0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Jay McClelland, a cognitive scientist at Stanford and one of the seminal figures in the history of artificial intelligence, and specifically neural networks.
0
SPEAKER_00
Having written the parallel distributed processing book with David Rommelhart, who co-authored the back propagation paper with Jeff Hinton.
0
SPEAKER_00
In their collaborations, they ve paved the way for many of the ideas at the center of the neural network-based machine learning revolution of the past 15 years.
0
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
As usual, I ll do a few minutes of ads now, no ads in the middle.
0
SPEAKER_00
I try to make these interesting, so hopefully you don t skip, but if you do, please still check out the sponsor links in the description.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s the best way to support this podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
I use their stuff, I enjoy it, maybe you will too.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is brought to you by Paperspace Gradient, which is a platform that lets you build, train, and deploy machine learning models of any size and complexity.
0
SPEAKER_00
I love how powerful and intuitive it is.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m likely going to use Paperspace for a couple of machine learning experiments I m doing as part of an upcoming video.
0
SPEAKER_00
Fast.ai, maybe you ve heard of them.
0
SPEAKER_00
Jeremy Howard runs it.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s a course I highly recommend, and Fast.ai uses Paperspace Gradient.
0
SPEAKER_00
You can host notebooks on there, you can swap out compute instances at any time, start on a small-scale GPU instance or even CPU instance, and then swap out once your compute needs increase.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m really excited about what they re calling Workflows, which provides a way to automate machine learning pipelines on top of gradient compute infrastructure.
0
SPEAKER_00
It makes it really easy to build a production app because all the orchestration is reduced to a simple configuration file, a YAML file.
0
SPEAKER_00
To give Gradient a try, visit gradient.run slash lex and use the signup link there.
0
SPEAKER_00
You ll get $15 in free credits, which you can use to power your next machine learning application.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s gradient.run slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Skiff, an end-to-end encrypted and decentralized collaboration platform built for privacy from the ground up.
0
SPEAKER_00
What Signal is to messaging, Skiff is to document writing collaboration.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s like Google Docs, but with a lot more security features, and actually has a bunch more usability features.
0
SPEAKER_00
I speak from experience and from a place of respect and love.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m a big user of Google Docs, probably have over a thousand documents on there.
0
SPEAKER_00
I also use Evernote, Notion, Google Keep for various kinds of note-taking.
0
SPEAKER_00
But I really love the interface that Skiff has and obviously the security features are just unparalleled.
0
SPEAKER_00
On Skiff, only you can decrypt your data.
0
SPEAKER_00
No one, not even Skiff can never see it.
0
SPEAKER_00
If you like using Signal, which I do, you will love using Skiff.
0
SPEAKER_00
They re offering listeners of this podcast early access to their platform.
0
SPEAKER_00
You get to skip their over 60,000 person waiting list.
0
SPEAKER_00
Sign up at Skiff s beta.
0
SPEAKER_00
The URL is skiff.org slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Again, go to skiff.org slash lex to sign up for the early access.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by a new sponsor, an amazing one, it just blew my mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s called Uprising Food, the maker of low-carb, keto-friendly bread, and recently they re also making keto-friendly chips.
0
SPEAKER_00
The bread is only two net carbs per serving, six grams of protein, and nine grams of fiber.
0
SPEAKER_00
When they first sent me the bread as a pitch to see if they want to sponsor the podcast, I thought, looking at the nutrition, I thought there s no way this could taste good.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m somebody who loves bread, but because I really love the way I feel on low-carb diets, I stick to the low-carb diet.
0
SPEAKER_00
So I opened this bread.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s shaped like a cube, which already feels like the future.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I cut a few slices and just ate it for the pure ingredient, just to see what it tastes like.
0
SPEAKER_00
And it was incredible.
0
SPEAKER_00
From my perspective, we need to know it s keto-friendly, and it tastes delicious.
0
SPEAKER_00
I highly, highly recommend it if you want to eat bread, but want to eat it in a healthy way.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get $10 off the starter bundle that includes two Superfood Cubes.
0
SPEAKER_00
I guess they re called Superfood Cubes.
0
SPEAKER_00
And four packs of the Freedom Chips.
0
SPEAKER_00
Again, the chips are called Freedom Chips.
0
SPEAKER_00
Good marketing.
0
SPEAKER_00
Go to uprisingfood.com slash lex and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s uprisingfood.com slash lex.
0
SPEAKER_00
This show is also brought to you by Four Sigmatic, the maker of delicious mushroom coffee and plant-based protein.
0
SPEAKER_00
Does the coffee taste like mushrooms, you ask?
0
SPEAKER_00
No, it does not, but it is a big part of my morning ritual.
0
SPEAKER_00
I make the coffee, I m listening to brown noise now as I think about what I m going to do in the first deep work session of the day.
0
SPEAKER_00
Calmly walk around, make the coffee, get a glass of water, drink that, then go to the computer and start taking on the day with the aroma of Four Sigmatic Coffee in the air.
0
SPEAKER_00
I feel like Pavlov s dog with the warm cup and the aroba that just switches my brain on that it s now time to get to work.
0
SPEAKER_00
Plus the brown noise is really focusing and I m ready to take on the day.
0
SPEAKER_00
Those first few hours are, in terms of depth, focus, and clarity of thinking, are unparalleled for me.
0
SPEAKER_00
Get up to 40% off and free shipping on mushroom coffee bundles if you go to foursigmatic.com slash flex.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s foursigmatic.com slash flex.
0
SPEAKER_00
Speaking of productivity, this episode is also brought to you by Onnit, nutrition, supplement, and fitness company.
0
SPEAKER_00
They make Alphabrain, which is a nootropic, that helps support memory, mental speed, and focus.
0
SPEAKER_00
I use it when I need a boost, when I have a difficult, deep work sessions coming up, and I really wanna make sure that I go deep, stay there for a while, with clarity and focus, I ll take an Alphabrain.
0
SPEAKER_00
So it s not like part of my daily ritual.
0
SPEAKER_00
I use it as like a jetpack for the mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s not necessarily when my mind is feeling tired, because that a good nap can usually fix, but when it s feeling pretty good, but I just anticipate a really difficult session, that s when I ll take AlphaBrain.
0
SPEAKER_00
Anyway, go to lexfriedman.com slash on it to get up to 10% off AlphaBrain.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s lexfriedman.com slash on it.
0
SPEAKER_00
This is the Lex Friedman Podcast, and here is my conversation with Jay McClelland.
0
SPEAKER_00
You are one of the seminal figures in the history of neural networks at the intersection of cognitive psychology and computer science.
0
SPEAKER_00
What to you has, over the decades, emerged as the most beautiful aspect about neural networks, both artificial and biological?
0
SPEAKER_01
The fundamental thing I think about with neural networks is how they allow us to link biology with
0
SPEAKER_01
the mysteries of thought.
0
SPEAKER_01
When I was first entering the field myself in the late 60s, early 70s, cognitive psychology had just become a field.
0
SPEAKER_01
There was a book published in 67 called Cognitive Psychology.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the author said,
0
SPEAKER_01
that the study of the nervous system was only of peripheral interest.
0
SPEAKER_01
It wasn t going to tell us anything about the mind.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I didn t agree with that.
0
SPEAKER_01
I always felt, oh, look, I m a physical being.
0
SPEAKER_01
I
0
SPEAKER_01
from dust to dust, ashes to ashes, and somehow I emerged from that.
0
SPEAKER_00
So that s really interesting.
0
SPEAKER_00
So there was a sense with cognitive psychology that
0
SPEAKER_00
in understanding the sort of neuronal structure of things, you re not going to be able to understand the mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then your sense is if we study these neural networks, we might be able to get at least very close to understanding the fundamentals of the human mind.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
0
SPEAKER_01
I used to think, or I used to talk about the idea of awakening from the Cartesian dream.
0
SPEAKER_01
So Descartes,
0
SPEAKER_01
you know, thought about these things, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
He, he was walking in the gardens of Versailles one day and he stepped on a stone and a statue moved and he walked a little further, he stepped on another stone and another statue moved.
0
SPEAKER_01
And he like, why did the statue move when I stepped on the stone?
0
SPEAKER_01
And he went and talked to the gardeners and he found out that they had a hydraulic system that allowed
0
SPEAKER_01
the physical contact with the stone to cause water to flow in various directions, which caused water to flow into the statue and move the statue.
0
SPEAKER_01
And he used this as the beginnings of a theory about how animals act.
0
SPEAKER_01
And he had this notion that these little fibers that people had identified that weren t carrying the blood,
0
SPEAKER_01
you know, were these little hydraulic tubes that if you touch something there would be pressure and it would send a signal of pressure to the other parts of the system and that would cause action.
0
SPEAKER_01
So he had a mechanistic theory of animal behavior and he thought that the human had this animal body
0
SPEAKER_01
but that some divine something else had to have come down and been placed in him to give him the ability to think, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
So the physical world includes the body in action, but it doesn t include thought according to Descartes, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
And so the study of physiology at that time was the study of sensory systems and motor systems and things that you could directly measure when you stimulated neurons and stuff like that.
0
SPEAKER_01
And the study of cognition was something that was tied in with abstract computer algorithms and things like that.
0
SPEAKER_01
But when I was an undergraduate, I learned about the physiological mechanisms, and so when I m studying cognitive psychology as a first-year PhD student, I m saying, wait a minute, the whole thing is biological, right?
0
SPEAKER_00
You had that intuition right away.
0
SPEAKER_00
That seemed obvious to you.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah.
0
SPEAKER_00
Isn t that magical, though, that from just a little bit of biology can emerge the full beauty of the human experience?
0
SPEAKER_00
Why is that so obvious to you?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, obvious and not obvious at the same time.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I think about Darwin in this context, too, because Darwin knew very early on that none of the ideas that anybody had ever offered
0
SPEAKER_01
gave him a sense of understanding how evolution could have worked.
0
SPEAKER_01
But he wanted to figure out how it could have worked.
0
SPEAKER_01
That was his goal.
0
SPEAKER_01
And he spent a lot of time working on this idea and reading about things that gave him hints and thinking they were interesting but not knowing why.
0
SPEAKER_01
drawing more and more pictures of different birds that differ slightly from each other and so on, you know, and then he figured it out.
0
SPEAKER_01
But after he figured it out, he had nightmares about it.
0
SPEAKER_01
He would dream about the complexity of the eye and the arguments that people had given about how ridiculous it was to imagine that that could have ever emerged from some sort of, you know,
0
SPEAKER_01
unguided process, that it hadn t been the product of design.
0
SPEAKER_01
And so he didn t publish for a long time, in part because he was scared of his own ideas.
0
SPEAKER_01
He didn t think they could possibly be true.
0
SPEAKER_01
But then, you know, by the time the 20th century rolls around, we all, you know,
0
SPEAKER_01
you know, we understand that, or many people understand or believe that evolution produced, you know, the entire range of animals that there are.
0
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, Descartes  idea starts to seem a little wonky after a while, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
Like, well, wait a minute.
0
SPEAKER_01
There s the apes and the chimpanzees and the bonobos and, you know, like, they re pretty smart in some ways, you know, so what?
0
SPEAKER_01
Oh, there s a certain part of the brain that s still different.
0
SPEAKER_01
There s no hippocampus in the monkey brain.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s only in the human brain.
0
SPEAKER_01
Huxley had to do a surgery in front of many, many people in the late 19th century to show to them there s actually a hippocampus.
0
SPEAKER_01
in the chimpanzee s brain, you know?
0
SPEAKER_01
So their continuity of the species is another element that, you know, contributes to this sort of, you know, idea that we are ourselves a total product of nature.
0
SPEAKER_01
And that, to me, is the magic and the mystery how.
0
SPEAKER_01
how nature could actually give rise to
0
SPEAKER_01
organisms that have the capabilities that we have.
0
SPEAKER_00
So it s interesting because even the idea of evolution is hard for me to keep all together in my mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
So because we think of a human time scale, it s hard to imagine, the development of the human eye would give me nightmares too.
0
SPEAKER_00
Because you have to think across many, many, many generations.
0
SPEAKER_00
and it s very tempting to think about a growth of a complicated object and it s like, how is it possible for such a thing to be built?
0
SPEAKER_00
Because also, me from a robotics engineering perspective, it s very hard to build these systems.
0
SPEAKER_00
How can, through an undirected process, can a complex thing be designed?
0
SPEAKER_00
It seems wrong.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
0
SPEAKER_01
So that s absolutely right.
0
SPEAKER_01
And a slightly different career path that would have been equally interesting to me would have been to actually study the process of embryological development
0
SPEAKER_01
flowing on into brain development and the exquisite sort of laying down of pathways and so on that occurs in the brain.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I know the slightest bit about that, it s not my field, but there are fascinating aspects to this process that eventually result in the
0
SPEAKER_01
you know, the complexity of various brains.
0
SPEAKER_01
At least, you know, one thing we re, in the field I think people have felt for a long time, in the study of vision, the continuity between humans and non-human animals has been,
0
SPEAKER_01
has been second nature for a lot longer.
0
SPEAKER_01
I had this conversation with somebody who s a vision scientist, and he was saying, oh, we don t have any problem with this.
0
SPEAKER_01
The monkey s visual system and the human visual system are extremely similar, up to certain levels, of course.
0
SPEAKER_01
They diverge after a while.
0
SPEAKER_01
But the visual pathway from the eye to the brain and the first few
0
SPEAKER_01
layers of cortex or cortical areas, I guess one would say, are extremely similar.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, so on the cognition side is where the leap seems to happen with humans.
0
SPEAKER_00
It does seem we re kind of special.
0
SPEAKER_00
And that s a really interesting question when thinking about alien life or if there s other intelligent alien civilizations out there, is how special is this leap?
0
SPEAKER_00
So one special thing seems to be the origin of life itself.
0
SPEAKER_00
However you define that, there s a gray area.
0
SPEAKER_00
And the other leap, this is very biased perspective of a human, is the,
0
SPEAKER_00
the origin of intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_00
And again, from an engineering perspective, it s a difficult question to ask, an important one, is how difficult does that leap?
0
SPEAKER_00
How special are we humans?
0
SPEAKER_00
did a monolith come down, did aliens bring down a monolith, and some apes had to touch a monolith to get it.
0
SPEAKER_01
It s a lot like Descartes  idea, right?
0
SPEAKER_00
Exactly, but it just seems one heck of a leap to get to this level of intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and so Chomsky argued that some
0
SPEAKER_01
genetic fluke occurred 100,000 years ago.
0
SPEAKER_01
And you know, just happened that some human, some hominin predecessor of current humans had this one genetic tweak that resulted in language.
0
SPEAKER_01
And language then provided
1
SPEAKER_01
this special thing that separates us from all other animals.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think there s a lot of truth to the value and importance of language, but I think it comes along with the evolution of a lot of other related things related to sociality and mutual engagement with others.
1
SPEAKER_01
and establishment of, I don t know, rich mechanisms for organizing and understanding of the world, which language then plugs into.
1
SPEAKER_00
Right, so language is a tool that allows you to do this kind of collective intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_00
And whatever is at the core of the thing that allows for this collective intelligence is the main thing.
1
SPEAKER_00
And it s interesting to think about that one fluke.
1
SPEAKER_00
one mutation could lead to the first crack opening of the door to human intelligence.
1
SPEAKER_00
All it takes is one.
1
SPEAKER_00
Evolution just kind of opens the door a little bit, and then time and selection takes care of the rest.
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, there s so many fascinating aspects to these kinds of things.
1
SPEAKER_01
we think of evolution as continuous, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
We think, oh, yes, okay, over 500 million years, there could have been this, you know, relatively continuous changes.
1
SPEAKER_01
But that s not what anthropologists, evolutionary biologists found from the fossil record.
1
SPEAKER_01
They found, you know,
1
SPEAKER_01
hundreds of years of, hundreds of millions of years of stasis.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then, you know, suddenly a change occurs.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, suddenly on that scale is a million years or something, or even 10 million years, but the concept of punctuated equilibrium was a very important concept in evolutionary biology, and that
1
SPEAKER_01
also feels somehow right about, you know, the stages of our mental abilities.
1
SPEAKER_01
We seem to have a certain kind of mindset at a certain age.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then at another age, we like look at that four-year-old and say, oh my God, how could they have thought that way?
1
SPEAKER_01
So Piaget was known for this kind of stage theory of child development, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
You look at it closely and suddenly those stages are so discreet and the transitions, but the difference between the four-year-old and the seven-year-old is profound.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s another thing that s always interested me is how we, something happens over the course of several years of experience where at some point we reach the point where something like an insight or a transition or a new stage of development occurs and,
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, these kinds of things can be understood in complex systems research.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so evolutionary biology, developmental biology, cognitive development are all things that have been approached in this kind of way.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, just like you said, I find both fascinating those early years of human life, but also the early minutes, days from the embryonic development to how from embryos you get the brain, that development.
1
SPEAKER_00
again, from an engineer perspective, it s fascinating.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s not, so the early, when you deploy the brain to the human world and it gets to explore that world and learn, that s fascinating.
1
SPEAKER_00
But just like the assembly of the mechanism that is capable of learning, that s like amazing.
1
SPEAKER_00
The stuff they re doing with like brain organoids, where you can build many brains and study that,
1
SPEAKER_00
self-assembly of a mechanism from like the DNA material.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s like, what the heck?
1
SPEAKER_00
You have literally like biological programs that just generate a system, this mushy thing that s able to be robust and learn in a very unpredictable world.
1
SPEAKER_00
and learn seemingly arbitrary things or like a very large number of things that enable survival.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, ultimately that is a very important part of the whole process of understanding this sort of
1
SPEAKER_01
emergence of mind from brain kind of thing.
1
SPEAKER_00
And the whole thing seems to be pretty continuous.
1
SPEAKER_00
So let me step back to neural networks for another brief minute.
1
SPEAKER_00
You wrote parallel distributed processing books that explored ideas of neural networks in the 1980s together with a few folks, but the books you wrote with David Rommelhart, who is the first author on the back propagation paper with Geoff Hinton,
1
SPEAKER_00
So these are just some figures at the time that were thinking about these big ideas.
1
SPEAKER_00
What are some memorable moments of discovery and beautiful ideas from those early days?
1
SPEAKER_01
I m gonna start sort of with my own process in the mid-70s and then into the late 70s when
1
SPEAKER_01
I met Jeff Henson, and he came to San Diego, and we were all together.
1
SPEAKER_01
In my time in graduate schools, I ve already described to you, I had this sort of feeling of, okay, I m really interested in human cognition.
1
SPEAKER_01
this disembodied sort of way of thinking about it that I m getting from the current mode of thought about it isn t working fully for me.
1
SPEAKER_01
And when I got my assistant professorship, I went to UCSD, and that was in 1974.
1
SPEAKER_01
Something amazing had just happened.
1
SPEAKER_01
Dave Rommelhart had written a book together with another man named Don Norman,
1
SPEAKER_01
And the book was called Explorations in Cognition.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it was a series of chapters exploring interesting questions about cognition, but in a completely sort of abstract, non-biological kind of way.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I m saying, gee, this is amazing.
1
SPEAKER_01
I m coming to this community where people can get together and feel like they ve collectively exploring
1
SPEAKER_01
you know, ideas.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it was a book that had a lot of, I don t know, lightness to it.
1
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, Don Norman, who was the more senior figure to Rumelhart at that time, who led that project, you know, always created this spirit of playful exploration of ideas.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so I m like, wow, this is great.
1
SPEAKER_01
But
1
SPEAKER_01
I was also still trying to get from the neurons to the cognition.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I realized at one point, I got this opportunity to go to a conference where I heard a talk by a man named James Anderson, who was an engineer, but by then a professor in a psychology department who had used
1
SPEAKER_01
linear algebra to create neural network models of perception and categorization and memory.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it just blew me out of the water that one could create a model that was simulating neurons, not just kind of
1
SPEAKER_01
engaged in a stepwise algorithmic process that was construed abstractly.
1
SPEAKER_01
But it was simulating, remembering, and recalling, and recognizing the prior occurrence of a stimulus or something like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
So for me, this was a bridge between the mind and the brain.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I just like, and I
1
SPEAKER_01
I remember I was walking across campus one day in 1977 and I almost felt like St.
1
SPEAKER_01
Paul on the road to Damascus.
1
SPEAKER_01
I said to myself, you know, if I think about the mind in terms of a neural network, it will help me answer the questions about the mind that I m trying to answer.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that really excited me.
1
SPEAKER_01
So
1
SPEAKER_01
I think that a lot of people were becoming excited about that.
1
SPEAKER_01
And one of those people was Jim Anderson, who I had mentioned.
1
SPEAKER_01
Another one was Steve Grossberg, who had been writing about neural networks since the 60s.
1
SPEAKER_01
And Jeff Hinton was yet another.
1
SPEAKER_01
And his PhD dissertation showed up in an applicant pool to a postdoctoral training program
1
SPEAKER_01
that Dave and Don, the two men I mentioned before, Rumelhart and Norman, were administering.
1
SPEAKER_01
And Rumelhart got really excited about Hinton s PhD dissertation.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so Hinton was one of the first people who came and joined this group of postdoctoral scholars that was funded by this wonderful grant that they got.
1
SPEAKER_01
Another one who is also well-known in neural network circles is Paul Smolensky.
1
SPEAKER_01
He was another one of that group.
1
SPEAKER_01
Anyway.
1
SPEAKER_01
Jeff and Jim Anderson organized a conference at UCSD where we were, and it was called Parallel Models of Associative Memory, and it brought all the people together who had been thinking about these kinds of ideas in 1979 or 1980.
1
SPEAKER_01
And this began to kind of
1
SPEAKER_01
really resonate with some of Rommelhart s own thinking, some of his reasons for wanting something other than the kinds of computation he d been doing so far.
1
SPEAKER_01
So let me talk about Rommelhart now for a minute, okay, with that context.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me also just pause because you said so many interesting things before we go to Rama Heart.
1
SPEAKER_00
So first of all, for people who are not familiar, neural networks are at the core of the machine learning, deep learning revolution of today.
1
SPEAKER_00
Jeffrey Hidden, that we mentioned, is one of the figures that were important in the history, like yourself, in the development of these neural networks, artificial neural networks that are then used for the machine learning application.
1
SPEAKER_00
Like I mentioned, the back propagation paper,
1
SPEAKER_00
is one of the optimization mechanisms by which these networks can learn.
1
SPEAKER_00
And the word parallel is really interesting.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s almost like synonymous from a computational perspective how you thought at the time about neural networks as parallel computation.
1
SPEAKER_00
Would that be fair to say?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well yeah, the word parallel in this comes from the idea that each neuron is
1
SPEAKER_01
an independent computational unit, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
It gathers data from other neurons, it integrates it in a certain way, and then it produces a result.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it s a very simple little computational unit, but it s autonomous in the sense that
1
SPEAKER_01
you know, it does its thing, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
It s in a biological medium where it s getting nutrients and various chemicals from that medium.
1
SPEAKER_01
But it s, you know, you can think of it as almost like a little computer in and of itself.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the idea is that each, you know, our brains have, oh, look, you know, a hundred or hundreds, almost a billion of these
1
SPEAKER_01
little neurons, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
And they re all capable of doing their work at the same time.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, it s like, instead of just a single central processor that s engaged in, you know, chug, chug, one step after another, we have
1
SPEAKER_01
a billion of these little computational units working at the same time.
1
SPEAKER_00
So at the time that s, I don t know, maybe you can comment, it seems to me, even still to me, quite a revolutionary way to think about computation relative to the development of theoretical computer science alongside of that, where it s very much like sequential computer.
1
SPEAKER_00
You re analyzing algorithms that are running on a single computer.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s right.
1
SPEAKER_00
You re saying,
1
SPEAKER_00
wait a minute, why don t we take a really dumb, very simple computer and just have a lot of them interconnected together?
1
SPEAKER_00
And they re all operating in their own little world and they re communicating with each other and thinking of computation that way.
1
SPEAKER_00
And from that kind of computation, trying to understand how things like certain characteristics of the human mind can emerge.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s quite a revolutionary way of thinking, I would say.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, yes, I agree with you.
1
SPEAKER_01
And, um, there s still this sort of sense of,
1
SPEAKER_01
not sort of knowing how we kind of get all the way there, I think.
1
SPEAKER_01
And this very much remains at the core of the questions that everybody s asking about the capabilities of deep learning and all these kinds of things.
1
SPEAKER_01
But if I could just play this out a little bit, a convolutional neural network, or a CNN, which many people may have heard of, is
1
SPEAKER_01
a set of, you could think of it biologically as a set of collections of neurons.
1
SPEAKER_01
Each one had, each collection has,
1
SPEAKER_01
maybe 10,000 neurons in it, but there s many layers, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
Some of these things are hundreds or even a thousand layers deep, but others are closer to the biological brain and maybe they re like 20 layers deep or something like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we have, within each layer, we have thousands of neurons or tens of thousands maybe.
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, in the brain, we probably have
1
SPEAKER_01
millions in each layer, but we re getting sort of similar in a certain way, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
And then we think, okay, at the bottom level, there s an array of things that are like the photoreceptors.
1
SPEAKER_01
In the eye, they respond to the amount of light of a certain wavelength at a certain location on the pixel array.
1
SPEAKER_01
So that s like the biological eye.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then there s several further stages going up, layers of these neuron-like units.
1
SPEAKER_01
And you go from that raw,
1
SPEAKER_01
input, array of pixels to the classification, you ve actually built a system that could do the same kind of thing that you and I do when we open our eyes and we look around and we see there s a cup, there s a cell phone, there s a water bottle, and these systems are doing that now, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
So they are, in terms of the parallel idea that we were talking about before, they are doing this massively parallel computation in the sense that each of the neurons in each of those layers is thought of as computing its little bit of something about the input simultaneously with all the other ones in the same layer.
1
SPEAKER_01
we get to the point of abstracting that away and thinking, oh, it s just one whole vector that s being computed, one activation pattern that s computed in a single step.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that abstraction is useful, but it s still that parallel and distributed processing, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
Each one of these guys is just contributing a tiny bit to that whole thing.
1
SPEAKER_00
And that s the excitement that you felt that from these simple things, you can emerge, when you add these level of abstractions on it, you can start getting all the beautiful things that we think about as cognition.
1
SPEAKER_00
And so, okay, so you have this conference, I forgot the name already, but it s parallel and something associated with memory and so on.
1
SPEAKER_00
Very exciting, technical and exciting title.
1
SPEAKER_00
And you started talking about Dave Romahart, so who is this person that was so, you ve spoken very highly of him.
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you tell me about him, his ideas, his mind, who he was as a human being, as a scientist?
1
SPEAKER_01
So Dave came from a little tiny town in western South Dakota.
1
SPEAKER_01
And his mother was the librarian and his father was the editor of the newspaper.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I know one of his brothers pretty well.
1
SPEAKER_01
They grew up, there were four brothers and they grew up together and their father encouraged them to compete with each other a lot.
1
SPEAKER_01
They competed in sports and they competed in mind games.
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know, things like Sudoku and chess and various things like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
Dave was a standout undergraduate.
1
SPEAKER_01
He went at a young
2
SPEAKER_01
younger age than most people do to college at the University of South Dakota and majored in mathematics.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I don t know how he got interested in psychology, but he applied to the mathematical psychology program at Stanford and was accepted as a PhD student to study mathematical psychology at Stanford.
2
SPEAKER_01
So mathematical psychology is the use of mathematics to model
2
SPEAKER_01
mental processes, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
So something that I think these days might be called cognitive modeling, that whole space.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it s mathematical in the sense that you say, if,
2
SPEAKER_01
this is true and that is true, then I can derive that this should follow, okay?
2
SPEAKER_01
And so you say, these are my stipulations about the fundamental principles, and this is my prediction about behavior, and it s all done with equations.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s not done with a computer simulation, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
So you solve the equation and that tells you what the,
2
SPEAKER_01
probability that the subject will be correct on the seventh trial of the experiment is or something like that, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
So it s a use of mathematics to descriptively characterize aspects of behavior.
2
SPEAKER_01
And Stanford at that time was the place where
2
SPEAKER_01
There were several really, really strong mathematical thinkers who were also connected with three or four others around the country who brought a lot of really exciting ideas onto the table.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it was a very, very prestigious part of the field of psychology at that time.
2
SPEAKER_01
So Rumelhart comes into this.
2
SPEAKER_01
He was a very strong student within that program.
2
SPEAKER_01
And he got this job at this brand new university in San Diego in 1967, where he s one of the first assistant professors in the Department of Psychology at UCSD.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I got there in 74, seven years later, and Runghart at that time was
2
SPEAKER_01
still doing mathematical modeling.
2
SPEAKER_01
But he had gotten interested in cognition.
2
SPEAKER_01
He d gotten interested in understanding.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, understanding, I think, remains
2
SPEAKER_01
what does it mean to understand anyway?
2
SPEAKER_01
It s an interesting sort of curious, like how would we know if we really understood something?
2
SPEAKER_01
But he was interested in building machines that would hear a couple of sentences and have an insight about what was going on.
2
SPEAKER_01
So for example, one of his favorite things at that time was
2
SPEAKER_01
Margie was sitting on the front step when she heard the familiar jingle of the good humor man.
2
SPEAKER_01
She remembered her birthday money and ran into the house.
2
SPEAKER_01
What is Margie doing?
2
SPEAKER_01
Why?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, there s a couple of ideas you could have, but the most natural one is that
2
SPEAKER_01
The good humor man brings ice cream.
2
SPEAKER_01
She likes ice cream.
2
SPEAKER_01
She knows she needs money to buy ice cream.
2
SPEAKER_01
So she s gonna run into the house and get her money so she can buy herself an ice cream.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s a huge amount of inference that has to happen to get those things to link up with each other.
2
SPEAKER_01
And he was interested in how the hell that could happen.
2
SPEAKER_01
And he was trying to build, you know, good old fashioned AI style models of
2
SPEAKER_01
representation of language and content of
2
SPEAKER_01
you know, things like has money.
2
SPEAKER_00
So like formal logic and knowledge basis, like that kind of stuff.
2
SPEAKER_00
So he was integrating that with his thinking about cognition.
2
SPEAKER_00
So the mechanism s cognition, how can they mechanistically be applied to build these knowledge, like to actually build something that looks like a web of knowledge and thereby from there emerges something like understanding, whatever the heck that is.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, he was grappling, this was something that they grappled with at the end of that book that I was describing, Explorations in Cognition.
2
SPEAKER_01
But he was realizing that the paradigm of good old-fashioned AI wasn t giving him the answers to these questions.
2
SPEAKER_00
And- By the way, that s called good old-fashioned AI now.
2
SPEAKER_00
It wasn t called that at the time.
2
SPEAKER_00
Well, it was.
2
SPEAKER_00
It was beginning to be called that.
2
SPEAKER_00
Oh, because it was from the 60s.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah.
2
SPEAKER_01
By the late 70s, it was kind of old-fashioned, and it hadn t really panned out, you know?
2
SPEAKER_01
And people were beginning to recognize that.
2
SPEAKER_01
And Rumelhart was, you know, like, yeah, he was part of the recognition that this wasn t all working.
2
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, so he started thinking in terms of
2
SPEAKER_01
the idea that we needed systems that allowed us to integrate multiple simultaneous constraints in a way that would be mutually influencing each other.
2
SPEAKER_01
So,
2
SPEAKER_01
he wrote a paper that just really, first time I read it, I said, oh, well, you know, yeah, but is this important?
2
SPEAKER_01
But after a while, it just got under my skin.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it was called An Interactive Model of Reading.
2
SPEAKER_01
And in this paper, he laid out the idea that every aspect of our interpretation of
2
SPEAKER_01
what s coming off the page when we read, at every level of analysis you can think of, actually depends on all the other levels of analysis.
2
SPEAKER_01
So what are the actual pixels making up each letter?
2
SPEAKER_01
And what do those pixels signify about which letters they are?
2
SPEAKER_01
And what do those letters tell us about
2
SPEAKER_01
what words are there and what of those words tell us about what ideas the author is trying to convey.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so he had this model where, you know, we have these little tiny, uh,
2
SPEAKER_01
elements that represent each of the pixels of each of the letters, and then other ones that represent the line segments in them, and other ones that represent the letters, and other ones that represent the words.
2
SPEAKER_01
And at that time, his idea was there s this set of experts.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s an expert about how to
2
SPEAKER_01
construct a line out of pixels, and another expert about which sets of lines go together to make which letters, and another one about which letters go together to make which words, and another one about what the meanings of the words are, and another one about how the meanings fit together, and things like that.
2
SPEAKER_01
And all these experts are looking at this data, and they re
2
SPEAKER_01
updating hypotheses at other levels.
2
SPEAKER_01
So the word expert can tell the letter expert, oh, I think there should be a T there because I think there should be a word the here.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the bottom-up sort of feature to letter expert can say, I think there should be a T there too.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if they agree,
2
SPEAKER_01
then you see a T, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
And so there s a top-down, bottom-up interactive process, but it s going on at all layers simultaneously.
2
SPEAKER_01
So everything can filter all the way down from the top as well as all the way up from the bottom.
2
SPEAKER_01
And it s a completely interactive, bi-directional, parallel distributed process.
2
SPEAKER_00
that is somehow, because of the abstractions, it s hierarchical.
2
SPEAKER_00
So there s different layers of responsibilities, different levels of responsibilities.
2
SPEAKER_00
First of all, it s fascinating to think about it in this kind of mechanistic way.
2
SPEAKER_00
So not thinking purely from the structure of a neural network or something like a neural network, but thinking about these little guys that work on letters and then the letters become words and words become sentences.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that s a very interesting hypothesis that from that kind of hierarchical structure can emerge understanding.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_01
So, but the thing is, though, I want to just sort of relate this to earlier part of the conversation.
2
SPEAKER_01
When Rommelhart was first thinking about it, there were these experts on the side
2
SPEAKER_01
one for the features and one for the letters and one for how the letters make the words and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
And they would each be working sort of evaluating various propositions about is this combination of features here going to be one that looks like the letter T and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
And what he
2
SPEAKER_01
realized kind of after reading Hinton s dissertation and hearing about Jim Anderson s linear algebra-based neural network models that I was telling you about before, was that he could replace those experts with neuron-like processing units, which just would have their connection weights that would do this job.
2
SPEAKER_01
So
2
SPEAKER_01
What ended up happening was that Romulhart and I got together and we created a model called the Interactive Activation Model of Letter Perception, which takes these little pixel-level inputs
2
SPEAKER_01
constructs line segment features, letters and words, but now we built it out of a set of neuron-like processing units that are just connected to each other with connection weights.
2
SPEAKER_01
So the unit for the word time has a connection to the unit for the letter T in the first position and the letter I in the second position, so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
And because these connections are bidirectional,
2
SPEAKER_01
if you have prior knowledge that it might be the word time, that starts to prime the feature, the letters and the features.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if you don t, then it has to start bottom up.
2
SPEAKER_01
But the directionality just depends on where the information comes in first.
2
SPEAKER_01
And if you have context together with features at the same time, they can convergently result in an emergent perception.
2
SPEAKER_01
And that was the,
2
SPEAKER_01
The piece of work that we did together that sort of got us both completely convinced that this neural network way of thinking was going to be able to actually address the questions that we were interested in as cognitive psychologists.
2
SPEAKER_00
So the algorithmic side, the optimization side, those are all details like when you first start, the idea that you can get far with this kind of way of thinking, that in itself is a profound idea.
2
SPEAKER_00
So do you like the term connectionism to describe this kind of set of ideas?
2
SPEAKER_01
I think it s useful.
2
SPEAKER_01
It highlights the notion that the knowledge
2
SPEAKER_01
that the system exploits is in the connections between the units, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
There isn t a separate dictionary.
2
SPEAKER_01
There s just the connections between the units.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I already sort of laid that on the table with the connections from the letter units to the,
2
SPEAKER_01
unit for the word time, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
The unit for the word time isn t a unit for the word time for any other reason than it s got the connections to the letters that make up the word time.
2
SPEAKER_01
Those are the units on the input that excite it when it s excited, that in a sense represents in the system that there s support for the hypothesis that the word time is present in the input.
2
SPEAKER_01
But it s not
2
SPEAKER_01
The word time isn t written anywhere inside the model.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s only written there in the picture we drew of the model to say that s the unit for the word time, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
And if somebody wants to tell me, well, how do you spell that word?
2
SPEAKER_01
You have to use the connections from that out to then get those letters, for example.
2
SPEAKER_00
That s such a, that s a counterintuitive idea.
2
SPEAKER_00
We humans want to think in this logic way.
2
SPEAKER_00
This idea of connectionism, it doesn t, it s weird.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s weird that this is how it all works.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but let s go back to that CNN, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
That CNN with all those layers of neuron-like processing units that we were talking about before, it s gonna come out and say, this is a cat, that s a dog.
2
SPEAKER_01
But it has no idea why it said that.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s just got all these connections between all these layers of neurons, like from the very first layer to the, you know, like whatever these layers are, they just get numbered after a while because they, you know, they somehow further in you go, the more
2
SPEAKER_01
the more abstract the features are, but it s a graded and continuous sort of process of abstraction anyway.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, it goes from very local, very specific to much more sort of global, but it s still, you know, another sort of pattern of activation over an array of units.
2
SPEAKER_01
And then at the output side, it says it s a cat or it s a dog.
2
SPEAKER_01
And when I open my eyes and say, oh, that s Lex, or, you know,
2
SPEAKER_01
you know, there s my own dog, and I recognize my dog, which is a member of the same species as many other dogs, but
2
SPEAKER_01
I know this one because of some slightly unique characteristics.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t know how to describe what it is that makes me know that I m looking at Lex or at my particular dog, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
Or even that I m looking at a particular brand of car.
2
SPEAKER_01
Like I could say a few words about it, but if I wrote you a paragraph about the car, you would have trouble figuring out which car is he talking about, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
So the idea that we have propositional knowledge of what
2
SPEAKER_01
it is that allows us to recognize that this is an actual instance of this particular natural kind has always been something that, it never worked, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
You couldn t ever write down a set of propositions for visual recognition.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so in that space, it sort of always seemed very natural that something more implicit,
2
SPEAKER_01
you know, you don t have access to what the details of the computation were in between.
2
SPEAKER_01
You just get the result.
2
SPEAKER_01
So that s the other part of connectionism.
2
SPEAKER_01
You cannot, you don t read the contents of the connections.
2
SPEAKER_01
The connections only cause outputs to occur based on inputs.
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and for us that like final layer or some particular layer is very important.
2
SPEAKER_00
The one that tells us that it s our dog or like it s a cat or a dog.
2
SPEAKER_00
But, you know, each layer is probably equally as important in the grand scheme of things.
2
SPEAKER_00
Like there s no reason why the cat versus dog is more important than the lower level activations.
2
SPEAKER_00
It doesn t really matter.
2
SPEAKER_00
I mean, all of it is just this beautiful stacking on top of each other.
2
SPEAKER_00
And we humans live in this particular layers for us.
2
SPEAKER_00
For us, it s useful to,
2
SPEAKER_00
to survive, to use those, cat versus dog, predator versus prey, all those kinds of things.
2
SPEAKER_00
It s fascinating that it s all continuous.
2
SPEAKER_00
But then you then ask, you know, the history of artificial intelligence, you ask, are we able to introspect and convert the very things that allow us to tell the difference between cat and dog into logic, to form a logic?
2
SPEAKER_00
That s been the dream.
2
SPEAKER_00
I would say that s still part of the dream of symbolic AI.
2
SPEAKER_00
I ve recently talked to Doug Lennard, who created Psyche.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that s a project that lasted for many decades and still carries a sort of dream in it, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
But we still don t know the answer, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
It seems like connectionism is really powerful, but it also seems like there s this building of knowledge.
2
SPEAKER_00
And so how do we, how do you square those two?
2
SPEAKER_00
Like, do you think the connections can contain the depth of human knowledge and the depth of what Dave Rommelhart was thinking about of understanding?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, that remains the $64 question.
2
SPEAKER_00
With inflation, that number is higher.
2
SPEAKER_00
Okay, $64,000.
2
SPEAKER_01
Maybe it s the $64 billion question now.
2
SPEAKER_01
You know, I think that from the,
2
SPEAKER_01
emergentist side, which, you know, I place myself on.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I used to sometimes tell people I was a radical eliminative connectionist, because I didn t want them to think that I wanted to build like anything into the machine.
2
SPEAKER_01
But I don t like the word eliminative.
2
SPEAKER_01
anymore because it makes it seem like it s wrong to think that there is this emergent level of understanding.
2
SPEAKER_01
And I disagree with that.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I think, you know, I would call myself a radical emergentist connectionist rather than eliminative connectionist, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
Because I want to acknowledge that
3
SPEAKER_00
that these higher level kinds of aspects of our cognition are real, but they don t exist as such.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there was an example that Doug Hofstadter used to use that I thought was helpful in this respect, just the idea that we can think about sand dunes
3
SPEAKER_00
as entities and talk about like how many there are even.
3
SPEAKER_00
But we also know that a sand dune is a very fluid thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s a pile of sand that is capable of moving around under the wind and, you know,
3
SPEAKER_00
reforming itself in somewhat different ways.
3
SPEAKER_00
And if we think about our thoughts as like sand dunes, as being things that, you know, emerge from just the way all the lower level elements sort of work together and are constrained by external forces, then we can say, yes, they exist as such, but they also, you know,
3
SPEAKER_00
we shouldn t treat them as completely monolithic entities that we can understand without understanding sort of all of the stuff that allows them to change in the ways that they do.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s where I think the connectionist feeds into the cognitive.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s like, okay, so if the substrate is parallel distributed connectionist,
3
SPEAKER_00
then it doesn t mean that the contents of thought isn t abstract and symbolic.
3
SPEAKER_00
But it s more fluid, maybe, than is easier to capture with a set of logical expressions.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s a heck of a sort of thing to put at the top of a resume, radical emerginist connectionist.
3
SPEAKER_01
So there is, just like you said, a beautiful dance between that, between the machinery of intelligence, like the neural network side of it, and the stuff that emerges.
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, the stuff that emerges,
3
SPEAKER_01
seems to be, I don t know what that is.
3
SPEAKER_01
It seems like maybe all of reality is emergent.
3
SPEAKER_01
What I think about, this is made most distinctly rich to me when I look at cellular automata, look at game of life, that from very, very simple things, very rich, complex things emerge that start looking very quickly like organisms, that you forget how the actual thing operates.
3
SPEAKER_01
They start looking like they re moving around, they re eating each other, some of them are generating,
3
SPEAKER_01
offspring, you forget very quickly.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it seems like maybe it s something about the human mind that wants to operate in some layer of the emergent and forget about the mechanism of how that emergence happens.
3
SPEAKER_01
So just like you are in your radicalness, also it seems like unfair to eliminate the magic of that emergent.
3
SPEAKER_01
Like eliminate the fact that that emergent is real.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, no, I agree.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m not, that s why I got rid of eliminative, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
Eliminative, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, because it seemed like that was trying to say that, you know, it s all completely like,
3
SPEAKER_01
an illusion of some kind, it s not?
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, who knows whether there isn t, there aren t some illusory characteristics there.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think that philosophically, many people have confronted that possibility over time.
3
SPEAKER_00
But it s still important to accept it as magic, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
So I think of Fellini in this context, I think of,
3
SPEAKER_00
others who have appreciated the role of magic, of actual trickery in creating illusions that move us.
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, and Plato was on to this too.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s like somehow or other these shadows, you know, give rise to something much deeper than that.
3
SPEAKER_00
And that s,
3
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, we won t try to figure out what it is.
3
SPEAKER_00
We ll just accept it as given that that occurs.
3
SPEAKER_00
But he was still onto the magic of it.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
We won t try to really, really, really deeply understand how it works.
3
SPEAKER_01
We ll just enjoy the fact that it s kind of fun.
3
SPEAKER_01
Okay, but you worked closely with Dave Rommelhart.
3
SPEAKER_01
He passed away as a human being.
3
SPEAKER_01
What do you remember about him?
3
SPEAKER_01
Do you miss the guy?
3
SPEAKER_00
Absolutely.
3
SPEAKER_00
He passed away 15-ish years ago now, and his demise was actually one of the most poignant and relevant
3
SPEAKER_00
tragedies relevant to our conversation.
3
SPEAKER_00
He started to undergo a progressive neurological condition that isn t fully understood.
3
SPEAKER_00
That is to say, his particular course isn t fully understood.
3
SPEAKER_00
because brain scans weren t done at certain stages and no autopsy was done or anything like that, the wishes of the family.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we don t know as much about the underlying pathology as we might.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I had begun to get interested in this neurological condition that might have been the very one that he was succumbing to.
3
SPEAKER_00
as my own efforts to understand another aspect of this mystery that we ve been discussing while he was beginning to get progressively more and more affected.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I m gonna talk about the disorder and not about Rumelhart for a second, okay?
3
SPEAKER_00
The disorder is something my colleagues and collaborators have chosen to call semantic dementia.
3
SPEAKER_00
So it s a specific form of
3
SPEAKER_00
Loss of mind related to meaning, semantic dementia.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it s progressive in the sense that the patient loses the ability to appreciate the meaning of the experiences that they have, either from touch, from sight, from sound,
3
SPEAKER_00
from language.
3
SPEAKER_00
I hear sounds, but I don t know what they mean kind of thing.
3
SPEAKER_00
So as this illness progresses, it starts with the patient being unable to
3
SPEAKER_00
differentiate like similar breeds of dog or remember, you know, the lower frequency unfamiliar categories that they used to be able to remember.
3
SPEAKER_00
But as it progresses, it becomes more and more striking and, you know, the patient loses the ability to recognize, you know, things like
3
SPEAKER_00
pigs and goats and sheep and calls all middle-sized animals dogs and all can t recognize rabbits and rodents anymore.
3
SPEAKER_00
They call all the little ones cats and they can t recognize hippopotamuses and cows anymore.
3
SPEAKER_00
They call them all horses, you know.
3
SPEAKER_00
So there was this one patient who,
3
SPEAKER_00
went through this progression where at a certain point, any four-legged animal, he would call it either a horse or a dog or a cat.
3
SPEAKER_00
And if it was big, he would tend to call it a horse.
3
SPEAKER_00
If it was small, he d tend to call it a cat.
3
SPEAKER_00
Middle-sized ones, he called dogs.
3
SPEAKER_00
This is just a part of the syndrome, though.
3
SPEAKER_00
The patient loses the ability to relate
3
SPEAKER_00
concepts to each other.
3
SPEAKER_00
So my collaborator in this work, Carolyn Patterson, developed a test called the pyramids and palm trees test.
3
SPEAKER_00
So you give the patient a picture of pyramids and they have a choice, which goes with the pyramids, palm trees or pine trees?
3
SPEAKER_00
And she showed that this wasn t just a matter of language because the patient s loss of this ability shows up whether you present the material with words or with pictures.
3
SPEAKER_00
The pictures, they can t put the pictures together with each other properly anymore.
3
SPEAKER_00
They can t relate the pictures to the words either.
3
SPEAKER_00
They can t do word picture matching.
3
SPEAKER_00
But they ve lost the conceptual grounding
3
SPEAKER_00
from either modality of input.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so that s why it s called semantic dimension.
3
SPEAKER_00
The very semantics is disintegrating.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we understand this in terms of our
3
SPEAKER_00
idea that distributed representation, a pattern of activation represents the concepts, really similar ones.
3
SPEAKER_00
As you degrade them, they start being, you lose the differences.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then, so the difference between the dog and the goat sort of is no longer part of the pattern anymore.
3
SPEAKER_00
And since dog is really familiar, that s the thing that remains.
3
SPEAKER_00
And we understand that in the way the models work and learn.
3
SPEAKER_00
But Rommelhart underwent this.
3
SPEAKER_00
this condition.
3
SPEAKER_00
So on the one hand, it s a fascinating aspect of parallel distributed processing to me.
3
SPEAKER_00
And it reveals this sort of texture of distributed representation in a very nice way, I ve always felt.
3
SPEAKER_00
But at the same time, it was extremely poignant because this is exactly the condition that Rommel-Hart was undergoing.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there was a period of time when he was this man who had been the most focused
3
SPEAKER_00
goal-directed, competitive, thoughtful person who was willing to work for years to solve a hard problem, he starts to disappear.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there was a period of time when it was like,
3
SPEAKER_00
hard for any of us to really appreciate that he was sort of, in some sense, not fully there anymore.
3
SPEAKER_01
Do you know if he was able to introspect the solution of the understanding mind?
3
SPEAKER_01
I mean, this is one of the big scientists that thinks about this.
3
SPEAKER_01
Was he able to look at himself and understand the fading mind?
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, we can contrast Hawking and Rumelhart in this way, and I like to do that to honor Rumelhart because I think Rumelhart is sort of like the Hawking of cognitive science to me in some ways.
3
SPEAKER_00
Both of them suffered from a degenerative condition.
3
SPEAKER_00
In Hawking s case, it affected the motor system.
3
SPEAKER_00
In Romulhart s case, it s affecting the semantics.
3
SPEAKER_00
And not...
3
SPEAKER_00
not just the pure object semantics, but maybe the self semantics as well, and we don t understand that.
3
SPEAKER_01
Concepts broadly.
3
SPEAKER_00
But it s, so I would say he didn t, and this was part of what from the outside was a profound tragedy, but on the other hand, at some level, he sort of did because
3
SPEAKER_00
you know, there was a period of time when it finally was realized that he had really become profoundly impaired.
3
SPEAKER_00
This was clearly a biological condition and he wasn t, you know, it wasn t just like he was distracted that day or something like that.
3
SPEAKER_00
So he retired, you know, from his professorship at Stanford and he became, he, he,
3
SPEAKER_00
lived with his brother for a couple years, and then he moved into a facility for people with cognitive impairments, one that many elderly people end up in when they have cognitive impairments.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I would spend time with him during that period.
3
SPEAKER_00
This was like in the late 90s, around 2000 even.
3
SPEAKER_00
And
3
SPEAKER_00
you know, I would, we would go bowling and he could still bowl.
3
SPEAKER_00
Uh, and, um, I, after bowling, I took him to lunch and I, I said, where would you like to go?
3
SPEAKER_00
You want to go to Wendy s?
3
SPEAKER_00
And he said, nah.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I said, OK, well, where do you want to go?
3
SPEAKER_00
And he just pointed.
3
SPEAKER_00
He said, turn here.
3
SPEAKER_00
So he still had a certain amount of spatial cognition, and he could get me to the restaurant.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then when we got to the restaurant,
3
SPEAKER_00
I said, what do you wanna order?
3
SPEAKER_00
And he couldn t come up with any of the words, but he knew where on the menu the thing was that he wanted.
3
SPEAKER_00
Fascinating.
3
SPEAKER_00
He couldn t say what it was, but he knew that that s what he wanted to eat.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s like it isn t monolithic at all.
3
SPEAKER_00
Our cognition is,
3
SPEAKER_00
you know, first of all, graded in certain kinds of ways, but also multipartite and there s many elements to it and things, certain sort of,
3
SPEAKER_00
Partial competencies still exist in the absence of other aspects of these competencies.
3
SPEAKER_00
So this is what always fascinated me about what used to be called cognitive neuropsychology.
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, the effects of brain damage on cognition.
3
SPEAKER_00
But in particular, this gradual disintegration part.
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, I m a big believer that the loss of a human being that you value is as powerful as first falling in love with that human being.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think it s all a celebration of the human being.
3
SPEAKER_01
So the disintegration itself, too, is a celebration in a way.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
But just to say something more about the scientist and the backpropagation idea that you mentioned.
3
SPEAKER_00
So, in 1982,
3
SPEAKER_00
Hinton had been there as a postdoc and organized that conference.
3
SPEAKER_00
He d actually gone away and gotten an assistant professorship.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then there was this opportunity to bring him back.
3
SPEAKER_00
So Jeff Hinton was back on a sabbatical.
3
SPEAKER_00
San Diego.
3
SPEAKER_00
In San Diego.
3
SPEAKER_00
And Rumelhart and I had decided we wanted to do this.
3
SPEAKER_00
We thought it was really exciting.
3
SPEAKER_00
And
3
SPEAKER_00
are the papers on the interactive activation model that I was telling you about had just been published, and we both sort of saw a huge potential for this work, and Jeff was there.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so the three of us started a research group, which we called the PDP Research Group, and several other people came.
3
SPEAKER_00
Francis Crick, who was at the Salk Institute, heard about it from Jeff.
3
SPEAKER_00
because Jeff was known among Brits to be brilliant, and Francis was well-connected with his British friends.
3
SPEAKER_00
So Francis Crick came.
3
SPEAKER_01
That s a heck of a group of people, wow, okay.
3
SPEAKER_00
And several, as Paul Spolensky was one of the other postdocs, he was still there as a postdoc, and a few other people.
3
SPEAKER_00
But anyway, Jeff,
3
SPEAKER_00
talk to us about learning and how we should think about how learning occurs in a neural network.
3
SPEAKER_00
And he said, the problem
3
SPEAKER_00
with the way you guys have been approaching this is that you ve been looking for inspiration from biology to tell you what the rules should be for how the synapses should change the strengths of their connections, how the connections should form.
3
SPEAKER_00
He said, that s the wrong way to go about it.
3
SPEAKER_00
What you should do is you should think in terms of
3
SPEAKER_00
how you can adjust connection weights to solve a problem.
3
SPEAKER_00
So you define your problem, and then you figure out how the adjustment of the connection weights will solve the problem.
3
SPEAKER_00
And Rumelhart heard that and said to himself, okay, so I m going to start thinking about it that way.
3
SPEAKER_00
I m going to,
4
SPEAKER_01
Essentially, imagine that I have some objective function, some goal of the computation.
4
SPEAKER_01
I want my machine to correctly classify all of these images.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I can score that.
4
SPEAKER_01
I can measure how well they re doing on each image.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I get some measure of error or loss, it s typically called in deep learning.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I m going to figure out how to adjust the connection weight so as to minimize my loss or reduce the error.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s called, you know, gradient descent.
4
SPEAKER_01
And engineers were already familiar with the concept of gradient descent.
4
SPEAKER_01
And in fact, there was an algorithm called the delta rule that had been invented by
4
SPEAKER_01
a professor in the electrical engineering department at Stanford, Woodrow, Bernie Woodrow, and a collaborator named Hoff.
4
SPEAKER_01
I never met him.
4
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, so gradient descent in continuous neural networks with multiple neuron-like processing units was already understood.
4
SPEAKER_01
for a single layer of connection weights.
4
SPEAKER_01
We have some inputs over a set of neurons.
4
SPEAKER_01
We want the output to produce a certain pattern.
4
SPEAKER_01
We can define the difference between our target and what the neural network is producing, and we can figure out how to change the connection weights to reduce that error.
4
SPEAKER_01
So what Romulhard did was to generalize that.
4
SPEAKER_01
so as to be able to change the connections from earlier layers of units to the ones at a hidden layer between the input and the output.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so he first called the algorithm the generalized delta rule because it s just an extension of the gradient descent idea.
4
SPEAKER_01
And interestingly enough, Hinton was thinking that this wasn t going to work very well.
4
SPEAKER_01
So Hinton had his own alternative
4
SPEAKER_01
algorithm at the time based on the concept of the Boltzmann machine that he was pursuing.
4
SPEAKER_01
So the paper on the Boltzmann machine came out in, learning in Boltzmann machines came out in 1985.
4
SPEAKER_01
But it turned out that backprop worked better than the Boltzmann machine learning algorithm.
4
SPEAKER_00
So this generalized delta algorithm ended up being called backpropagation, as you say, backprop.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
4
SPEAKER_01
Probably that name is opaque to me.
4
SPEAKER_01
What does that mean?
4
SPEAKER_01
What it meant was that in order to figure out what the changes you needed to make to the connections from the input to the hidden layer, you had to back propagate the error signals from the output layer through the connections from the hidden layer to the output
4
SPEAKER_01
to get the signals that would be the error signals for the hidden layer.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s how Rumelhart formulated it.
4
SPEAKER_01
It was like, well, we know what the error signals are at the output layer.
4
SPEAKER_01
Let s see if we can get a signal at the hidden layer that tells each hidden unit what its error signal is, essentially.
4
SPEAKER_01
So it s backpropagating through the connections from the hidden to the output to get the signals to tell the hidden units how to change their weights from the input.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that s why it s called backprop.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, but so it came from Hinton having introduced the concept of, you know, define your objective function, figure out how to take the derivatives so that you can adjust the connections so that they make progress towards your goal.
4
SPEAKER_00
So stop thinking about biology for a second and let s start to think about optimization and computation a little bit more.
4
SPEAKER_00
So what about Jeff Hinton?
4
SPEAKER_00
You ve gotten a chance to work with him in that little, the set of people involved there, it s quite incredible, the small set of people under the PDP flag,
4
SPEAKER_00
It s just given the amount of impact those ideas have had over the years, it s kind of incredible to think about.
4
SPEAKER_00
But, you know, just like you said, like yourself, Geoffrey Hinton is seen as one of the, not just like a seminal figure in AI, but just a brilliant person, just like the horsepower of the mind is pretty high up there for him because he s just a great thinker.
4
SPEAKER_00
So what kind of ideas have you,
4
SPEAKER_00
learned from him, have you influenced each other on, have you debated over, what stands out to you in the full space of ideas here at the intersection of computation and cognition?
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, so Jeff has said many things to me that had a profound impact on my thinking.
4
SPEAKER_01
And he s written several articles which were way ahead of their time.
4
SPEAKER_01
He had two papers in 1981, just to give one example.
4
SPEAKER_01
One of which was essentially the idea of transformers.
4
SPEAKER_01
And another of which was a early paper on semantic cognition, which inspired
4
SPEAKER_01
him and Rommel Hart and me throughout the 80s and
4
SPEAKER_01
you know, still I think sort of grounds my own thinking about the semantic aspects of cognition.
4
SPEAKER_01
He also, in a small paper that was never published that he wrote in 1977, you know, before he actually arrived at UCSD, or maybe a couple of years even before that, I don t know,
4
SPEAKER_01
when he was a PhD student, he described how a neural network could do recursive computation.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it was a very clever idea that he s continued to explore over time, which was sort of the idea that when you call a subroutine, you need to save the state that you had
4
SPEAKER_01
when you called it so you can get back to where you were when you re finished with the subroutine.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the idea was that you would save the state of the calling routine by making fast changes to connection weights.
4
SPEAKER_01
And then when you finished with the subroutine call, those fast changes in the connection weights would allow you to go back to where you had been before and reinstate the previous context so that you could continue on with the
4
SPEAKER_01
the top level of the computation.
4
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, that was part of the idea.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I always thought, okay, that s really, you know, he just, he had extremely creative ideas that were quite a lot ahead of his time, and many of them in the 1970s and early 1980s.
4
SPEAKER_01
So another thing about Jeff Hinton s way of thinking, which has profoundly influenced my effort to understand human mathematical cognition, is
4
SPEAKER_01
that he doesn t write too many equations.
4
SPEAKER_01
And people tell stories like, oh, in the Hinton lab meetings, you don t get up at the board and write equations like you do in everybody else s machine learning lab.
4
SPEAKER_01
What you do is you draw a picture.
4
SPEAKER_01
And he explains aspects of the way deep learning works by putting his hands together and showing you the shape of a ravine.
4
SPEAKER_01
And
4
SPEAKER_01
using that as a geometrical metaphor for what s happening as this gradient descent process.
4
SPEAKER_01
You re coming down the wall of a ravine.
4
SPEAKER_01
If you take too big a jump, you re gonna jump to the other side.
4
SPEAKER_01
And so that s why we have to turn down the learning rate, for example.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it speaks to me of the,
4
SPEAKER_01
a fundamentally intuitive character of deep insight together with a commitment to really understanding in a way that s absolutely, ultimately explicit and clear, but also intuitive.
4
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, there s certain people like that.
4
SPEAKER_00
Here s an example.
4
SPEAKER_00
Some kind of weird mix of visual and intuitive and all those kinds of things.
4
SPEAKER_00
Feynman is another example.
4
SPEAKER_00
Different style of thinking, but very unique.
4
SPEAKER_00
And when you re around those people, for me in the engineering realm, there s a guy named Jim Keller, who s a chip designer, engineer.
4
SPEAKER_00
Every time I talk to him,
4
SPEAKER_00
it doesn t matter what we re talking about, just having experienced that unique way of thinking transforms you and makes your work much better.
4
SPEAKER_00
And that s the magic, you look at Daniel Kahneman, you look at the great collaborations throughout the history of science.
4
SPEAKER_00
That s the magic of that.
4
SPEAKER_00
It s not always the exact ideas that you talk about, but it s the process of generating those ideas, being around that, spending time with that human being, you can come up with some brilliant work.
4
SPEAKER_00
Especially when it s cross-disciplinary as it was a little bit in your case with Jeff.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, Jeff is a descendant of the logician Boole.
4
SPEAKER_01
He comes from a long line of
4
SPEAKER_01
English academics.
4
SPEAKER_01
And together with the deeply intuitive thinking ability that he has, he also
4
SPEAKER_01
um, has, uh, you know, it s been clear he s, he s described this to me.
4
SPEAKER_01
Um, and I think he s mentioned it from time to time in other interviews with that he s had with people.
4
SPEAKER_01
Um, you know, he s, he s wanted to be able to sort of think of himself as contributing to the, to the understanding of
4
SPEAKER_01
reasoning itself, not just human reasoning, like Boole-like is about logic, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
It s about what can we conclude from what else and how do we formalize that?
4
SPEAKER_01
And as a computer scientist, logician, philosopher, the goal is to
4
SPEAKER_01
understand how we derive truths from other, from givens and things like this.
4
SPEAKER_01
And the work that Jeff was doing in the early to mid 80s on something called the Bolton machine was his way of connecting with that Boolean tradition and bringing it
4
SPEAKER_01
into the more continuous probabilistic graded constraint satisfaction realm.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it was
4
SPEAKER_01
beautiful set of ideas linked with theoretical physics and as well as with logic.
4
SPEAKER_01
And it s always been, I mean, I ve always been inspired by the Boltzmann machine too.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s like, well, if the neurons are probabilistic rather than, you know, deterministic in their computations, then, you know, maybe this somehow is part of the,
4
SPEAKER_01
serendipity or adventitiousness of the moment of insight, right?
4
SPEAKER_01
It might not have occurred at that particular instant.
4
SPEAKER_01
It might be sort of partially the result of a stochastic process.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that too is part of the magic of the emergence of some of these things.
4
SPEAKER_00
Well, you re right with the bullying lineage and the dream of computer science is somehow, I mean, I certainly think of humans this way, that humans are one particular manifestation of intelligence, that there s something bigger going on, and you re hoping to figure that out.
4
SPEAKER_00
The mechanisms of intelligence, the mechanisms of cognition are much bigger than just humans.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
4
SPEAKER_01
So I think of, I ve, I started using the phrase computational intelligence at some point as to characterize the, the field that I thought, you know, people like Jeff Hinton and many of the, of the people I know at DeepMind are, are working in and where I, I feel like I m,
4
SPEAKER_01
I m a kind of a human-oriented computational intelligence researcher in that I m actually kind of interested in the human solution.
4
SPEAKER_01
But at the same time, I feel like that s where a huge amount of the excitement of deep learning actually lies, is in the idea that
4
SPEAKER_01
you know, we may be able to even go beyond what we can achieve with our own nervous systems when we build computational intelligences that are, you know, not limited in the ways that we are by our own biology.
4
SPEAKER_00
Perhaps allowing us to scale the very mechanisms of human intelligence just increases power through scale.
4
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
4
SPEAKER_01
And I think that, you know, obviously that s being played out massively at Google Brain, at OpenAI, and to some extent at DeepMind as well.
4
SPEAKER_01
I guess I shouldn t say to some extent.
4
SPEAKER_01
The massive scale of the
4
SPEAKER_01
computations that are used to succeed at games like Go or to solve the protein folding problems that they ve been solving and so on.
4
SPEAKER_00
Still not as many synapses and neurons as the human brain, so we still got, we re still beating them on that.
4
SPEAKER_00
We humans are beating the AIs, but they re catching up pretty quickly.
4
SPEAKER_00
You write about modeling of mathematical cognition, so let me first ask about mathematics in general.
4
SPEAKER_00
There s a paper titled Parallel Distributed Processing Approach to Mathematical Cognition, where in the introduction there s some beautiful discussion of mathematics.
4
SPEAKER_00
And you referenced there Tristan Needham, who criticizes a narrow formal view of mathematics by liking the studying of mathematics as symbol manipulation to studying music without ever hearing a note.
4
SPEAKER_00
So, from that perspective, what do you think is mathematics?
4
SPEAKER_00
What is this world of mathematics like?
4
SPEAKER_01
Well, I think of mathematics as a set of tools for
4
SPEAKER_01
exploring idealized worlds that often turn out to be extremely relevant to the real world, but need not.
4
SPEAKER_01
But they re worlds in which objects exist with idealized properties,
4
SPEAKER_01
and in which the relationships among them can be characterized with precision so as to allow the implications of certain facts to then allow you to derive other facts with certainty.
4
SPEAKER_01
So, you know,
4
SPEAKER_01
If you have two triangles and you know that there is an angle in the first one that has the same measure as an angle in the second one, and you know that the lengths of the sides adjacent to that angle in each of the two triangles
4
SPEAKER_01
the corresponding sides adjacent to that angle also have the same measure.
4
SPEAKER_01
Then you can then conclude that the triangles are congruent, that is to say they have all of their properties in common.
4
SPEAKER_01
And that is something about triangles.
4
SPEAKER_01
It s not a matter of formulas.
4
SPEAKER_01
These are idealized objects.
4
SPEAKER_01
In fact,
4
SPEAKER_01
you know, we build bridges out of triangles and we understand how to measure the height of something we can t climb by extending these ideas about triangles a little further.
4
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, all of the ability to get a tiny speck of matter launched from
4
SPEAKER_01
the planet Earth to intersect with some tiny, tiny little body way out in – way beyond Pluto somewhere.
5
SPEAKER_00
at exactly a predicted time and date is something that depends on these ideas, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
And it s actually happening in the real physical world that these ideas make contact with it in those kinds of instances.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so,
5
SPEAKER_00
But there are these idealized objects, these triangles, or these distances, or these points, whatever they are, that allow for this set of tools to be created that then gives human beings this incredible leverage that they didn t have without these concepts.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I think this is actually already true
5
SPEAKER_00
when we think about just, you know, the natural numbers.
5
SPEAKER_00
I always like to include zero, so I m gonna say the non-negative integers, but that s a place where some people prefer not to include zero, but.
5
SPEAKER_01
We like zero here.
5
SPEAKER_01
Natural numbers, zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and so on.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and because they give you the ability to be exact about how many sheep you have.
5
SPEAKER_00
I sent you out this morning, there were 23 sheep.
5
SPEAKER_00
You came back with only 22.
5
SPEAKER_00
What happened, right?
5
SPEAKER_01
The fundamental problem of physics, how many sheep you have, yeah.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s a fundamental problem of human society that you damn well better bring back the same number of sheep as you started with.
5
SPEAKER_00
And, you know, it allows commerce, it allows contracts, it allows the establishment of records and so on to have systems that allow these things to be notated.
5
SPEAKER_00
an inherent aboutness to them that s one in the same time sort of abstract and idealized and generalizable while on the other hand, potentially very, very grounded and concrete.
5
SPEAKER_00
And one of the things that makes for the incredible achievements of the human mind is
5
SPEAKER_00
the fact that humans invented these idealized systems that leverage the power of human thought in such a way as to allow all this kind of thing to happen.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so that s what mathematics to me is the development of systems for thinking about the properties and relations among sets of
5
SPEAKER_00
idealized objects and the mathematical notation system that we
5
SPEAKER_00
unfortunately focus way too much on, is just our way of expressing propositions about these properties.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s just like we re talking with Chomsky in language.
5
SPEAKER_01
It s the thing we ve invented for the communication of those ideas.
5
SPEAKER_01
They re not necessarily the deep representation of those ideas.
5
SPEAKER_01
So what s a good way to model such powerful mathematical reasoning, would you say?
5
SPEAKER_01
What are some ideas you have for capturing this in a model?
5
SPEAKER_00
The insights that human mathematicians have had is a combination of the kind of the intuitive
5
SPEAKER_00
kind of connectionist-like knowledge that makes it so that something is just like obviously true, so that you don t have to think about why it s true, that then makes it possible to then take the next step
5
SPEAKER_00
and ponder and reason and figure out something that you previously didn t have that intuition about, it then ultimately becomes a part of the intuition that the next generation of mathematical thinkers have to ground their own thinking on so that they can extend the ideas even further.
5
SPEAKER_00
I came across this quotation
5
SPEAKER_00
from Henri Poincaré while I was walking in the woods with my wife in a state park in Northern California late last summer.
5
SPEAKER_00
And what it said on the bench was, it is by,
5
SPEAKER_00
logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.
5
SPEAKER_00
And so what, for me, the essence of the project is to understand how to bring the intuitive connectionist resources to bear on letting the intuitive discovery arise, you know, from
5
SPEAKER_00
engagement in thinking with this formal system.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I think of, you know, the ability of somebody like Hinton or Newton or Einstein or Rommelhardt or Poincaré to, um,
5
SPEAKER_00
Archimedes is another example, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
So suddenly a flash of insight occurs.
5
SPEAKER_00
It s like the constellation of all of these simultaneous constraints that somehow or other causes the mind to settle into a novel state that it never did before and give rise to a new idea that
5
SPEAKER_00
you know, then you can say, okay, well now how can I prove this?
5
SPEAKER_00
You know, how do I write down the steps of that theorem that allow me to make it rigorous and certain?
5
SPEAKER_00
And so I feel like the kinds of things that we re beginning to see deep learning systems do of their own accord
5
SPEAKER_00
kind of gives me this feeling of, I don t know, hope or encouragement that ultimately it ll all happen.
5
SPEAKER_00
So in particular, as
5
SPEAKER_00
many people now have become really interested in thinking about, you know, neural networks that have been trained with massive amounts of text can be given a prompt and they can then sort of generate some really interesting, fanciful, creative story from that prompt.
5
SPEAKER_00
And, uh,
5
SPEAKER_00
there s kind of like a sense that they ve somehow synthesized something like novel out of the, you know, all of the particulars of all of the billions and billions of experiences that went into the training data that gives rise to something like this sort of intuitive sense of what would be a fun and interesting little story to tell or something like that.
5
SPEAKER_00
It just sort of wells up out of the,
5
SPEAKER_00
letting the thing play out its own imagining of what somebody might say given this prompt as a input to get it to start to generate its own thoughts.
5
SPEAKER_00
And to me, that sort of represents the potential of capturing the intuitive side of this.
5
SPEAKER_01
And there s other examples, I don t know if you find them as captivating, is on the deep mind side with AlphaZero, if you study chess, the kind of solutions that has come up in terms of chess, it is, there s novel ideas there.
5
SPEAKER_01
It feels very, like there s brilliant moments of insight.
5
SPEAKER_01
And the mechanism they use
5
SPEAKER_01
If you think of search as maybe more towards good old-fashioned AI, and then there s the connectionist network that has the intuition of looking at a board, looking at a set of patterns, and saying, how good is this set of positions?
5
SPEAKER_01
And the next few positions, how good are those?
5
SPEAKER_01
And that s it.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s just an intuition.
5
SPEAKER_01
Grandmasters have this, an understanding positionally, tactically, how good the situation is, how can it be improved, without doing this full deep search.
5
SPEAKER_01
And then maybe doing a little bit of what human chess players call calculation, which is the search, taking a particular set of steps down the line to see how they unroll.
5
SPEAKER_01
But there is moments of genius in those systems
5
SPEAKER_01
too, so that s another hopeful illustration that from neural networks can emerge this novel creation of an idea.
5
SPEAKER_00
Yes, and I think that, you know, I think Demis Hassabis is, you know, he s spoken about those things.
5
SPEAKER_00
I heard him
5
SPEAKER_00
describe a move that was made in one of the Go matches against Lee Sedol in a very similar way.
5
SPEAKER_00
It caused me to become really excited to kind of collaborate with some of those guys at DeepMind.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I think, though, that what I like to really emphasize here is
5
SPEAKER_00
One part of what I like to emphasize about mathematical cognition at least is that philosophers and logicians going back three or even a little more than 3000 years ago began to develop these formal systems and gradually
5
SPEAKER_00
the whole idea about thinking formally got constructed.
5
SPEAKER_00
And, you know, it s preceded Euclid, certainly present in the work of Thales and others, and I m not the world s leading expert in all the details of that history, but Euclid s elements were the kind of the touchpoint of a,
5
SPEAKER_00
of a coherent document that sort of laid out this idea of an actual formal system within which these objects were characterized and the system of inference that
5
SPEAKER_00
um, allowed new truths to be derived from others was sort of like established as a paradigm.
5
SPEAKER_00
And, um, what, what I find interesting is the idea that the ability to become a person who is capable of thinking in this abstract formal way is
5
SPEAKER_00
a result of the same kind of immersion in experience
5
SPEAKER_00
thinking in that way, that we now begin to think of our understanding of language as being, right?
5
SPEAKER_00
So we immerse ourselves in a particular language, in a particular world of objects and their relationships, and we learn to talk about that, and we develop intuitive understanding of the real world.
5
SPEAKER_00
In a similar way, we can think that what
5
SPEAKER_00
academia has created for us, what, you know, those early philosophers in their academies in Athens and Alexandria and other places allowed was the development of these, you know,
5
SPEAKER_00
schools of thought, modes of thought that then become deeply ingrained and it becomes what it is that makes it so that somebody like Jerry Fodor would think that systematic thought is
5
SPEAKER_00
the essential characteristic of the human mind as opposed to a derived, an acquired characteristic that results from acculturation in a certain mode that s been invented by humans.
5
SPEAKER_01
Would you say it s more fundamental than like language?
5
SPEAKER_01
If we start dancing, if we bring Chomsky back into the conversation.
5
SPEAKER_01
First of all, is it unfair to draw a line between mathematical cognition and language, linguistic cognition?
5
SPEAKER_00
I think that s a very interesting question.
5
SPEAKER_00
And I think it s one of the ones that I m actually very interested in right now.
5
SPEAKER_00
But I think the answer is, in important ways, it is important to draw that line.
5
SPEAKER_00
but then to come back and look at it again and see some of the subtleties and interesting aspects of the difference.
5
SPEAKER_00
So if we think about Chomsky himself, he,
5
SPEAKER_00
was born into an academic family.
5
SPEAKER_00
His father was a professor of rabbinical studies at a small rabbinical college in Philadelphia.
5
SPEAKER_00
And he was deeply enculturated in a culture of thought and reason and brought to the
5
SPEAKER_00
effort to understand natural language, this profound engagement with these formal systems.
5
SPEAKER_00
And, you know, I think that there was tremendous power in that and that Chomsky had some amazing insights into the structure of natural language.
5
SPEAKER_00
but that, and I m gonna use the word but there, the actual intuitive knowledge of these things only goes so far and does not go as far as it does in people like Chomsky himself.
5
SPEAKER_00
And this was something that was discovered in the PhD dissertation of Lila Gleitman, who was actually trained in the same linguistics department with Chomsky.
5
SPEAKER_00
So what Lila discovered
5
SPEAKER_00
was that the intuitions that linguists had about even the meaning of a phrase, not just about its grammar, but about what they thought a phrase must mean, were very different from the intuitions of an ordinary person who wasn t a formally trained thinker.
5
SPEAKER_00
And
5
SPEAKER_00
Well, it recently has become much more salient.
5
SPEAKER_00
I happen to have learned about this when I myself was a PhD student at the University of Pennsylvania, but I never knew how to put it together with all of my other thinking about these things.
5
SPEAKER_00
So I actually currently have the hypothesis that formally trained linguists and other formally trained researchers
5
SPEAKER_00
academics, whether it be linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, computer science, machine learning, mathematics, have a mode of engagement with experience that is intuitively, deeply structured to be more
5
SPEAKER_00
organized around the systematicity and ability to be conformant with the principles of a system than is actually true of the natural human mind without that immersion.
5
SPEAKER_01
That s fascinating.
5
SPEAKER_01
So the different fields and approaches with which you start to study the mind actually take you away from the natural operation of the mind.
5
SPEAKER_01
So it makes it very difficult for you
6
SPEAKER_00
to be somebody who introspects.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yes, and you know, this is where things about human belief and so-called knowledge that we consider private
6
SPEAKER_01
not our business to manipulate in others.
6
SPEAKER_01
We are not entitled to tell somebody else what to believe about certain kinds of things.
6
SPEAKER_01
What are those beliefs?
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, they are the product of this sort of immersion and enculturation.
6
SPEAKER_01
That is what I believe.
6
SPEAKER_00
And that s limiting.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s something to be aware of.
6
SPEAKER_00
Does that limit you from having a good model of cognition?
6
SPEAKER_00
It can.
6
SPEAKER_00
So when you look at mathematical or linguistics, I mean, what is that line then?
6
SPEAKER_00
So is Chomsky unable to sneak up to the full picture of cognition?
6
SPEAKER_00
Are you, when you re focusing on mathematical thinking, are you also unable to do so?
6
SPEAKER_01
I think you re right.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think that s a great way of characterizing it.
6
SPEAKER_01
I also think that it s related to the concept of beginner s mind.
6
SPEAKER_01
Another concept called the expert blind spot.
6
SPEAKER_01
So the expert blind spot is much more prosaic seeming than this point that you were just making.
6
SPEAKER_01
But it s something that plagues experts when they try to communicate their understanding to non-experts.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that is that things are self-evident to them
6
SPEAKER_01
that they can t begin to even think about how they could explain it to somebody else because it like, well, it s just like so patently obvious that it must be true.
6
SPEAKER_01
And you know, like when,
6
SPEAKER_01
Kronacker said, God made the natural numbers, all else is the work of man.
6
SPEAKER_01
He was expressing that intuition that somehow or other, the basic fundamentals of discrete quantities being countable and
6
SPEAKER_01
innumerable and, you know, indefinite in number, was not something that had to be discovered.
6
SPEAKER_01
But he was wrong.
6
SPEAKER_01
It turns out that many cognitive scientists agreed with him for a time.
6
SPEAKER_01
There was a long period of time where there were
6
SPEAKER_01
where the natural numbers were considered to be a part of the innate endowment of core knowledge or to use the kind of phrases that Spelke and Carey used to talk about what they believe are the innate primitives of the human mind.
6
SPEAKER_01
And they no longer believe that.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s actually,
6
SPEAKER_01
been more or less accepted by almost everyone that the natural numbers are actually a cultural construction.
6
SPEAKER_01
And it s so interesting to go back and sort of like study those few people who still exist who don t have those systems.
6
SPEAKER_01
So this is just an example to me and where a certain mode of thinking about language itself or a certain mode of thinking about
6
SPEAKER_01
geometry and those kinds of relations.
6
SPEAKER_01
So it becomes so second nature that you don t know what it is that you need to teach.
6
SPEAKER_01
And in fact, we don t really teach it all that explicitly anyway.
6
SPEAKER_01
You take a math class, the professor sort of teaches it to you the way they understand it.
6
SPEAKER_01
Some of the students in the class sort of like, you know, they get it they start to get the way of thinking and they can actually do the problems that get get put on the homework that the professor thinks are interesting and challenging ones, but but but most of the students who don t kind of engage as deeply don t ever get you know, and We we think oh that man must be brilliant.
6
SPEAKER_01
He must have this special insight, but I I
6
SPEAKER_01
know, he must have some, you know, biological sort of bit that s different, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
That makes him so that he or she could have that insight.
6
SPEAKER_01
But I m, although I don t want to dismiss biological individual differences completely, I,
6
SPEAKER_01
I find it much more interesting to think about the possibility that it was that difference in the dinner table conversation at the Chomsky house when he was growing up that made it so that he had that cast of mind.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and there s a few topics we talked about that kind of interconnect, because I wonder, the better I get at certain things, we humans, the deeper we understand something, what are you starting to then miss about the rest of the world?
6
SPEAKER_00
We talked about...
6
SPEAKER_00
David and his degenerative mind.
6
SPEAKER_00
And, you know, when you look in the mirror and wonder, how different am I, am I cognitively from the man I was a month ago, from the man I was a year ago?
6
SPEAKER_00
Like what, you know, if I can, having thought about language, if I m Chomsky for 10, 20 years,
6
SPEAKER_00
What am I no longer able to see?
6
SPEAKER_00
What is in my blind spot?
6
SPEAKER_00
And how big is that?
6
SPEAKER_00
And then to somehow be able to leap back out of your deep, like structure that you formed for yourself about thinking about the world, leap back and look at the big picture again, or jump out of your current way of thinking.
6
SPEAKER_00
and to be able to introspect, like what are the limitations of your mind?
6
SPEAKER_00
How is your mind less powerful than it used to be or more powerful or different, powerful in different ways?
6
SPEAKER_00
So that seems to be a difficult thing to do, because we re living, we re looking at the world through the lens of our mind, right?
6
SPEAKER_00
To step outside and introspect is difficult, but it seems necessary if you want to make progress.
6
SPEAKER_01
threads of psychological research that s always been very, I don t know, important to me to be aware of is the idea that our explanations of our own behavior aren t necessarily actually
6
SPEAKER_01
part of the causal process that caused that behavior to occur, or even valid observations of the set of constraints that led to the outcome.
6
SPEAKER_01
But they are post hoc rationalizations that we can give based on information at our disposal about what might have contributed to the result that we came to when asked.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so this is an idea that,
6
SPEAKER_01
was introduced in a very important paper by Nisbet and Wilson about the limits on our ability to be aware of the factors that cause us to make the choices that we make.
6
SPEAKER_01
I think it s something that we really ought to be much more
6
SPEAKER_01
cognizant of in general as human beings is that our own insight into exactly why we hold the beliefs that we do and we hold the attitudes and make the choices and feel the feelings that we do is not something that we
6
SPEAKER_01
we totally control or totally observe.
6
SPEAKER_01
And it s subject to, you know, our
6
SPEAKER_01
culturally transmitted understanding of what it is that is the mode that we give to explain these things when asked to do so as much as it is about anything else.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so even our ability to introspect and think we have access to our own thoughts is a product of culture and belief, you know, practice.
6
SPEAKER_00
So let me ask you the big question of advice.
6
SPEAKER_00
So you ve lived an incredible life in terms of the ideas you ve put out into the world, in terms of the trajectory you ve taken through your career, through your life.
6
SPEAKER_00
What advice would you give to young people today in high school and college about how to have a career or how to have a life they can be proud of?
6
SPEAKER_01
Finding the thing that you are intrinsically motivated to engage with and then celebrating that discovery is what it s all about.
6
SPEAKER_01
When I was in college, I struggled with that.
6
SPEAKER_01
I had thought I wanted to be a psychiatrist
6
SPEAKER_01
because I think I was interested in human psychology in high school.
6
SPEAKER_01
And at that time, the only sort of information I had that had anything to do with the psyche was, you know, Freud and Erich Fromm and sort of popular psychiatry kinds of things.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so, well, they were psychiatrists, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
So I had to be a psychiatrist.
6
SPEAKER_01
And that meant I had to go to medical school.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I got to college and I find myself taking, you know,
6
SPEAKER_01
the first semester of a three-quarter physics class, and it was mechanics.
6
SPEAKER_01
And this was so far from what it was I was interested in, but it was also too early in the morning in the winter court semester, so I never made it to the physics class.
6
SPEAKER_01
But I wandered about the rest of my freshman year and most of my sophomore year until I found myself in the midst of this situation where around me
6
SPEAKER_01
There was this big revolution happening.
6
SPEAKER_01
I was at Columbia University in 1968, and the Vietnam War is going on.
6
SPEAKER_01
Columbia s building a gym in Morningside Heights, which is part of Harlem, and people are thinking, oh, the big bad rich guys are stealing the parkland that belongs to the people of Harlem, and they re part of the military industrial complex, which is enslaving us and sending us all off to war in Vietnam.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so there was a big revolution that involved a confluence of Black activism and, you know, SDS and social justice and the whole university blew up and got shut down.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I got a chance to sort of think about why people were behaving the way they were in this context.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I happened to have taken mathematical statistics, I happened to have been taking psychology that quarter, just psych one, and somehow things in that space all ran together in my mind and got me really excited about asking questions about why people, what made certain people go into the buildings and not others, and things like that.
6
SPEAKER_01
And so suddenly I had a path forward, and I had just been wandering around aimlessly.
6
SPEAKER_01
And at the different points in my career, you know, when I think, okay, well, should I take this class or should I just read that book about some idea that I want to understand better, you know, or should I, should I pursue the thing that excites me and interests me or should I, you know, meet some requirement, you know, that s,
6
SPEAKER_01
I always did the latter.
6
SPEAKER_01
So I ended up, my professors in psychology thought I was great.
6
SPEAKER_01
They wanted me to go to graduate school.
6
SPEAKER_01
They nominated me for Phi Beta Kappa, and I went to the Phi Beta Kappa ceremony, and this guy came up, and he said, oh, are you Magna Arsuma?
6
SPEAKER_01
I wasn t even getting honors based on my grades.
6
SPEAKER_01
They just happened to have,
6
SPEAKER_01
thought I was interested enough in ideas that belong to Phi Beta Kappa, so.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, would it be fair to say you kind of stumbled around a little bit through accidents of too early morning of classes in physics and so on until you discovered intrinsic motivation, as you mentioned, and then that s it, it hooked you, and then you celebrate the fact that this happens to human beings.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and what is it that made,
6
SPEAKER_01
what I did intrinsically motivating to me?
6
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s interesting and I don t know all the answers to it and I don t think I wanna, I want anybody to think that you should be sort of in any way, I don t know, sanctimonious or anything about it.
6
SPEAKER_01
You know, it s like, I really enjoyed doing statistical analysis of data.
6
SPEAKER_01
I really enjoyed
6
SPEAKER_01
Running my own experiment, which was what I got a chance to do in the psychology department that chemistry and physics had never, I never imagined that mere mortals would ever do an experiment in those sciences, except one that was in the textbook that you were told to do in lab class.
6
SPEAKER_01
But in psychology, we were already like, even when I was taking psych one, it turned out we had our own rat and we got to, after two set experiments, we got to, okay, do something you think of, you know, with your rat, you know?
6
SPEAKER_01
So it s the opportunity to do it myself and to bring together a certain set of things that engaged me intrinsically.
6
SPEAKER_01
And I think it has something to do with why certain people turn out to be profoundly amazing musical geniuses, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
They get immersed in it at an early enough point.
6
SPEAKER_01
And it just sort of gets into the fabric.
6
SPEAKER_01
So my little brother had intrinsic motivation for music as we witnessed when he discovered how
6
SPEAKER_01
to put records on the phonograph when he was like 13 months old and recognize which one he wanted to play, not because he could read the labels, because he could sort of see which ones had which scratches, which were the different, you know, oh, that s Rapidi Espanol and that s, you know, and, and, and he enjoyed that, that connected with him somehow.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
6
SPEAKER_01
And, and there was something that it fed into and it,
6
SPEAKER_01
You re extremely lucky if you have that and if you can nurture it and can let it grow and let it be an important part of your life.
6
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, those are the two things.
6
SPEAKER_00
Be attentive enough to feel it when it comes.
6
SPEAKER_00
This is something special.
6
SPEAKER_00
I mean, I don t know.
6
SPEAKER_00
For example, I really like tabular data, like Excel sheets.
6
SPEAKER_00
It brings me deep joy.
6
SPEAKER_00
I don t know how useful that is for anything.
6
SPEAKER_01
Part of what I m talking about, absolutely.
6
SPEAKER_00
So there s like a million, not a million, but there s a lot of things like that for me, and you have to hear that for yourself, like realize this is really joyful.
6
SPEAKER_00
But then the other part that you re mentioning, which is the nurture, is take time and stay with it, stay with it a while, and see where that takes you in life.
6
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and I think the,
6
SPEAKER_01
the motivational engagement results in the immersion that then creates the opportunity to obtain the expertise.
6
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, we could call it the Mozart effect, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
I mean, when I think about Mozart, I think about, you know, the person who was born as the fourth member of the family string quartet, right?
6
SPEAKER_01
And,
6
SPEAKER_01
and they handed him the violin when he was six weeks old.
6
SPEAKER_01
All right, start playing, you know, it s like, and so the level of immersion there was amazingly profound, but hopefully he also had, you know, something, maybe this is where the more,
6
SPEAKER_01
sort of the genetic part comes in sometimes, I think.
6
SPEAKER_01
You know, something in him resonated to the music so that the synergy of the combination of that was so powerful.
6
SPEAKER_01
So that s what I really consider to be the Mozart effect.
6
SPEAKER_01
It s sort of the synergy of something with experience that then results in the unique
7
SPEAKER_02
flowering of a particular, you know, mind.
7
SPEAKER_02
So, I know my siblings and I are all very different from each other.
7
SPEAKER_02
We ve all gone in our own different directions.
7
SPEAKER_02
And, you know, I mentioned my younger brother who was very musical.
7
SPEAKER_02
I had my other younger brother who was like this amazing, like, intuitive engineer.
7
SPEAKER_02
And
7
SPEAKER_02
One of my sisters was passionate about water conservation well before it was such a hugely important issue that it is today.
7
SPEAKER_02
So we all sort of somehow find a different thing.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I don t mean to say it isn t.
7
SPEAKER_02
tied in with something about us biologically, but it s also when that happens, where you can find that, then you can do your thing and you can be excited about it.
7
SPEAKER_02
So people can be excited about fitting people on bicycles as well as excited about making neural networks achieve insights into human cognition, right?
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, for me personally, I ve always been excited about
7
SPEAKER_01
love and friendship between humans and just like the actual experience of it.
7
SPEAKER_01
Since I was a child just observing people around me and also been excited about robots.
7
SPEAKER_01
And there s something in me that thinks
7
SPEAKER_01
I really would love to explore how those two things combine.
7
SPEAKER_01
It doesn t make any sense.
7
SPEAKER_01
A lot of it is also timing, just to think of your own career and your own life.
7
SPEAKER_01
You found yourself in certain places that happened to involve some of the greatest thinkers of our time.
7
SPEAKER_01
And so it just worked out that you guys developed those ideas and there may be a lot of other people similar to you and they were brilliant and they never found that right connection and place to where they
7
SPEAKER_01
the ideas could flourish.
7
SPEAKER_01
So it s timing, it s place, it s people, and ultimately the whole ride, you know, it s undirected.
7
SPEAKER_01
Can I ask you about something you mentioned in terms of psychiatry when you were younger?
7
SPEAKER_01
Because I had a similar experience of, you know, reading Freud and Carl Jung and just,
7
SPEAKER_01
you know, those kind of popular psychiatry ideas.
7
SPEAKER_01
And that was a dream for me early on in high school to, like, I hope to understand the human mind by, somehow psychiatry felt like the right discipline for that.
7
SPEAKER_01
Does that make you sad, that psychiatry is not the mechanism by which you are able to explore the human mind?
7
SPEAKER_01
So for me, I was a little bit disillusioned because of how much,
7
SPEAKER_01
prescription medication and biochemistry is involved in the discipline of psychiatry, as opposed to the dream of the Freud-like, use the mechanisms of language to explore the human mind.
7
SPEAKER_01
So that was a little disappointing.
7
SPEAKER_01
And that s why I kind of went to computer science and thinking like, maybe you can explore the human mind by trying to build the thing.
7
SPEAKER_02
Yes, I wasn t exposed to the,
7
SPEAKER_02
sort of the biomedical slash pharmacological aspects of psychiatry at that point because I didn t, I dropped out of that whole idea of pre-med that I never even found out about that until much later.
7
SPEAKER_02
But you re absolutely right.
7
SPEAKER_02
So I was actually a member of the National Advisory Mental Health Council, that is to say the board of scientists who advised the director of the National Institute of Mental Health.
7
SPEAKER_02
And that was around the year 2000.
7
SPEAKER_02
And in fact, at that time, the man who came in,
7
SPEAKER_02
as the new director.
7
SPEAKER_02
I d been on this board for a year when he came in, um, said, okay,
7
SPEAKER_02
Schizophrenia is a biological illness.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s a lot like cancer.
7
SPEAKER_02
We ve made huge strides in curing cancer.
7
SPEAKER_02
And that s what we re going to do with schizophrenia.
7
SPEAKER_02
We re going to find the medications that are going to cure this disease.
7
SPEAKER_02
And we re not going to listen to anybody s grandmother anymore.
7
SPEAKER_02
And, um, you know,
7
SPEAKER_02
good old behavioral psychology is not something we re going to support any further.
7
SPEAKER_02
And, you know, he completely alienated me from the Institute and from all of its prior policies, which had been much more holistic, I think, really, at some level.
7
SPEAKER_02
And the other people on the board were like psychiatrists, right?
7
SPEAKER_02
very biological psychiatrists.
7
SPEAKER_02
It didn t pan out, right?
7
SPEAKER_02
That nothing has changed in our ability to help people with mental illness.
7
SPEAKER_02
And so 20 years later, that particular path was a dead end, as far as I can tell.
7
SPEAKER_01
There s some aspect to, and sorry to romanticize the whole philosophical conversation about the human mind, but to me, psychiatrists for a time held the flag of we re the deep thinkers.
7
SPEAKER_01
In the same way that physicists are the deep thinkers about the nature of reality, psychiatrists are the deep thinkers about the nature of the human mind.
7
SPEAKER_01
And I think that flag has been taken from them.
7
SPEAKER_01
and carried by people like you, it s more in the cognitive psychology, especially when you have a foot in the computational view of the world, because you can both build it, you can like, intuit about the functioning of the mind by building little models, and being able to say mathematical things, and then deploying those models, especially in computers, to say, does this actually work?
7
SPEAKER_01
And they do little experiments.
7
SPEAKER_01
And then some combination of neuroscience, where you re starting to actually be able to observe, you know, do certain experiments on human beings and observe how the brain is actually functioning.
7
SPEAKER_01
And there, using intuition, you can start being the philosopher.
7
SPEAKER_01
Like Richard Feynman is the philosopher, a cognitive psychologist can become the philosopher, and psychiatrists become much more like doctors, they re like very medical.
7
SPEAKER_01
they help people with medication, biochemistry and so on, but they are no longer the book writers and the philosophers, which of course I admire.
7
SPEAKER_01
I admire the Richard Feynman ability to do great low-level mathematics and physics and the high-level philosophy.
7
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, I think it was Fromm and Jung more than Freud that was sort of initially kind of like made me feel like, oh, this is really amazing and interesting and I want to explore it further.
7
SPEAKER_02
I actually, when I got to college and I lost that thread, I found more of it in sociology and literature than I did in
7
SPEAKER_02
any place else.
7
SPEAKER_02
So I took quite a lot of both of those disciplines as an undergraduate.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I was actually deeply ambivalent about the psychology because I was doing experiments
7
SPEAKER_02
after the initial flurry of interest in why people would occupy buildings during an insurrection and consider, you know, be sort of like so overcommitted to their beliefs.
7
SPEAKER_02
But I ended up in the psychology laboratory running experiments on pigeons.
7
SPEAKER_02
And so I had these profound sort of like,
7
SPEAKER_02
dissonance between, okay, the kinds of issues that would be explored when I was thinking about what I read about in
7
SPEAKER_02
in modern British literature versus what I could study with my pigeons in the laboratory, that got resolved when I went to graduate school and I discovered cognitive psychology.
7
SPEAKER_02
And so for me, that was the path out of this sort of like extremely sort of ambivalent divergence between the interest in the human condition and the desire to do
7
SPEAKER_02
you know, actual mechanistically oriented thinking about it.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I think we ve come a long way in that regard and you re absolutely right that nowadays this is something that s accessible to people through the pathway in through computer science or the pathway in through neuroscience.
7
SPEAKER_02
You can get derailed in neuroscience down to the bottom of
7
SPEAKER_02
the system where you might find the cures of various conditions, but you don t get a chance to think about the higher level stuff.
7
SPEAKER_02
So it s in the systems and cognitive neuroscience and computational intelligence miasma up there at the top that I think these opportunities are most, are richest right now.
7
SPEAKER_02
And so yes, I am indeed blessed by having had the opportunity to fall into that space.
7
SPEAKER_01
So you mentioned the human condition, speaking of which, you happen to be a human being who s unfortunately not immortal.
7
SPEAKER_01
That seems to be a fundamental part of the human condition that this riot ends.
7
SPEAKER_01
Do you think about the fact that you re going to die one day?
7
SPEAKER_01
Are you afraid of death?
7
SPEAKER_02
I would say that I am,
7
SPEAKER_02
not as much afraid of death as I am of degeneration.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I say that in part for reasons of having, you know, seen some tragic degenerative situations unfold.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s exciting when you can continue to participate and feel like you re near the place where the wave is breaking on the shore, if you like.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I think about my own future potential
7
SPEAKER_02
If I were to undergo, begin to suffer from dementia, Alzheimer s disease or semantic dementia or some other condition, you know, I would sort of gradually lose the thread of that ability.
7
SPEAKER_02
And so one can live on for several,
7
SPEAKER_02
a decade after sort of having to retire because one no longer has these kinds of abilities to engage.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I think that s the thing that I fear the most.
7
SPEAKER_01
the losing of that, the breaking of the way, the flourishing of the mind where you have these ideas and they re swimming around and you re able to play with them.
7
SPEAKER_02
Yeah, and collaborate with other people who are themselves really helping to push these ideas forward.
7
SPEAKER_00
What about the edge of the cliff?
7
SPEAKER_00
The end?
7
SPEAKER_00
I mean, the mystery of it.
7
SPEAKER_02
The migrated sort of conception of mind and, you know, sort of continuous sort of way of thinking about most things makes it so that, to me, the
7
SPEAKER_02
the discreteness of that transition is less apparent than it seems to be to most people.
7
SPEAKER_01
I see, I see, yeah.
7
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I wonder, so I don t know if you know the work of Ernest Becker and so on, I wonder what role mortality and our ability to be cognizant of it, anticipate it, and perhaps be afraid of it, what role that plays in our
7
SPEAKER_01
reasoning of the world.
7
SPEAKER_02
I think that it can be motivating to people to think they have a limited period left.
7
SPEAKER_02
I think in my own case, it s like seven or eight years ago now that I was sitting around doing experiments on
7
SPEAKER_02
decision making that were satisfying in a certain way because I could really get closure on whether the model fit the data perfectly or not.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I could see how one could test the predictions in monkeys as well as humans and really see what the neurons were doing.
7
SPEAKER_02
But I just realized, hey, wait a minute, you know, I may only have about 10 or 15 years left here.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I don t feel like I m getting towards the answers to the really interesting questions while I m doing this, this particular level of work.
7
SPEAKER_02
And that s when I said to myself,
7
SPEAKER_02
Okay, let s pick something that s hard.
7
SPEAKER_02
So that s when I started working on mathematical cognition.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I think it was more in terms of, well, I got 15 more years possibly of useful life left.
7
SPEAKER_02
Let s imagine that it s only 10.
7
SPEAKER_02
I m actually getting close to the end of that now, maybe three or four more years.
7
SPEAKER_02
But I m beginning to feel like, well, I probably have another five after that.
7
SPEAKER_02
So, okay, I ll give myself another six or eight.
7
SPEAKER_01
But a deadline is looming.
7
SPEAKER_02
It s not going to go on forever.
7
SPEAKER_02
Yeah.
7
SPEAKER_02
So yeah, I gotta keep thinking about the questions that I think are the interesting and important ones for sure.
7
SPEAKER_01
What do you hope your legacy is?
7
SPEAKER_01
You ve done some incredible work in your life as a man, as a scientist.
7
SPEAKER_01
When the aliens and the human civilization is long gone and the aliens are reading the encyclopedia about the human species, what do you hope is the paragraph written about you?
7
SPEAKER_02
I would want it to sort of highlight a couple of things that I was, you know, able to see one path
7
SPEAKER_02
that was more exciting to me than the one that seemed already to be there for a cognitive psychologist, you know, but not for any super special reason other than that I d had the right context prior to that, but that I had gone ahead and followed that lead, you know, and then I forget the exact wording, but I, I said in this preface that,
7
SPEAKER_02
The joy of science is the moment in which, you know, a partially formed thought in the mind of one person gets
7
SPEAKER_02
crystallized a little better in the discourse and becomes the foundation of some exciting concrete piece of actual scientific progress.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I feel like that, you know, moment happened when Rumelhart and I were doing the interactive activation model and when Rumelhart heard Hinton talk about gradient descent and having the objective function to guide the learning process.
7
SPEAKER_02
And
7
SPEAKER_02
It happened a lot in that period and I sort of seek that kind of thing in my collaborations with my students, right?
7
SPEAKER_02
So, you know, the idea that this is a person who contributed to science by finding exciting collaborative opportunities to engage with other people,
7
SPEAKER_02
through is something that I certainly hope is part of the paragraph.
7
SPEAKER_01
And like you said, taking a step maybe in directions that are non obvious.
7
SPEAKER_01
So it s the old Robert Frost road less taken.
7
SPEAKER_01
So maybe because you said like this incomplete initial idea, that step you take is a little bit off the beaten path.
7
SPEAKER_02
If I could just say one more thing here, this was something that really contributed to energizing me in a way that I...
7
SPEAKER_02
that I feel it would be useful to share.
7
SPEAKER_02
My PhD dissertation project was completely empirical experimental project.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I wrote a paper based on the two main experiments that were the core of my dissertation.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I submitted it to a journal.
7
SPEAKER_02
And at the end of the paper,
7
SPEAKER_02
I had a little section where I laid out the beginnings of my theory about what I thought was going on that would explain the data that I had collected.
7
SPEAKER_02
And I had submitted the paper to the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
7
SPEAKER_02
So I got back a letter from the editor saying, thank you very much.
7
SPEAKER_02
These are great experiments and we d love to publish them in the journal.
7
SPEAKER_02
But what we d like you to do is to leave the theorizing to the theorists and take that part out of the paper.
7
SPEAKER_02
And so I did.
7
SPEAKER_02
I took that part out of the paper.
7
SPEAKER_02
But, you know, I almost found myself labeled as
8
SPEAKER_02
a non-theorist, right, by this.
8
SPEAKER_02
And I could have succumbed to that and said, okay, well, I guess my job is to just go on and do experiments, right?
8
SPEAKER_02
But
8
SPEAKER_02
That s not what I wanted to do.
8
SPEAKER_02
And so when I got to my assistant professorship, although I continued to do experiments because I knew I had to get some papers out, I also, at the end of my first year, submitted my first article to Psychological Review, which was the theoretical journal, where I took that section and elaborated it and wrote it up and submitted it to them.
8
SPEAKER_02
And they didn t accept that either.
8
SPEAKER_02
But they said, oh, this is interesting.
8
SPEAKER_02
You should keep thinking about it this time.
8
SPEAKER_02
And then that was what got me going to think, okay, you know, so it s not a superhuman thing to contribute to the development of theory.
8
SPEAKER_02
You know, you don t have to be
8
SPEAKER_02
You can do it as a mere mortal.
8
SPEAKER_00
And the broader, I think, lesson is don t succumb to the labels of a particular reviewer.
8
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, that s for sure.
8
SPEAKER_02
Or anybody labeling you, right?
8
SPEAKER_02
Exactly.
8
SPEAKER_00
I mean that, yeah, exactly.
8
SPEAKER_00
Especially as you become successful, labels get assigned to you for that you re successful for that thing.
8
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I m a connectionist or a cognitive scientist and not a neuroscientist, whatever.
8
SPEAKER_00
And then you can completely, that s just, that s the stories of the past.
8
SPEAKER_00
You re today a new person that can completely revolutionize in totally new areas, so don t let those labels hold you back.
8
SPEAKER_00
Well, let me ask the big question.
8
SPEAKER_00
When you look into the, you said it started with Columbia trying to observe these humans and they re doing weird stuff and you wanna know why are they doing this stuff.
8
SPEAKER_00
So let s zoom out even bigger.
8
SPEAKER_00
At the hundred plus billion people who ve ever lived on Earth,
8
SPEAKER_00
why do you think we re all doing what we re doing?
8
SPEAKER_00
What do you think is the meaning of it all?
8
SPEAKER_00
The big why question.
8
SPEAKER_00
We seem to be very busy doing a bunch of stuff, and we seem to be kind of directed towards somewhere, but why?
8
SPEAKER_02
Well, I myself think that we make meaning for ourselves, and that, you know,
8
SPEAKER_02
We find inspiration in the meaning that other people have made in the past, you know, and the great religious thinkers of the first millennium BC and, you know, few that came in the early part of the second millennium, you know, laid down some important foundations for us
8
SPEAKER_02
But I do believe that we are an emergent result of a process that happened naturally, without guidance, and that meaning is what we make of it.
8
SPEAKER_02
and that the creation of efforts to reify meaning in like religious traditions and so on is just a part of the expression of that goal that we have to, you know, not find out what the meaning is but to make it ourselves.
8
SPEAKER_02
And so to me,
8
SPEAKER_02
it s something that s very personal, it s very individual, it s like meaning will come for you through the particular combination of synergistic elements that are your fabric and your experience and your context and your, and you know, you should
8
SPEAKER_02
It s all made in a certain kind of a local context though, right?
8
SPEAKER_02
Here I am at UCSD with this brilliant man, Rommelhart, who s having these doubts about symbolic artificial intelligence that resonate with my desire to see it grounded in the biology.
8
SPEAKER_02
Let s make the most of that, you know?
8
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, and so from that little pocket, there s some kind of peculiar little emergent process that then, which is basically each one of us, each one of us humans is a kind of,
8
SPEAKER_00
You think cells and they come together and it s an emergent process that then tells fancy stories about itself and then gets, just like you said, just enjoys the beauty of the stories we tell about ourselves.
8
SPEAKER_00
It s an emergent process.
8
SPEAKER_00
that lives for a time, is defined by its local pocket and context in time and space, and then tells pretty stories.
8
SPEAKER_00
And we write those stories down, and then we celebrate how nice the stories are.
8
SPEAKER_00
And then it continues, because we build stories on top of each other.
8
SPEAKER_00
And eventually we ll colonize, hopefully, other planets, other solar systems, other galaxies, and we ll tell even better stories.
8
SPEAKER_00
but it all starts here on earth.
8
SPEAKER_00
Jay, you re speaking of peculiar emergent processes that lived one heck of a story.
8
SPEAKER_00
You re one of the great scientists of cognitive science, of psychology, of computation.
8
SPEAKER_00
It s a huge honor.
8
SPEAKER_00
You would talk to me today that you spend your very valuable time
8
SPEAKER_00
I really enjoyed talking with you, and thank you for all the work you ve done.
8
SPEAKER_00
I can t wait to see what you do next.
8
SPEAKER_02
Well, thank you so much, and this has been an amazing opportunity for me to let ideas that I ve never fully expressed before come out, because you asked such a wide range of the deeper questions that we ve all been thinking about for so long.
8
SPEAKER_02
So thank you very much for that.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thank you.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jay McClelland.
8
SPEAKER_00
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
8
SPEAKER_00
And now, let me leave you with some words from Geoffrey Hinton.
8
SPEAKER_00
In the long run, curiosity-driven research works best.
8
SPEAKER_00
Real breakthroughs come from people focusing on what they re excited about.
8
SPEAKER_00
Thanks for listening, and hope to see you next time.