999% one. But I think determining that theories have 90% probability is a reasonable scientific thing to do.

VI.

At times, the Aeon article seems to flirt with admitting that something like this is necessary:

Such problems were judged by philosophers of science to be insurmountable, and Popper’s falsifiability criterion was abandoned (though, curiously, it still lives on in the minds of many practising scientists). But rather than seek an alternative, in 1983 the philosopher Larry Laudan declared that the demarcation problem is actually intractable, and must therefore be a pseudo-problem. He argued that the real distinction is between knowledge that is reliable or unreliable, irrespective of its provenance, and claimed that terms such as ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘unscientific’ have no real meaning.

But it always jumps back from the precipice:

So, if we can’t make use of falsifiability, what do we use instead? I don’t think we have any real alternative but to adopt what I might call the empirical criterion. Demarcation is not some kind of binary yes-or-no, right-or-wrong, black-or-white judgment. We have to admit shades of grey. Popper himself was ready to accept this, [saying]:

“The criterion of demarcation cannot be an absolutely sharp one but will itself have degrees. There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. They may be described as metaphysical.”

Here, ‘testability’ implies only that a theory either makes contact, or holds some promise of making contact, with empirical evidence. It makes no presumptions about what we might do in light of the evidence. If the evidence verifies the theory, that’s great – we celebrate and start looking for another test. If the evidence fails to support the theory, then we might ponder for a while or tinker with the auxiliary assumptions. Either way, there’s a tension between the metaphysical content of the theory and the empirical data – a tension between the ideas and the facts – which prevents the metaphysics from getting completely out of hand. In this way, the metaphysics is tamed or ‘naturalised’, and we have something to work with. This is science.

But as we’ve seen, many things we really want to include as science are not testable: our credence for real dinosaurs over Satan planting fossils, our credence for Khafre building the Sphinx over Khufu or Atlanteans, or elegant patterns that explain the features of the universe like the Extradimensional-Sphere Theory.

The Aeon article is aware of Carroll’s work – which, along with the paragraph quoted in Section II above, includes a lot of detailed Bayesian reasoning encompassing everything I’ve discussed. But the article dismisses it in a few sentences:

Sean Carroll, a vocal advocate for the Many-Worlds interpretation, prefers abduction, or what he calls ‘inference to the best explanation’, which leaves us with theories that are merely ‘parsimonious’, a matter of judgment, and ‘still might reasonably be true’. But whose judgment? In the absence of facts, what constitutes ‘the best explanation’?

Carroll seeks to dress his notion of inference in the cloth of respectability provided by something called Bayesian probability theory, happily overlooking its entirely subjective nature. It’s a short step from here to the theorist-turned-philosopher Richard Dawid’s efforts to justify the string theory programme in terms of ‘theoretically confirmed theory’ and ‘non-empirical theory assessment’. The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be readily engineered to suit personal prejudices.

“A choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical evidence” sounds pretty bad, until you realize he’s talking about the same reasoning we use to determine that real dinosaurs are more likely than Satan planting fossils.

I don’t want to go over the exact ways in which Bayesian methods are subjective (which I think are overestimated) vs. objective. I think it’s more fruitful to point out that your brain is already using Bayesian methods to interpret the photons striking your eyes into this sentence, to make snap decisions about what sense the words are used in, and to integrate them into your model of the world. If Bayesian methods are good enough to give you every single piece of evidence about the nature of the external world that you have ever encountered in your entire life, I say they’re good enough for science.

Or if you don’t like that, you can use the explanation above, which barely uses the word “Bayes” at all and just describes everything in terms like “Occam’s Razor” and “you wouldn’t want to conclude something like that, would you?”

I know there are separate debates about whether this kind of reasoning-from-simplicity is actually good enough, when used by ordinary people, to consistently arrive at truth. Or whether it’s a productive way to conduct science that will give us good new theories, or a waste of everybody’s time. I sympathize with some these concerns, though I am nowhere near scientifically educated enough to have an actual opinion on the questions at play.

But I think it’s important to argue that even before you describe the advantages and disadvantages of the complicated Bayesian math that lets you do this, something like this has to be done. The untestable is a fundamental part of science, impossible to remove. We can debate how to explain it. But denying it isn’t an option.



Discuss
          

On the Deconfinement Phase Transition in Neutron-Star Mergers. (arXiv:1910.13893v1 [astro-ph.HE])

 Cache   
Volume: 17, Issue 44 - Article #4
Authors: Elias R. Most, L. Jens Papenfort, Veronica Dexheimer, Matthias Hanauske, Horst Stöcker, Luciano Rezzolla
          

The properties of neutron star from realistic nucleon-nucleon interaction within relativistic Hartree-Fock model. (arXiv:1910.11765v1 [nucl-th])

 Cache   
Volume: 17, Issue 44 - Article #8
Authors: Ying Zhang, Peng Liu, Jinniu Hu
          

Multiple populations in globular clusters: Unified efforts from stellar evolution and chemical evolution models. (arXiv:1910.10159v1 [astro-ph.GA])

 Cache   
Volume: 17, Issue 43 - Article #5
Authors: Sohee Jang, Jenny J. Kim, Young-Wook Lee


Next Page: 10000

© Googlier LLC, 2019