0
SPEAKER_01
The following is a conversation with Ian Goodfellow.
0
SPEAKER_01
He s the author of the popular textbook on deep learning, simply titled Deep Learning.
0
SPEAKER_01
He coined the term of generative adversarial networks, otherwise known as GANs, and with his 2014 paper is responsible for launching the incredible growth of research and innovation in this subfield of deep learning.
0
SPEAKER_01
He got his B.S.
0
SPEAKER_01
and M.S.
0
SPEAKER_01
at Stanford, his Ph.D.
0
SPEAKER_01
at University of Montreal with Yoshua Bengio and Aaron Curville.
0
SPEAKER_01
He held several research positions including at OpenAI, Google Brain, and now at Apple as the Director of Machine Learning.
0
SPEAKER_01
This recording happened while Ian was still at Google Brain, but we don t talk about anything specific to Google or any other organization.
0
SPEAKER_01
This conversation is part of the Artificial Intelligence Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_01
If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, iTunes, or simply connect with me on Twitter at Lex Friedman, spelled F-R-I-D.
0
SPEAKER_01
And now, here s my conversation with Ian Goodfellow.
0
SPEAKER_01
You open your popular deep learning book with a Russian doll type diagram that shows deep learning as a subset of representation learning, which in turn is a subset of machine learning, and finally a subset of AI.
0
SPEAKER_01
So this kind of implies that there may be limits to deep learning in the context of AI.
0
SPEAKER_01
So what do you think is the current limits of deep learning, and are those limits something that we can overcome with time?
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I think one of the biggest limitations of deep learning is that right now it requires really a lot of data, especially labeled data.
0
SPEAKER_00
There are some unsupervised and semi-supervised learning algorithms that can reduce the amount of labeled data you need, but they still require a lot of unlabeled data.
0
SPEAKER_00
Reinforcement learning algorithms, they don t need labels, but they need really a lot of experiences.
0
SPEAKER_00
As human beings, we don t learn to play Pong by failing at Pong two million times.
0
SPEAKER_00
So just getting the generalization ability better is one of the most important bottlenecks in the capability of the technology today.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then I guess I d also say deep learning is like a component of a bigger system.
0
SPEAKER_00
So far nobody is really proposing to have
0
SPEAKER_00
only what you d call deep learning as the entire ingredient of intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_00
You use deep learning as sub-modules of other systems, like AlphaGo has a deep learning model that estimates the value function.
0
SPEAKER_00
Most reinforcement learning algorithms have a deep learning module that estimates which action to take next, but you might have other components.
0
SPEAKER_01
So you re basically building a function estimator,
0
SPEAKER_01
Do you think it s possible, you said nobody s kind of been thinking about this so far, but do you think neural networks could be made to reason in the way symbolic systems did in the 80s and 90s to do more, create more like programs as opposed to functions?
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I think we already see that a little bit.
0
SPEAKER_00
I already kind of think of neural nets as a kind of program.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think of deep learning as basically learning programs that have more than one step.
0
SPEAKER_00
So if you draw a flow chart or if you draw a TensorFlow graph describing your machine learning model, I think of the depth of that graph as describing the number of steps that run in sequence.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then the width of that graph is the number of steps that run in parallel.
0
SPEAKER_00
Now it s been long enough that we ve had deep learning working that it s a little bit silly to even discuss shallow learning anymore.
0
SPEAKER_00
But back when I first got involved in AI, when we used machine learning, we were usually learning things like support vector machines, where you could have a lot of input features to the model and you could multiply each feature by a different weight.
0
SPEAKER_00
All those multiplications were done in parallel to each other.
0
SPEAKER_00
There wasn t a lot done in series.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think what we got with deep learning was really the ability to have
0
SPEAKER_00
steps of a program that run in sequence.
0
SPEAKER_00
And I think that we ve actually started to see that what s important with deep learning is more the fact that we have a multi-step program rather than the fact that we ve learned a representation.
0
SPEAKER_00
If you look at things like ResNets, for example, they take one particular kind of representation and they update it several times.
0
SPEAKER_00
Back when deep learning first really took off in the academic world in 2006, when Geoff Hinton showed that you could train deep belief networks, everybody who was interested in the idea thought of it as each layer learns a different level of abstraction.
0
SPEAKER_00
The first layer trained on images learns something like edges, and the second layer learns corners, and eventually you get these kind of grandmother-style units that recognize specific objects.
0
SPEAKER_00
Today I think most people think of it more as a computer program where as you add more layers you can do more updates before you output your final number.
0
SPEAKER_00
But I don t think anybody believes that layer 150 of the ResNet is a grandmother cell and layer 100 is contours or something like that.
0
SPEAKER_01
Okay, so you re not thinking of it as a singular representation that keeps building.
0
SPEAKER_01
You think of it as a program, sort of almost like a state.
0
SPEAKER_01
Representation is a state of understanding.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I think of it as a program that makes several updates and arrives at better and better understandings, but it s not replacing the representation at each step.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s refining it.
0
SPEAKER_00
And in some sense, that s a little bit like reasoning.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s not reasoning in the form of deduction, but it s reasoning in the form of taking a thought and refining it and refining it carefully until it s good enough to use.
0
SPEAKER_01
So do you think, and I hope you don t mind, we ll jump philosophical every once in a while.
0
SPEAKER_01
Do you think of, you know, cognition, human cognition, or even consciousness as simply
0
SPEAKER_01
a result of this kind of sequential representation learning.
0
SPEAKER_01
Do you think that can emerge?
0
SPEAKER_00
Cognition, yes, I think so.
0
SPEAKER_00
Consciousness, it s really hard to even define what we mean by that.
0
SPEAKER_00
I guess consciousness is often defined as things like having self-awareness, and that s relatively easy to turn into something actionable for a computer scientist to reason about.
0
SPEAKER_00
People also define consciousness in terms of having qualitative states of experience, like qualia.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s all these philosophical problems, like could you imagine a zombie who does all the same information processing as a human, but doesn t really have the qualitative experiences that we have?
0
SPEAKER_00
That sort of thing, I have no idea how to formalize or turn it into a scientific question.
0
SPEAKER_00
I don t know how you could run an experiment to tell whether a person is a zombie or not.
0
SPEAKER_00
And similarly, I don t know how you could run an experiment to tell whether an advanced AI system had become conscious in the sense of qualia or not.
0
SPEAKER_01
but in the more practical sense, almost like self-attention, you think consciousness and cognition can, in an impressive way, emerge from current types of architectures that goes to learning.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, or if you think of consciousness in terms of self-awareness and just making plans based on the fact that the agent itself exists in the world, reinforcement learning algorithms are already more or less forced to model the agent s effect on the environment.
0
SPEAKER_00
So that more limited version of consciousness is already something that we get limited versions of with reinforcement learning algorithms if they re trained well.
0
SPEAKER_00
But you say limited.
0
SPEAKER_01
So the big question really is how you jump from limited to human level, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
And whether it s possible
0
SPEAKER_01
Even just building common sense reasoning seems to be exceptionally difficult.
0
SPEAKER_01
So if we scale things up, if we get much better on supervised learning, if we get better at labeling, if we get bigger data sets, more compute, do you think we ll start to see really impressive things that go from limited to something, echoes of human level cognition?
0
SPEAKER_00
I think so, yeah.
0
SPEAKER_00
I m optimistic about what can happen just with more computation and more data.
0
SPEAKER_00
I do think it ll be important to get the right kind of data.
0
SPEAKER_00
Today, most of the machine learning systems we train are mostly trained on one type of data for each model.
0
SPEAKER_00
But the human brain, we get all of our different senses and we have many different experiences like
0
SPEAKER_00
riding a bike, driving a car, talking to people, reading.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think when you get that kind of integrated data set working with a machine learning model that can actually close the loop and interact, we may find that algorithms not so different from what we have today learn really interesting things when you scale them up a lot and train them on a large amount of multimodal data.
0
SPEAKER_01
So multimodal is really interesting, but within, like your work in adversarial examples, so selecting within modal, within one mode of data, selecting better what are the difficult cases from which you re most useful to learn from.
0
SPEAKER_00
Oh, yeah.
0
SPEAKER_00
Could we get a whole lot of mileage out of designing a model that s resistant to adversarial examples or something like that?
0
SPEAKER_00
Right.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s a good question.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
0
SPEAKER_00
My thinking on that has evolved a lot over the last few years.
0
SPEAKER_00
Oh, interesting.
0
SPEAKER_00
When I first started to really invest in studying adversarial examples, I was thinking of it mostly as adversarial examples reveal a big problem with machine learning, and we would like to close the gap between
0
SPEAKER_00
how machine learning models respond to adversarial examples and how humans respond.
0
SPEAKER_00
After studying the problem more, I still think that adversarial examples are important.
0
SPEAKER_00
I think of them now more of as a security liability than as an issue that necessarily shows there s something uniquely wrong with machine learning as opposed to humans.
0
SPEAKER_01
Also, do you see them as a tool to improve the performance of the system?
0
SPEAKER_01
Not on the security side, but literally just accuracy?
0
SPEAKER_00
I do see them as a kind of tool on that side, but maybe not quite as much as I used to think.
0
SPEAKER_00
We ve started to find that there s a trade-off between accuracy on adversarial examples and accuracy on clean examples.
0
SPEAKER_00
Back in 2014, when I did the first adversarially trained classifier that showed resistance to some kinds of adversarial examples, it also got better at the clean data on MNIST.
0
SPEAKER_00
And that s something we ve replicated several times on MNIST, that when we train against weak adversarial examples, MNIST classifiers get more accurate.
0
SPEAKER_00
So far, that hasn t really held up on other datasets and hasn t held up when we train against stronger adversaries.
0
SPEAKER_00
It seems like
0
SPEAKER_00
when you confront a really strong adversary, you tend to have to give something up.
0
SPEAKER_00
Interesting.
0
SPEAKER_01
But it s such a compelling idea because it feels like that s how us humans learn the difficult cases.
0
SPEAKER_00
We try to think of what would we screw up and then we make sure we fix that.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s also, in a lot of branches of engineering, you do a worst-case analysis and make sure that your system will work in the worst case.
0
SPEAKER_00
And then that guarantees that it ll work in all of the messy average cases that happen when you go out into a really randomized world.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, with driving with autonomous vehicles, there seems to be a desire to just look for, think adversarially, try to figure out how to mess up the system, and if you can be robust to all those difficult cases, then you can, it s a hand-wavy, empirical way to show your system is...
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, yeah.
0
SPEAKER_00
Today, most adversarial example research isn t really focused on a particular use case, but there are a lot of different use cases where you d like to make sure that the adversary can t interfere with the operation of your system.
0
SPEAKER_00
Like in finance, if you have an algorithm making trades for you, people go to a lot of an effort to
0
SPEAKER_00
obfuscate their algorithm.
0
SPEAKER_00
That s both to protect their IP, because you don t want to research and develop a profitable trading algorithm, then have somebody else capture the gains.
0
SPEAKER_00
But it s at least partly because you don t want people to make adversarial examples that fool your algorithm into making bad trades.
0
SPEAKER_00
Or I guess one area that s been popular in the academic literature is speech recognition.
0
SPEAKER_00
If you use speech recognition to hear an audio waveform and then turn that into a command that a phone executes for you, you don t want a malicious adversary to be able to produce audio that gets interpreted as malicious commands, especially if a human in the room doesn t realize that something like that is happening.
0
SPEAKER_01
In speech recognition, has there been much success in being able to create adversarial examples that fool the system?
0
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, actually.
0
SPEAKER_00
I guess the first work that I m aware of is a paper called Hidden Voice Commands that came out in 2016, I believe.
0
SPEAKER_00
And they were able to show that they could make sounds that are not understandable by a human, but are recognized as the target phrase that the attacker wants the phone to recognize it as.
0
SPEAKER_00
Since then, things have gotten a little bit better on the attacker side and worse on the defender side.
0
SPEAKER_00
it s become possible to make sounds that sound like normal speech, but are actually interpreted as a different sentence than the human hears.
0
SPEAKER_00
The level of perceptibility of the adversarial perturbation is still kind of high.
0
SPEAKER_00
When you listen to the recording, it sounds like there s some noise in the background, just like rustling sounds.
0
SPEAKER_00
But those rustling sounds are actually the adversarial perturbation that makes the phone hear a completely different sentence.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s so fascinating.
0
SPEAKER_01
Peter Norvig mentioned that you re writing the deep learning chapter for the fourth edition of the Artificial Intelligence, the Modern Approach book.
0
SPEAKER_01
So how do you even begin summarizing the field of deep learning in a chapter?
0
SPEAKER_00
Well, in my case, I waited like a year before I actually wrote anything.
0
SPEAKER_00
Even having written a full-length textbook before, it s still pretty intimidating to try to start writing just one chapter that covers everything.
0
SPEAKER_00
One thing that helped me make that plan was actually the experience of having written the full book before and then watching how the field changed after the book came out.
0
SPEAKER_00
I ve realized there s a lot of topics that were maybe extraneous in the first book, and just seeing what stood the test of a few years of being published and what seems a little bit less important to have included now helped me pare down the topics I wanted to cover for the book.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s also really nice now that the field is kind of stabilized to the point where some core ideas from the 1980s are still used today.
0
SPEAKER_00
When I first started studying machine learning, almost everything from the 1980s had been rejected, and now some of it has come back.
0
SPEAKER_00
So that stuff that s really stood the test of time is what I focused on putting into the book.
0
SPEAKER_00
There s also, I guess, two different philosophies about how you might write a book.
0
SPEAKER_00
One philosophy is you try to write a reference that covers everything.
0
SPEAKER_00
The other philosophy is you try to provide a high-level summary that gives people the language to understand a field and tells them what the most important concepts are.
0
SPEAKER_00
The first deep learning book that I wrote with Joshua and Aaron was somewhere between the two philosophies, that it s trying to be both a reference and an introductory guide.
0
SPEAKER_00
Writing this chapter for Russell and Norvig s book, I was able to focus more on just a concise introduction of the key concepts and the language you need to read about them more.
0
SPEAKER_00
In a lot of cases, I actually just wrote paragraphs that said,
0
SPEAKER_00
here s a rapidly evolving area that you should pay attention to.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s pointless to try to tell you what the latest and best version of a learn-to-learn model is.
0
SPEAKER_00
I can point you to a paper that s recent right now, but there isn t a whole lot of reason to delve into exactly what s going on with the latest learning-to-learn approach or the latest module produced by a learning-to-learn algorithm.
0
SPEAKER_00
You should know that learning to learn is a thing, and that it may very well be the source of the latest and greatest convolutional net or recurrent net module that you would want to use in your latest project.
0
SPEAKER_00
But there isn t a lot of point in trying to summarize exactly which architecture and which learning approach got to which level of performance.
0
SPEAKER_01
So you maybe focus more on the basics of the methodology, so from back propagation to feed forward to recurrent neural networks, convolutional, that kind of thing?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, yeah.
0
SPEAKER_01
So if I were to ask you, I remember I took algorithms and data structures algorithms course.
0
SPEAKER_01
I remember the professor asked, what is an algorithm?
0
SPEAKER_01
And he yelled at everybody in a good way that nobody was answering it correctly.
0
SPEAKER_01
Everybody knew what the algorithm, it was a graduate course.
0
SPEAKER_01
Everybody knew what an algorithm was, but they weren t able to answer it well.
0
SPEAKER_01
So let me ask you in that same spirit, what is deep learning?
0
SPEAKER_00
I would say deep learning is any kind of machine learning that involves learning parameters of more than one consecutive step.
0
SPEAKER_00
So that would mean shallow learning is things where you learn a lot of operations that happen in parallel.
0
SPEAKER_00
You might have a system that makes multiple steps, like you might have hand-designed feature extractors, but really only one step is learned.
0
SPEAKER_00
Deep learning is anything where you have multiple operations in sequence.
0
SPEAKER_00
And that includes the things that are really popular today, like convolutional networks and recurrent networks.
0
SPEAKER_00
But it also includes some of the things that have died out, like Bolton machines, where we weren t using backpropagation.
0
SPEAKER_00
Today I hear a lot of people define deep learning as gradient descent applied to these differentiable functions, and I think that s a legitimate usage of the term.
0
SPEAKER_00
It s just different from the way that I use the term myself.
0
SPEAKER_01
So what s an example of deep learning that is not gradient descent and differentiable functions?
0
SPEAKER_01
I mean, not specifically
1
SPEAKER_00
perhaps, but more even looking into the future.
1
SPEAKER_00
What s your thought about that space of approaches?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so I tend to think of machine learning algorithms as decomposed into really three different pieces.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s the model, which can be something like a neural net or a Boltzmann machine or a recurrent model.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that basically just describes how do you take data and how do you take parameters?
1
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, what function do you use to make a prediction given the data and the parameters?
1
SPEAKER_01
Another piece of the learning algorithm is the optimization algorithm, or not every algorithm can be really described in terms of optimization, but what s the algorithm for updating the parameters or updating whatever the state of the network is?
1
SPEAKER_01
And then the last part is the data set, like how do you actually represent the world as it comes into your machine learning system?
1
SPEAKER_01
So I think of deep learning as telling us something about what does the model look like.
1
SPEAKER_01
And basically to qualify as deep, I say that it just has to have multiple layers.
1
SPEAKER_01
That can be multiple steps in a feed-forward differentiable computation.
1
SPEAKER_01
That can be multiple layers in a graphical model.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s a lot of ways that you could satisfy me that something has multiple steps that are each parameterized separately.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think of gradient descent as being all about that other piece, the how do you actually update the parameters piece.
1
SPEAKER_01
So you could imagine having a deep model, like a convolutional net, and training it with something like evolution or a genetic algorithm.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I would say that still qualifies as deep learning.
1
SPEAKER_01
And then in terms of models that aren t necessarily differentiable, I guess Boltzmann machines are probably the main example of something where you can t really take a derivative and use that for the learning process, but you can still argue that the model has many steps of processing that it applies when you run inference in the model.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s the steps of processing that s key.
1
SPEAKER_00
So Jeff Hinton suggests that we need to throw away back propagation and start all over.
1
SPEAKER_00
What do you think about that?
1
SPEAKER_00
What could an alternative direction of training neural networks look like?
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t know that backpropagation is going to go away entirely.
1
SPEAKER_01
Most of the time when we decide that a machine learning algorithm isn t on the critical path to research for improving AI, the algorithm doesn t die.
1
SPEAKER_01
It just becomes used for some specialized set of things.
1
SPEAKER_01
A lot of algorithms like logistic regression don t seem that exciting to
1
SPEAKER_01
AI researchers who are working on things like speech recognition or autonomous cars today, but there s still a lot of use for logistic regression and things like analyzing really noisy data in medicine and finance, or making really rapid predictions in really time-limited contexts.
1
SPEAKER_01
So I think backpropagation and gradient descent are around to stay, but they may not end up being everything that we need to get to real human level or superhuman AI.
1
SPEAKER_00
Are you optimistic about us discovering, you know, back propagation has been around for a few decades.
1
SPEAKER_00
So are you optimistic about us as a community being able to discover something better?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I am.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think we likely will find something that works better.
1
SPEAKER_01
You could imagine things like having stacks of models where some of the lower level models predict parameters of the higher level models.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so at the top level, you re not learning in terms of literally calculating gradients, but just predicting how different values will perform.
1
SPEAKER_01
You can kind of see that already in some areas like Bayesian optimization, where you have a Gaussian process that predicts how well different parameter values will perform.
1
SPEAKER_01
We already use those kinds of algorithms for things like hyperparameter optimization.
1
SPEAKER_01
And in general, we know a lot of things other than backprop that work really well for specific problems.
1
SPEAKER_01
The main thing we haven t found is a way of taking one of these other non-backprop-based algorithms and having it really advance the state of the art on an AI-level problem.
1
SPEAKER_01
But I wouldn t be surprised if eventually we find that some of these algorithms, even the ones that already exist, not even necessarily a new one, we might find some way of customizing one of these algorithms to do something really interesting at the level of cognition or the level of... I think one system that we really don t have working quite right yet is short-term memory.
1
SPEAKER_01
We have things like LSTMs.
1
SPEAKER_01
They re called long short-term memory.
1
SPEAKER_01
They still don t do quite what a human does with short-term memory.
1
SPEAKER_01
Gradient descent to learn a specific fact has to do multiple steps on that fact.
1
SPEAKER_01
If I tell you, the meeting today is at 3 p.m., I don t need to say over and over again, it s at 3 p.m., it s at 3 p.m., it s at 3 p.m., it s at 3 p.m.
1
SPEAKER_01
for you to do a gradient step on each one.
1
SPEAKER_01
You just hear it once and you remember it.
1
SPEAKER_01
There s been some work on things like self-attention and attention-like mechanisms like the neural Turing machine that can write to memory cells and update themselves with facts like that right away, but I don t think we ve really nailed it yet.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s one area where I d imagine that
1
SPEAKER_01
new optimization algorithms or different ways of applying existing optimization algorithms could give us a way of just lightning fast updating the state of a machine learning system to contain a specific fact like that without needing to have it presented over and over and over again.
1
SPEAKER_00
So some of the success of symbolic systems in the 80s is they were able to assemble these kinds of facts better, but there s a lot of expert input required and it s very limited in that sense.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you ever look back to that as something that we ll have to return to eventually, sort of dust off the book from the shelf and think about how we build knowledge representation, knowledge
1
SPEAKER_01
Like we ll have to use graph searches.
1
SPEAKER_01
Graph searches, right.
1
SPEAKER_01
And like first order logic and entailment and things like that.
1
SPEAKER_00
That kind of thing, yeah, exactly.
1
SPEAKER_01
In my particular line of work, which has mostly been machine learning security and also generative modeling, I haven t usually found myself moving in that direction.
1
SPEAKER_01
For generative models, I could see a little bit of, it could be useful if you had something like a differentiable knowledge base or some other kind of knowledge base where it s possible for some of our
1
SPEAKER_01
fuzzier machine learning algorithms to interact with the knowledge base.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, neural network is kind of like that.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s a differentiable knowledge base of sorts.
1
SPEAKER_01
But... If we had a really easy way of giving feedback to machine learning models, that would clearly help a lot with generative models.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so you could imagine one way of getting there would be get a lot better at natural language processing.
1
SPEAKER_01
But another way of getting there would be take some kind of knowledge base and figure out a way for it to actually interact with a neural network.
1
SPEAKER_00
being able to have a chat with a neural network.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
1
SPEAKER_01
So like one thing in generative models we see a lot today is you ll get things like faces that are not symmetrical, like people that have two eyes that are different colors.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I mean, there are people with eyes that are different colors in real life, but not nearly as many of them as you tend to see in the machine learning generated data.
1
SPEAKER_01
So if you had either a knowledge base that could contain the fact
1
SPEAKER_01
People s faces are generally approximately symmetric, and eye color is especially likely to be the same on both sides.
1
SPEAKER_01
Being able to just inject that hint into the machine learning model without it having to discover that itself after studying a lot of data would be a really useful feature.
1
SPEAKER_01
I could see a lot of ways of getting there without bringing back some of the 1980s technology, but I also see some ways that you could imagine extending the 1980s technology to play nice with neural nets and have it help get there.
1
SPEAKER_00
Awesome, so you talked about the story of you coming up with the idea of GANs at a bar with some friends.
1
SPEAKER_00
You were arguing that GANs would work, generative adversarial networks, and the others didn t think so.
1
SPEAKER_00
Then you went home at midnight, coded it up, and it worked.
1
SPEAKER_00
So if I was a friend of yours at the bar, I would also have doubts.
1
SPEAKER_00
It s a really nice idea, but
1
SPEAKER_00
I m very skeptical that it would work.
1
SPEAKER_00
What was the basis of their skepticism?
1
SPEAKER_00
What was the basis of your intuition why it should work?
1
SPEAKER_01
I don t want to be someone who goes around promoting alcohol for the purposes of science, but in this case, I do actually think that drinking helped a little bit.
1
SPEAKER_01
When your inhibitions are lowered, you re more willing to try out things that you wouldn t try out otherwise.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, I have noticed in general that I m less prone to shooting down some of my own ideas when I have had a little bit to drink.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think if I had had that idea at lunchtime, I probably would have thought, it s hard enough to train one neural net, you can t train a second neural net in the inner loop of the outer neural net.
1
SPEAKER_01
That was basically my friend s objection, was that trying to train two neural nets at the same time would be too hard.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it was more about the training process and less, so my skepticism would be, I m sure you could train it, but the thing it would converge to would not be able to generate anything reasonable, any kind of reasonable realism.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so part of what all of us were thinking about when we had this conversation was deep Bolton machines, which a lot of us in the lab, including me, were a big fan of deep Bolton machines at the time.
1
SPEAKER_01
They involved two separate processes running at the same time.
1
SPEAKER_01
One of them is called the positive phase, where you load data into the model and tell the model to make the data more likely.
1
SPEAKER_01
The other one is called the negative phase, where you draw samples from the model and tell the model to make those samples less likely.
1
SPEAKER_01
In a deep Boltzmann machine, it s not trivial to generate a sample.
1
SPEAKER_01
You have to actually run an iterative process that gets better and better samples coming closer and closer to the distribution the model represents.
1
SPEAKER_01
So during the training process, you re always running these two systems at the same time.
1
SPEAKER_01
One that s updating the parameters of the model and another one that s trying to generate samples from the model.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they worked really well on things like MNIST, but a lot of us in the lab, including me, had tried to get deep Bolton machines to scale past MNIST to things like generating color photos, and we just couldn t get the two processes to stay synchronized.
1
SPEAKER_01
So when I had the idea for GANs, a lot of people thought that the discriminator would have more or less the same problem as the negative phase in the Bolton machine, that trying to train the discriminator in the inner loop, you just couldn t get it to keep up.
1
SPEAKER_01
with the generator in the outer loop, and that would prevent it from converging to anything useful.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I share that intuition.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
1
SPEAKER_01
What turns out to not be the case.
1
SPEAKER_01
A lot of the time with machine learning algorithms, it s really hard to predict ahead of time how well they ll actually perform.
1
SPEAKER_01
You have to just run the experiment and see what happens.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I would say I still today don t have one factor I can put my finger on and say, this is why GANs worked for photo generation and deep Boltzmann machines don t.
1
SPEAKER_01
There are a lot of theory papers showing that under some theoretical settings, the GAN algorithm does actually converge.
1
SPEAKER_01
But those settings are restricted enough that they don t necessarily explain the whole picture in terms of all the results that we see in practice.
1
SPEAKER_00
So taking a step back, can you, in the same way as we talked about deep learning, can you tell me what generative adversarial networks are?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so generative adversarial networks are a particular kind of generative model.
1
SPEAKER_01
A generative model is a machine learning model that can train on some set of data, like say you have a collection of photos of cats and you want to generate more photos of cats, or you want to estimate a probability distribution over cats so you can ask how likely it is that some new image is a photo of a cat.
1
SPEAKER_01
GANs are one way of doing this.
1
SPEAKER_01
Some generative models are good at creating new data.
1
SPEAKER_01
Other generative models are good at estimating that density function and telling you how likely particular pieces of data are to come from the same distribution as the training data.
1
SPEAKER_01
GANs are more focused on generating samples rather than estimating the density function.
1
SPEAKER_01
There are some kinds of GANs like FlowGAN that can do both, but mostly GANs are about generating samples, generating new photos of cats that look realistic.
1
SPEAKER_01
And they do that completely from scratch.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s analogous to human imagination when a GAN creates a new image of a cat.
1
SPEAKER_01
it s using a neural network to produce a cat that has not existed before.
1
SPEAKER_01
It isn t doing something like compositing photos together.
1
SPEAKER_01
You re not literally taking the eye off of one cat and the ear off of another cat.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s more of this digestive process where the neural net trains on a lot of data and comes up with some representation of the probability distribution and generates entirely new cats.
1
SPEAKER_01
There are a lot of different ways of building a generative model.
1
SPEAKER_01
What s specific to GANs is that we have a two-player game in the game theoretic sense.
1
SPEAKER_01
And as the players in this game compete, one of them becomes able to generate realistic data.
1
SPEAKER_01
The first player is called the generator.
1
SPEAKER_01
It produces output data, such as just images, for example.
1
SPEAKER_01
And at the start of the learning process, it ll just produce completely random images.
1
SPEAKER_01
The other player is called the discriminator.
1
SPEAKER_01
The discriminator takes images as input and guesses whether they re real or fake.
1
SPEAKER_01
You train it both on real data, so photos that come from your training set, actual photos of cats, and you train it to say that those are real.
1
SPEAKER_01
You also train it on images that come from the generator network, and you train it to say that those are fake.
1
SPEAKER_01
As the two players compete in this game, the discriminator tries to become better at recognizing whether images are real or fake, and the generator becomes better at fooling the discriminator into thinking that its outputs are real.
1
SPEAKER_01
And you can analyze this through the language of game theory and find that there s a Nash equilibrium where the generator has captured the correct probability distribution.
1
SPEAKER_01
So in the cat example, it makes perfectly realistic cat photos.
1
SPEAKER_01
and the discriminator is unable to do better than random guessing because all the samples coming from both the data and the generator look equally likely to have come from either source.
1
SPEAKER_00
So do you ever sit back and does it just blow your mind that this thing works?
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s able to estimate the identity function enough to generate realistic images.
1
SPEAKER_00
I mean, yeah, do you ever sit back
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, how does this even why this is quite incredible especially we re against have gone in terms of realism
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, and not just to flatter my own work, but generative models, all of them have this property that if they really did what we asked them to do, they would do nothing but memorize the training data.
1
SPEAKER_01
Models that are based on maximizing the likelihood, the way that you obtain the maximum likelihood for a specific training set is you assign all of your probability mass to the training examples and nowhere else.
1
SPEAKER_01
For GANs, the game is played using a training set.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the way that you become unbeatable in the game is you literally memorize training examples.
1
SPEAKER_01
One of my former interns wrote a paper, his name is Vaishnav Nagarajan, and he showed that it s actually hard for the generator to memorize the training data.
1
SPEAKER_01
Hard in a statistical learning theory sense, that you can actually create reasons for why it would require quite a lot of learning steps and a lot of observations of different latent variables before you can memorize the training data.
1
SPEAKER_01
that still doesn t really explain why, when you produce samples that are new, why do you get compelling images rather than, you know, just garbage that s different from the training set.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I don t think we really have a good answer for that, especially if you think about how many possible images are out there and how few images the generative model sees during training.
1
SPEAKER_01
It seems just unreasonable that generative models create new images as well as they do.
1
SPEAKER_01
Especially considering that we re basically training them to memorize rather than generalize.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think part of the answer is there s a paper called Deep Image Prior where they show that you can take a convolutional net and you don t even need to learn the parameters of it at all.
1
SPEAKER_01
You just use the model architecture.
1
SPEAKER_01
and it s already useful for things like in-painting images.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think that shows us that the convolutional network architecture captures something really important about the structure of images, and we don t need to actually use learning to capture all the information coming out of the convolutional net.
1
SPEAKER_01
That would imply that it would be much harder to make generative models in other domains.
1
SPEAKER_01
So far, we re able to make reasonable speech models and things like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
But to be honest, we haven t actually explored a whole lot of different datasets all that much.
1
SPEAKER_01
We don t, for example, see a lot of deep learning models of biology datasets.
1
SPEAKER_01
where you have lots of microarrays measuring the amount of different enzymes and things like that.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we may find that some of the progress that we ve seen for images and speech turns out to really rely heavily on the model architecture.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we were able to do what we did for vision by trying to reverse engineer the human visual system.
1
SPEAKER_01
And maybe it ll turn out that we can t just use that same trick for arbitrary kinds of data.
1
SPEAKER_00
Right, so there s aspects of the human vision system, the hardware of it, that makes it, without learning, without cognition, just makes it really effective at detecting the patterns we see in the visual world.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, that s really interesting.
1
SPEAKER_00
In a big, quick overview, in your view, what types of GANs are there, and what other generative models besides GANs are there?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so it s maybe a little bit easier to start with what kinds of generative models are there other than GANs.
1
SPEAKER_01
So most generative models are likelihood-based, where to train them you have a model that tells you how much probability it assigns to a particular example, and you just maximize the probability
3
SPEAKER_00
and tell you for sure that it s real or not real.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I think it would actually be somewhat dangerous to rely on that approach too much.
3
SPEAKER_00
If you make a really good fake detector and then someone s able to fool your fake detector and your fake detector says this image is not fake, then it s even more credible than if you ve never made a fake detector in the first place.
3
SPEAKER_00
What I do think we ll get to is
3
SPEAKER_00
systems that we can kind of use behind the scenes to make estimates of what s going on and maybe not use them in court for a definitive analysis.
3
SPEAKER_00
I also think we will likely get better authentication systems where, you know, imagine that every phone cryptographically signs everything that comes out of it.
3
SPEAKER_00
You wouldn t be able to conclusively tell,
3
SPEAKER_00
that an image was real, but you would be able to tell somebody who knew the appropriate private key for this phone was actually able to sign this image and upload it to this server at this timestamp.
3
SPEAKER_00
So you could imagine, maybe you make phones that have the private key s hardware embedded in them.
3
SPEAKER_00
If a state security agency really wants to infiltrate the company, they could probably plant a private key of their choice or break open the chip and learn the private key or something like that.
3
SPEAKER_00
But it would make it a lot harder for an adversary with fewer resources to fake things.
3
SPEAKER_01
For most of us, it would be OK.
3
SPEAKER_01
OK.
3
SPEAKER_01
So you mentioned the beer and the bar and the new ideas.
3
SPEAKER_01
You were able to implement this or come up with this new idea pretty quickly and implement it pretty quickly.
3
SPEAKER_01
Do you think there s still many such groundbreaking ideas in deep learning that could be developed so quickly?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, I do think that there are a lot of ideas that can be developed really quickly.
3
SPEAKER_00
GANs were probably a little bit of an outlier on the whole one-hour timescale.
3
SPEAKER_00
But just in terms of low-resource ideas where you do something really different on the algorithm scale and get a big payback, I think it s not as likely that you ll see that in terms of things like core machine learning technologies, like a better classifier or a better reinforcement learning algorithm or a better generative model.
3
SPEAKER_00
If I had the GAN idea today, it would be a lot harder to prove that it was useful than it was back in 2014, because I would need to get it running on something like ImageNet or CelebA at high resolution.
3
SPEAKER_00
Those take a while to train.
3
SPEAKER_00
You couldn t train it in an hour and know that it was something really new and exciting.
3
SPEAKER_00
Back in 2014, training on MNIST was enough.
3
SPEAKER_00
But there are other areas of machine learning where I think a new idea could actually be developed really quickly with low resources.
3
SPEAKER_01
What s your intuition about what areas of machine learning are ripe for this?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, so I think fairness and interpretability are areas where we just really don t have any idea how anything should be done yet.
3
SPEAKER_00
Like for interpretability, I don t think we even have the right definitions.
3
SPEAKER_00
And even just defining a really useful concept, you don t even need to run any experiments, could have a huge impact on the field.
3
SPEAKER_00
We ve seen that, for example, in differential privacy, that Cynthia Dwork and her collaborators made this technical definition of privacy, where before a lot of things were really mushy.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then with that definition, you could actually design randomized algorithms for accessing databases and guarantee that they preserved individual people s privacy in a mathematical, quantitative sense.
3
SPEAKER_00
Right now we all talk a lot about how interpretable different machine learning algorithms are, but it s really just people s opinion, and everybody probably has a different idea of what interpretability means in their head.
3
SPEAKER_00
If we could define some concept related to interpretability that s actually measurable, that would be a huge leap forward, even without a new algorithm that increases that quantity.
3
SPEAKER_00
And also, once we had the definition of differential privacy, it was fast to get the algorithms that guaranteed it.
3
SPEAKER_00
So you could imagine once we have definitions of good concepts and interpretability, we might be able to provide the algorithms that have the interpretability guarantees quickly too.
3
SPEAKER_01
What do you think it takes to build a system with human-level intelligence as we quickly venture into the philosophical?
3
SPEAKER_01
So artificial general intelligence, what do you think it takes?
3
SPEAKER_00
I think that it definitely takes better environments than we currently have for training agents, that we want them to have a really wide diversity of experiences.
3
SPEAKER_00
I also think it s gonna take really a lot of computation.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s hard to imagine exactly how much.
3
SPEAKER_01
So you re optimistic about simulation, simulating a variety of environments as the path forward?
3
SPEAKER_00
I think it s a necessary ingredient, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
I don t think that we re going to get to artificial general intelligence by training on fixed data sets or by thinking really hard about the problem.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think that
3
SPEAKER_00
the agent really needs to interact and have a variety of experiences within the same lifespan.
3
SPEAKER_00
Today we have many different models that can each do one thing, and we tend to train them on one dataset or one RL environment.
3
SPEAKER_00
Sometimes there are actually papers about getting one set of parameters to perform well in
3
SPEAKER_00
many different RL environments, but we don t really have anything like an agent that goes seamlessly from one type of experience to another, and really integrates all the different things that it does over the course of its life.
3
SPEAKER_00
When we do see multi-agent environments, they tend to be similar environments.
3
SPEAKER_00
All of them are playing an action-based video game.
3
SPEAKER_00
We don t really have an agent that goes from playing a video game to reading the Wall Street Journal to predicting how effective a molecule will be as a drug or something like that.
3
SPEAKER_01
What do you think is a good test for intelligence in your view?
3
SPEAKER_01
There s been a lot of benchmarks, started with Alan Turing, natural conversation being a good benchmark for intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_01
What would Ian Goodfellow sit back and be really damn impressed if a system was able to accomplish?
3
SPEAKER_00
Something that doesn t take a lot of glue from human engineers.
3
SPEAKER_00
So imagine that instead of having to go to the CIFAR website and download CIFAR-10 and then write a Python script to parse it and all that, you could just point an agent at the CIFAR-10 problem and it downloads and extracts the data and trains a model and starts giving you predictions.
3
SPEAKER_00
I feel like something that doesn t need to have every step of the pipeline assembled for it definitely understands what it s doing.
3
SPEAKER_01
Is AutoML moving into that direction, or are you thinking way even bigger?
3
SPEAKER_00
AutoML has mostly been moving toward, once we ve built all the glue, can the machine learning system design the architecture really well?
3
SPEAKER_00
And so I m more of saying like,
3
SPEAKER_00
something knows how to pre-process the data so that it successfully accomplishes the task, then it would be very hard to argue that it doesn t truly understand the task in some fundamental sense.
3
SPEAKER_00
And I don t necessarily know that that s the philosophical definition of intelligence, but that s something that would be really cool to build, that would be really useful, and would impress me, and would convince me that we ve
3
SPEAKER_00
made a step forward in real AI.
3
SPEAKER_01
So you give it like the URL for Wikipedia and then next day expect it to be able to solve CIFAR-10.
3
SPEAKER_00
Or like you type in a paragraph explaining what you want it to do and it figures out what web searches it should run and downloads all the necessary ingredients.
3
SPEAKER_01
So you have a very clear, calm way of speaking, no ums, easy to edit.
3
SPEAKER_01
I ve seen comments for both you and I have been identified as both potentially being robots.
3
SPEAKER_01
If you have to prove to the world that you are indeed human, how would you do it?
3
SPEAKER_00
I can understand thinking that I m a robot.
3
SPEAKER_01
The flip side of the Turing test, I think.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, yeah, the prove your human test.
3
SPEAKER_01
Intellectually, so you have to... Is there something that s truly unique in your mind?
3
SPEAKER_01
Does it go back to just natural language again?
3
SPEAKER_00
Just being able to talk your way out of... So, proving that I m not a robot with today s technology.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, that s pretty straightforward.
3
SPEAKER_00
My conversation today hasn t veered off into talking about the stock market or something because it s my training data.
3
SPEAKER_00
But I guess more generally, trying to prove that something is real from the content alone is incredibly hard.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s one of the main things I ve gotten out of my GAN research.
3
SPEAKER_00
you can simulate almost anything.
3
SPEAKER_00
And so you have to really step back to a separate channel to prove that something is real.
3
SPEAKER_00
So I guess I should have had myself stamped on a blockchain when I was born or something, but I didn t do that.
3
SPEAKER_00
So according to my own research methodology, there s just no way to know at this point.
3
SPEAKER_01
So what, last question, problem stands out for you that you re really excited about challenging in the near future?
3
SPEAKER_00
So I think resistance to adversarial examples, figuring out how to make machine learning secure against an adversary who wants to interfere it and control it, that is one of the most important things researchers today could solve.
3
SPEAKER_01
In all domains, image, language, driving, and everything.
3
SPEAKER_00
I guess I m most concerned about domains we haven t really encountered yet.
3
SPEAKER_00
Like imagine 20 years from now when we re using advanced AIs to do things we haven t even thought of yet.
3
SPEAKER_00
Like if you ask people, what are the important problems in security of phones in like 2002, I don t think we would have anticipated that we re using them for nearly as many things as we re using them for today.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think it s going to be like that with AI that you can kind of try to speculate about where it s going, but really the business opportunities that end up taking off would be hard to predict ahead of time.
3
SPEAKER_00
What you can predict ahead of time is that almost anything you can do with machine learning, you would like to make sure that people can t get it to do what they want rather than what you want just by showing it a funny QR code or a funny input pattern.
3
SPEAKER_01
And you think that the set of methodology to do that can be bigger than any one domain.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think so, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
One methodology that I think is not a specific methodology, but like a category of solutions that I m excited about today is making dynamic models that change every time they make a prediction.
3
SPEAKER_00
So right now, we tend to train models, and then after they re trained, we freeze them, and we just use the same rule to classify everything that comes in from then on.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s really a sitting duck from a security point of view.
3
SPEAKER_00
If you always output the same answer for the same input, then people can just run inputs through until they find a mistake that benefits them.
3
SPEAKER_00
And then they use the same mistake over and over and over again.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think having a model that updates its predictions so that it s harder to predict what you re going to get will make it harder for an adversary to really take control of the system and make it do what they want it to do.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, models that maintain a bit of a sense of mystery about them, because they always keep changing.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
Ian, thanks so much for talking today.
3
SPEAKER_00
It was awesome.
3
SPEAKER_00
Thank you for coming in.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s great to see you.