0
SPEAKER_00
The following is a conversation with Tommaso Poggio.
0
SPEAKER_00
He s a professor at MIT and is a director of the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines.
0
SPEAKER_00
Cited over 100,000 times, his work has had a profound impact on our understanding of the nature of intelligence in both biological and artificial neural networks.
0
SPEAKER_00
He has been an advisor to many highly impactful researchers and entrepreneurs in AI, including Demis Hassabis of DeepMind, Amnon Shashua of Mobileye, and Christophe Koch of the Allen Institute for Brain Science.
0
SPEAKER_00
This conversation is part of the MIT course on Artificial General Intelligence and the Artificial Intelligence Podcast.
0
SPEAKER_00
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_00
And now, here s my conversation with Tommaso Poggio.
0
SPEAKER_00
You ve mentioned that in your childhood you ve developed a fascination with physics, especially the theory of relativity, and that Einstein was also a childhood hero to you.
0
SPEAKER_00
What aspect of Einstein s genius, the nature of his genius, do you think was essential for discovering the theory of relativity?
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, Einstein was a hero to me and I m sure to many people because he was able to make, of course, a major, major contribution to physics with simplifying a bit just a Gedanken experiment, a thought experiment.
0
SPEAKER_01
you know, imagining communication with lights between a stationary observer and somebody on a train.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I thought, you know, the fact that just with the force of his thought, of his thinking, of his mind, he could get to something so deep in terms of physical reality, how
0
SPEAKER_01
time depend on space and speed.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was something absolutely fascinating.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was the power of intelligence, the power of the mind.
0
SPEAKER_00
Do you think the ability to imagine, to visualize as he did, as a lot of great physicists do, do you think that s in all of us human beings?
0
SPEAKER_00
Or is there something special to that one particular human being?
0
SPEAKER_01
I think, you know, all of us can learn and have, in principle, similar breakthroughs.
0
SPEAKER_01
There are lessons to be learned from Einstein.
0
SPEAKER_01
He was one of five PhD students at ETA, the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule in
0
SPEAKER_01
Zurich in physics, and he was the worst of the five.
0
SPEAKER_01
The only one who did not get an academic position when he graduated, when he finished his PhD, and he went to work, as everybody knows, for the patent office.
0
SPEAKER_01
So, it s not so much that he worked for the patent office, but the fact that obviously he was smart, but he was not the top student, obviously he was the anti-conformist.
0
SPEAKER_01
He was not thinking in the traditional way that probably his teachers and the other students were doing.
0
SPEAKER_01
There is a lot to be said about trying to do the opposite or something quite different from what other people are doing.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s certainly true for the stock market.
0
SPEAKER_01
Never buy if everybody s buying.
0
SPEAKER_00
And also true for science.
0
SPEAKER_00
Yes.
0
SPEAKER_00
So you ve also mentioned, staying on the theme of physics, that you were excited at a young age by the mysteries of the universe that physics could uncover.
0
SPEAKER_00
Such, as I saw mentioned, the possibility of time travel.
0
SPEAKER_00
So the most out-of-the-box question I think I ll get to ask today, do you think time travel is possible?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, it would be nice if it were possible right now.
0
SPEAKER_01
In science you never say no.
0
SPEAKER_00
But your understanding of the nature of time.
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, it s very likely that it s not possible to travel in time.
0
SPEAKER_01
We may be able to travel forward in time if we can, for instance, freeze ourselves or go on some spacecraft traveling close to the speed of light.
0
SPEAKER_01
But in terms of actively traveling, for instance, back in time, I find
0
SPEAKER_00
probably very unlikely.
0
SPEAKER_00
So do you still hold the underlying dream of the engineering intelligence that will build systems that are able to do such huge leaps like discovering the kind of mechanism that would be required to travel through time?
0
SPEAKER_00
Do you still hold that dream or echoes of it from your childhood?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, I don t think whether, there are certain problems that probably cannot be solved, depending what you believe about the physical reality, like maybe totally impossible to create energy from nothing or to travel back in time, but about making machines that can think as well as we do or better,
0
SPEAKER_01
or more likely, especially in the short and mid-term, help us think better, which in a sense is happening already with the computers we have, and it will happen more and more.
0
SPEAKER_01
That I certainly believe, and I don t see in principle why computers at some point
0
SPEAKER_01
could not become more intelligent than we are.
0
SPEAKER_01
Although the word intelligence is a tricky one and one who should discuss what I mean with that.
0
SPEAKER_00
Intelligence, consciousness, words like
0
SPEAKER_00
Love is, all these are very, need to be disentangled.
0
SPEAKER_00
So you ve mentioned also that you believe the problem of intelligence is the greatest problem in science, greater than the origin of life and the origin of the universe.
0
SPEAKER_00
You ve also, in a talk I ve listened to, said that you re open to arguments against you.
0
SPEAKER_00
So,
0
SPEAKER_00
What do you think is the most captivating aspect of this problem of understanding the nature of intelligence?
0
SPEAKER_00
Why does it captivate you as it does?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, originally, I think one of the motivation that I had as a, I guess, a teenager when I was infatuated with theory of relativity was really that I found that there was the problem of time and space and general relativity
0
SPEAKER_01
But there were so many other problems of the same level of difficulty and importance that I could, even if I were Einstein, it was difficult to hope to solve all of them.
0
SPEAKER_01
So what about solving a problem whose solution allowed me to solve all the problems?
0
SPEAKER_01
And this was, what if we could find the key to an intelligence, you know, 10 times better or faster than Einstein?
0
SPEAKER_00
So that s sort of seeing artificial intelligence as a tool to expand our capabilities, but is there just an inherent curiosity in you in just understanding what it is in here that makes it all work?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yes, absolutely, you re right.
0
SPEAKER_01
So I started saying this was the motivation when I was a teenager, but soon after, I think the problem of human intelligence became a real focus of my science and my research because
0
SPEAKER_01
I think he s, for me, the most interesting problem is really asking who we are, right?
0
SPEAKER_01
He s asking not only a question about science, but even about the very tool we are using to do science, which is our brain.
0
SPEAKER_01
How does our brain work?
0
SPEAKER_01
From where does it come from?
0
SPEAKER_01
What are its limitations?
0
SPEAKER_01
Can we make it better?
0
SPEAKER_00
and that in many ways is the ultimate question that underlies this whole effort of science.
0
SPEAKER_00
So you ve made significant contributions in both the science of intelligence and the engineering of intelligence.
0
SPEAKER_00
In a hypothetical way, let me ask, how far do you think we can get in creating intelligence systems without understanding the biological, the understanding how the human brain creates intelligence?
0
SPEAKER_00
Put another way, do you think we can build a strong AI system without really getting at the core, the understanding the functional nature of the brain?
0
SPEAKER_01
Well, this is a real difficult question.
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, we did solve problems like flying without really using too much our knowledge about how birds fly.
0
SPEAKER_01
It was important, I guess, to know that you could have things heavier than air being able to fly, like birds.
0
SPEAKER_01
But beyond that, probably we did not learn very much, you know, some.
0
SPEAKER_01
The Brothers Wright did learn a lot of observation about birds and designing their aircraft.
0
SPEAKER_01
You can argue we did not use much of biology in that particular case.
0
SPEAKER_01
Now in the case of intelligence, I think that it s a bit of a bet right now.
0
SPEAKER_01
If you ask, okay, we all agree we ll get at some point, maybe soon, maybe later, to a machine that is indistinguishable from my secretaries in terms of what I can ask the machine to do.
0
SPEAKER_01
I think we ll get there, and now the question is, you can ask people, do you think we ll get there without any knowledge about the human brain, or that the best way to get there is to understand better the human brain?
0
SPEAKER_01
Okay, this is, I think, an educated bet that different people with different background will decide in different ways.
0
SPEAKER_01
The recent history of the progress in AI in the last five years or ten years has been the main breakthroughs, the main recent breakthroughs.
0
SPEAKER_01
I really start from neuroscience.
0
SPEAKER_01
I can mention reinforcement learning as one, is one of the algorithms at the core of AlphaGo, which is the system that beat the kind of an official world champion of Go, Lee Sedol, two, three years ago in Seoul.
0
SPEAKER_01
That s one, and that started really with the work of Pavlov,
0
SPEAKER_01
1900, Marvin Minsky in the 60s, and many other neuroscientists later on.
0
SPEAKER_01
And deep learning started, which is at the core, again, of AlphaGo and systems like autonomous driving systems for cars, like the systems that
0
SPEAKER_01
Mobileye, which is a company started by one of my ex-postdocs, Amnon Shashua, that is at the core of those things.
0
SPEAKER_01
And deep learning, really the initial ideas in terms of the architecture of these layered hierarchical networks started with the work of Torsten
0
SPEAKER_01
Wiesel and David Hubel at Harvard, up the river in the 60s.
0
SPEAKER_01
So, recent history suggests that neuroscience played a big role in these breakthroughs.
0
SPEAKER_01
My personal bet is that there is a good chance they continue to play a big role, maybe not in all the future breakthroughs, but in some of them.
0
SPEAKER_00
At least in inspiration.
0
SPEAKER_01
At least in inspiration, absolutely, yes.
0
SPEAKER_00
So you studied both artificial and biological neural networks.
0
SPEAKER_00
You said these mechanisms that underlie deep learning and reinforcement learning, but there is nevertheless significant differences between biological and artificial neural networks as they stand now.
0
SPEAKER_00
So between the two, what do you find is the most interesting, mysterious, maybe even beautiful difference as it currently stands in our understanding?
0
SPEAKER_01
I must confess that until recently I found that the artificial networks too simplistic relative to real neural networks.
0
SPEAKER_01
But recently I ve been started to think that yes, there are very big simplification of what you find in the brain.
0
SPEAKER_01
But on the other hand, are much closer in terms of the architecture to the brain than other models that we had, that computer science used as model of thinking, which were mathematical logics, you know, Lisp, Prolog, and those kind of things.
0
SPEAKER_01
So in comparison to those, they re much closer to the brain.
0
SPEAKER_01
You have networks of neurons, which is what the brain is about.
0
SPEAKER_01
The artificial neurons in the models are, as I said, caricature of the biological neurons, but they re still neurons, single units communicating with other units, something that is absent in the traditional computer type models of mathematics, reasoning, and so on.
0
SPEAKER_00
So what aspect would you like to see in artificial neural networks added over time as we try to figure out ways to improve them?
0
SPEAKER_01
So one of the main differences and problems in terms of deep learning today, and it s not only deep learning, and the brain, is the need for deep learning techniques to have a lot of labeled examples.
0
SPEAKER_01
For instance, for ImageNet you have
0
SPEAKER_01
a training set, which is one million images, each one labeled by some human in terms of which object is there.
0
SPEAKER_01
And it s clear that in biology, a baby
0
SPEAKER_01
may be able to see millions of images in the first years of life, but will not have millions of labels given to him or her by parents or caretakers.
0
SPEAKER_01
So, how do you solve that?
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, I think that there is this interesting challenge that today, deep learning and related techniques are all about big data, big data meaning a lot of
0
SPEAKER_01
Examples labeled by humans, whereas in nature you have, so this big data is n going to infinity, that s the best.
0
SPEAKER_01
You know, n meaning labeled data.
0
SPEAKER_01
But I think the biological world is more n going to one.
0
SPEAKER_01
A child can learn from a very small number of labeled examples.
0
SPEAKER_01
Like you tell a child, this is a car.
0
SPEAKER_01
You don t need to say, like in ImageNet, this is a car, this is a car, this is not a car, this is not a car, one million times.
0
SPEAKER_00
And of course, with AlphaGo, or at least the AlphaZero variants, because the world of Go is so simplistic that you can actually learn by yourself through self-play, you can play against each other.
0
SPEAKER_00
In the real world, the visual system that you ve studied extensively is a lot more complicated than the game of Go.
0
SPEAKER_00
So, on the comment about children, which are fascinatingly good at learning new stuff, how much of it do you think is hardware and how much of it is software?
0
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s a good, deep question.
0
SPEAKER_01
In a sense, it s the old question of nurture and nature, how much is in the gene and how much is in the experience of an individual.
0
SPEAKER_01
obviously it s both that play a role.
0
SPEAKER_01
And I believe that the way evolution gives, puts prior information, so to speak, hardwired, it s not really hardwired, but that s essentially an hypothesis.
0
SPEAKER_01
I think what s going on is that evolution
0
SPEAKER_01
as almost necessarily, if you believe in Darwin, is very opportunistic.
0
SPEAKER_01
And think about our DNA and the DNA of Drosophila.
0
SPEAKER_01
Our DNA does not have many more genes than Drosophila.
0
SPEAKER_01
The fly.
0
SPEAKER_01
The fly, the fruit fly.
0
SPEAKER_01
Now, we know that the fruit fly does not learn very much.
1
SPEAKER_01
during its individual existence.
1
SPEAKER_01
It looks like one of this machinery that it s really mostly, not 100%, but 95% hard-coded by the genes.
1
SPEAKER_01
But since we don t have many more genes than Drosophila, evolution could encode in us a kind of general learning machinery, and then had to give very weak priors.
1
SPEAKER_01
Like for instance, let me give a specific example, which is recent work by a member of our Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines.
1
SPEAKER_01
We know because of work of other people in our group and other groups that there are cells in a part of our brain, neurons, that are tuned to faces.
1
SPEAKER_01
They seem to be involved in face recognition.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now this face area exists, seems to be present in young children and adults.
1
SPEAKER_01
And one question is, is there from the beginning, is hardwired by evolution or somehow is learned very quickly?
1
SPEAKER_00
So what s your, by the way, a lot of the questions I m asking, the answer is we don t really know, but as a person who has contributed some profound ideas in these fields, you re a good person to guess at some of these.
1
SPEAKER_00
So of course there s a caveat before a lot of the stuff we talk about, but what is your,
1
SPEAKER_00
hunch is the face, the part of the brain that seems to be concentrated on face recognition.
1
SPEAKER_00
Are you born with that, or you just, it s designed to learn that quickly, like the face of the mother and so on?
1
SPEAKER_01
My hunch, my bias was the second one, learned very quickly.
1
SPEAKER_01
It turns out that Marge Livingstone at Harvard has done some amazing experiments in which she raised baby monkeys, depriving them of faces during the first weeks of life.
1
SPEAKER_01
So they see technicians, but the technicians have a mask.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so when they looked at the area in the brain of these monkeys, that where usually you find faces, they found no face preference.
1
SPEAKER_01
So my guess is that what evolution does in this case is there is a plastic, an area which is plastic, which is kind of predetermined to be imprinted very easily, but the command from the gene is not a detailed circuitry for a face template.
1
SPEAKER_01
Could be, but this will require probably a lot of bits.
1
SPEAKER_01
You have to specify a lot of connection of a lot of neurons.
1
SPEAKER_01
Instead, the command from the gene is something like imprint, memorize what you see most often in the first two weeks of life, especially in connection with food.
1
SPEAKER_01
And maybe nipples, I don t know.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, source of food.
1
SPEAKER_00
And that area is very plastic at first and then solidifies.
1
SPEAKER_00
It d be interesting if a variant of that experiment would show a different kind of pattern associated with food than a face pattern, whether that could stick.
1
SPEAKER_01
There are indications that during that experiment, what the monkeys saw quite often were the blue gloves of the technicians that were giving to the baby monkeys the milk.
1
SPEAKER_01
And some of the cells, instead of being face sensitive in that area, are hand sensitive.
1
SPEAKER_00
That s fascinating.
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you talk about what are the different parts of the brain?
1
SPEAKER_00
And in your view, sort of loosely, and how do they contribute to intelligence?
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you see the brain as a bunch of different modules?
1
SPEAKER_00
and they together come in the human brain to create intelligence, or is it all one mush of the same kind of fundamental architecture?
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, that s an important question and there was a phase in neuroscience back in the 1950s or so in which it was believed for a while that the brain was equipotential.
1
SPEAKER_01
This was the term you could
1
SPEAKER_01
cut out a piece and nothing special happened apart a little bit less performance.
1
SPEAKER_01
There was a surgeon, Lashley, who did a lot of experiments of this type with mice and rats and concluded that every part of the brain was essentially equivalent to any other one.
1
SPEAKER_01
It turns out that that s really not true.
1
SPEAKER_01
There are very specific modules in the brain, as you said, and people may lose the ability to speak if you have a stroke in a certain region or may lose control of their legs in another region.
1
SPEAKER_01
So there are very specific
1
SPEAKER_01
The brain is also quite flexible and redundant, so often it can correct things and kind of take over functions from one part of the brain to the other, but really there are specific modules.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the answer that we know from this old work
1
SPEAKER_01
which was basically based on lesions, either on animals or very often there were a mine of, well, there was a mine of very interesting data coming from the war, from different types of... Injuries.
1
SPEAKER_01
Injuries that soldiers had in the brain and
1
SPEAKER_01
More recently, functional MRI, which allow you to check which part of the brain are active when you re doing different tasks.
1
SPEAKER_01
as you know, can replace some of this.
1
SPEAKER_01
You can see that certain parts of the brain are involved, are active in certain tasks.
1
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, that s right.
1
SPEAKER_00
But sort of taking a step back to that part of the brain that discovers, that specializes in the face and how that might be learned,
1
SPEAKER_00
What s your intuition behind, you know, is it possible that sort of from a physicist s perspective, when you get lower and lower, that it s all the same stuff and it just, when you re born, it s plastic and it quickly figures out this part is gonna be about vision, this is gonna be about language, this is about common sense reasoning.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you have an intuition that that kind of learning is going on really quickly or is it really kind of solidified in hardware?
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a great question.
1
SPEAKER_01
So there are parts of the brain like the cerebellum or the hippocampus that are quite different from each other.
1
SPEAKER_01
They clearly have different anatomy, different connectivity.
1
SPEAKER_01
Then there is the cortex, which is the most developed part of the brain in humans.
1
SPEAKER_01
And in the cortex, you have different regions of the cortex that are responsible for vision, for audition, for motor control, for language.
1
SPEAKER_01
Now, one of the big puzzles of this is that in the cortex is the cortex is the cortex is looks like it is the same in terms of
1
SPEAKER_01
hardware in terms of type of neurons and connectivity across these different modalities.
1
SPEAKER_01
So for the cortex, letting aside these other parts of the brain like spinal cord, hippocampus, cerebellum and so on, for the cortex I think your question about hardware and software and learning and so on, I think is rather open.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I find it very interesting, for instance, to think about an architecture, computer architecture, that is good for vision and at the same time is good for language.
1
SPEAKER_01
Seems to be so different problem areas that you have to solve.
1
SPEAKER_00
But the underlying mechanism might be the same, and that s really instructive for artificial neural networks.
1
SPEAKER_00
So you ve done a lot of great work in vision, in human vision, computer vision.
1
SPEAKER_00
And you mentioned the problem of human vision is really as difficult as the problem of general intelligence, and maybe that connects to the cortex discussion.
1
SPEAKER_00
Can you describe the human visual cortex and how the humans begin to understand the world through the raw sensory information?
1
SPEAKER_00
What s, for folks who are not familiar, especially on the computer vision side, we don t often actually take a step back except saying with a sentence or two that one is inspired by the other.
1
SPEAKER_00
What is it that we know about the human visual cortex?
1
SPEAKER_00
That s interesting.
1
SPEAKER_01
So we know quite a bit, at the same time we don t know a lot.
1
SPEAKER_01
But the bit we know, in a sense we know a lot of the details, and many we don t know, and we know a lot of the top level, the answer to top level question, but we don t know some basic ones, even in terms of general neuroscience for getting vision.
1
SPEAKER_01
Why do we sleep?
1
SPEAKER_01
It s such a basic question.
1
SPEAKER_01
And we really don t have an answer to that.
1
SPEAKER_00
So taking a step back on that, so sleep for example is fascinating.
1
SPEAKER_00
Do you think that s a neuroscience question?
1
SPEAKER_00
Or if we talk about abstractions, what do you think is an interesting way to study intelligence or most effective on the levels of abstraction?
1
SPEAKER_00
Is it chemical, is it biological?
1
SPEAKER_00
is electrophysical, mathematical, as you ve done a lot of excellent work on that side, which psychology, sort of like which level of abstraction do you think?
1
SPEAKER_01
Well, in terms of levels of abstraction, I think we need all of them.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s one, you know, it s like if you ask me,
1
SPEAKER_01
What does it mean to understand the computer, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
That s much simpler.
1
SPEAKER_01
But in a computer, I could say, well, I understand how to use PowerPoint.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s my level of understanding a computer.
1
SPEAKER_01
It s, it has reasonable, you know, it gives me some power to produce slides and beautiful slides and,
1
SPEAKER_01
Now, you can ask somebody else, he says, well, I know how the transistor works that are inside the computer.
1
SPEAKER_01
I can write the equation for, you know, transistor and diodes and circuits, logical circuits.
1
SPEAKER_01
And I can ask this guy, do you know how to operate PowerPoint?
1
SPEAKER_01
No idea.
1
SPEAKER_00
So do you think if we discovered computers walking amongst us full of these transistors that are also operating under Windows and have PowerPoint, do you think it s digging in a little bit more?
1
SPEAKER_00
How useful is it to understand the transistor in order to be able to understand
1
SPEAKER_00
PowerPoint and these higher level intelligent processes.
1
SPEAKER_01
So I think in the case of computers, because they were made by engineers by us, this different level of understanding are rather separate on purpose.
1
SPEAKER_01
You know, there are separate modules so that the engineer that designed the circuit for the chips does not need to know what is inside PowerPoint.
1
SPEAKER_01
And somebody can write the software translating from one to the other.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, in that case, I don t think understanding the transistor helped you understand PowerPoint, or very little.
1
SPEAKER_01
If you want to understand the computer, this question, I would say you have to understand it at different levels.
1
SPEAKER_01
If you really want to build
1
SPEAKER_01
But for the brain, I think these levels of understanding, so the algorithms, which kind of computation, you know, the equivalent PowerPoint and the circuits, you know, the transistors,
1
SPEAKER_01
I think they are much more intertwined with each other.
1
SPEAKER_01
There is not, you know, a neatly level of the software separate from the hardware.
1
SPEAKER_01
And so that s why I think in the case of the brain, the problem is more difficult and more than for computers requires the interaction, the collaboration between different types of expertise.
1
SPEAKER_00
So it s a big, the brain is a big hierarchical mess.
1
SPEAKER_00
You can t just disentangle levels.
1
SPEAKER_01
I think you can, but it s much more difficult and it s not, you know, it s not completely obvious.
1
SPEAKER_01
And as I said, I think he s one of the person I think is the greatest problem in science.
1
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, I think it s fair that it s difficult.
1
SPEAKER_01
That s a difficult one.
1
SPEAKER_00
That said, you do talk about compositionality and why it might be useful.
1
SPEAKER_00
And when you discuss why these neural networks, in artificial or biological sense, learn anything, you talk about compositionality.
1
SPEAKER_00
There s a sense that nature can be disentangled.
1
SPEAKER_00
all aspects of our cognition could be disentangled to some degree.
1
SPEAKER_00
So why do you think, first of all, how do you see compositionality and why do you think it exists at all in nature?
1
SPEAKER_01
I spoke about, I use the term compositionality
1
SPEAKER_01
when we looked at deep neural networks, multi-layers, and trying to understand when and why they are more powerful than more classical one-layer networks like linear classifier, kernel machines, so-called.
1
SPEAKER_01
And what we found is that in terms of approximating or learning or representing a function, a mapping from an input to an output, like from an image to the label in the image,
1
SPEAKER_01
If this function has a particular structure, then deep networks are much more powerful than shallow networks to approximate the underlying function.
1
SPEAKER_01
And the particular structure is a structure of compositionality.
1
SPEAKER_01
If the function is made up
1
SPEAKER_01
of functions of functions, so that you need to look on, when you are interpreting an image, classifying an image, you don t need to look at all pixels at once, but you can compute something from small groups of pixels and then you can compute something on the output of this local computation and so on.
1
SPEAKER_01
which is similar to what you do when you read a sentence.
1
SPEAKER_01
You don t need to read the first and the last letter, but you can read syllables, combine them in words, combine the words in sentences.
1
SPEAKER_01
So this is this kind of structure.
1
SPEAKER_00
So that s as part of a discussion of why deep neural networks may be more effective than the shallow methods.
1
SPEAKER_00
And is your sense for most things we can use
1
SPEAKER_00
neural networks for, those problems are going to be compositional in nature, like language, like vision.
1
SPEAKER_00
How far can we get in this kind of way?
1
SPEAKER_01
So here is almost philosophy.
1
SPEAKER_00
Well, let s go there.
1
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, let s go there.
1
SPEAKER_01
So a friend of mine, Max Tegmark, who is a physicist at MIT,
1
SPEAKER_00
I ve talked to him on this thing, yeah, and he disagrees with you, right?
1
SPEAKER_01
A little bit.
1
SPEAKER_01
We agree on most, but the conclusion is a bit different.
1
SPEAKER_01
His conclusion is that for images, for instance, the compositional structure of this function that we have,
1
SPEAKER_01
to learn or to solve these problems comes from physics, comes from the fact that you have local interactions in physics between atoms and other atoms, between particle of matter and other particles, between planets and other planets, between stars and other, it s all local.
1
SPEAKER_01
And that s true, but you could push this argument a bit further.
1
SPEAKER_01
Not this argument, actually, you could argue that, you know, maybe that s part of the truth, but maybe what happens is kind of the opposite, is that our brain is wired up as a deep network.
1
SPEAKER_01
So it can learn, understand, solve problems that have this compositional structure.
1
SPEAKER_01
And it cannot do, it cannot solve problems that don t have this compositional structure.
1
SPEAKER_01
So the problems we are
2
SPEAKER_01
accustomed to, we think about, we test our algorithms on, are this compositional structure because our brain is made up.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that s in a sense an evolutionary perspective that we ve, so the ones that didn t have, that weren t dealing with a compositional nature of reality died off?
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, but also could be maybe the reason
2
SPEAKER_01
why we have this local connectivity in the brain, like simple cells in cortex looking only at the small part of the image, each one of them, and then other cells looking at the small number of these simple cells and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
The reason for this may be purely that it was difficult to grow long-range connectivity.
2
SPEAKER_01
So suppose it s, you know, for biology, it s possible to grow short-range connectivity, but not long-range also, because there is a limited number of long-range.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so you have this limitation from the biology.
2
SPEAKER_01
And this means you build a deep convolutional network.
2
SPEAKER_01
This would be something like a deep convolutional network.
2
SPEAKER_01
And this is great for solving certain class of problems.
2
SPEAKER_01
These are the ones we find easy and important for our life.
2
SPEAKER_01
And yes, they were enough for us to survive.
2
SPEAKER_00
And you can start a successful business on solving those problems, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
Like with Mobileye, driving is a compositional problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
So on the learning task, I mean, we don t know much about how the brain learns in terms of optimization, but so the thing that s stochastic gradient descent is what artificial neural networks
2
SPEAKER_00
used for the most part to adjust the parameters in such a way that it s able to deal, based on the label data, it s able to solve the problem.
2
SPEAKER_00
So, what s your intuition about why
2
SPEAKER_00
it works at all, how hard of a problem it is to optimize a neural network, artificial neural network, is there other alternatives?
2
SPEAKER_00
Just in general, your intuition is behind this very simplistic algorithm that seems to do pretty good.
2
SPEAKER_00
Surprising.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yes, yes.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I find neuroscience, the architecture of cortex is really similar to the architecture of deep networks.
2
SPEAKER_01
So there is a nice correspondence there between the biology and this kind of local connectivity, hierarchical architecture.
2
SPEAKER_01
The stochastic gradient descent, as you said, is a very simple technique.
2
SPEAKER_01
It seems pretty unlikely that biology could do that from what we know right now about the cortex and neurons and synapses.
2
SPEAKER_01
So it s a big question open whether there are other
2
SPEAKER_01
optimization learning algorithms that can replace stochastic gradient descent?
2
SPEAKER_01
And my guess is yes, but nobody has found yet a real answer.
2
SPEAKER_01
I mean, people are trying, still trying, and there are some interesting ideas.
2
SPEAKER_01
The fact that stochastic gradient descent is so successful, this has become clearly is not so mysterious.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the reason is that it s an interesting fact, you know, is a change in a sense in how people think about statistics.
2
SPEAKER_01
And this is the following, is that typically when you had data,
2
SPEAKER_01
and you had, say, a model with parameters, you are trying to fit the model to the data, you know, to fit the parameter.
2
SPEAKER_01
Typically, the kind of crowd wisdom type idea was you should have at least twice the number of data than the number of parameters.
2
SPEAKER_01
Maybe 10 times is better.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now, the way you train neural network these days is that they have 10 or 100 times more parameters than data.
2
SPEAKER_01
Exactly the opposite.
2
SPEAKER_01
And which, you know, it has been one of the puzzles about neural networks.
2
SPEAKER_01
How can you get something that really works when you have so much freedom in
2
SPEAKER_00
From that little data, it can generalize somehow.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you think the stochastic nature of it is essential, the randomness?
2
SPEAKER_01
So I think we have some initial understanding why this happens, but one nice side effect of having this over-parameterization, more parameters than data,
2
SPEAKER_01
is that when you look for the minima of a loss function like stochastic gradient descent is doing, you find, I made some calculations based on some old
2
SPEAKER_01
basic theorem of algebra called the Bezout theorem that gives you an estimate of the number of solutions of a system of polynomial equations.
2
SPEAKER_01
Anyway, the bottom line is that there are probably more minima for a typical deep network than atoms in the universe.
2
SPEAKER_01
just to say there are a lot, because of the over-parameterization.
2
SPEAKER_01
A more global minimum, zero minimum, good minimum.
2
SPEAKER_01
So it s not too soon.
2
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, a lot of them.
2
SPEAKER_01
So you have a lot of solutions.
2
SPEAKER_01
So it s not so surprising that you can find them relatively easily.
2
SPEAKER_01
And this is because of the over-parameterization.
2
SPEAKER_00
the over-parameterization sprinkles that entire space with solutions that are pretty good.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s not so surprising, right?
2
SPEAKER_01
It s like, you know, if you have a system of linear equation and you have more unknowns than equations, then you have, we know, you have an infinite number of solutions.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the question is to pick one, that s another story.
2
SPEAKER_01
But you have an infinite number of solutions, so there are a lot of value of your unknowns that satisfy the equations.
2
SPEAKER_00
But it s possible that there s a lot of those solutions that aren t very good.
2
SPEAKER_00
What s surprising is that they re pretty good.
2
SPEAKER_01
So that s a separate question.
2
SPEAKER_01
Why can you pick one that generalizes well?
2
SPEAKER_01
But that s a separate question with separate answers.
2
SPEAKER_00
One theorem that people like to talk about that kind of inspires imagination of the power of neural networks is the universal approximation theorem, that you can approximate any computable function with just a finite number of neurons in a single hidden layer.
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you find this theorem, one, surprising?
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you find it useful, interesting, inspiring?
2
SPEAKER_01
No, this one, you know, I never found it very surprising.
2
SPEAKER_01
It was known since the 80s, since I entered the field, because it s basically the same as Weierstrass theorem, which says that I can approximate any continuous function with a polynomial of sufficiently, with a sufficient number of terms, monomials.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s basically the same, and the proofs are very similar.
2
SPEAKER_00
So your intuition was there was never any doubt that neural networks in theory could be very strong approximators.
2
SPEAKER_01
The question, the interesting question is that if this theorem says you can approximate fine, but when you ask how many neurons, for instance, or in the case of polynomial, how many monomials, I need to get a good approximation.
2
SPEAKER_01
Then it turns out that that depends on the dimensionality of your function, how many variables you have.
2
SPEAKER_01
But it depends on the dimensionality of your function in a bad way.
2
SPEAKER_01
For instance, suppose you want an error which is no worse than 10% in your approximation.
2
SPEAKER_01
You come up with a network that approximates your function within 10%.
2
SPEAKER_01
Then it turns out that the number of units you need are in the order of 10 to the dimensionality d, how many variables.
2
SPEAKER_01
So if you have, you know, two variables,
2
SPEAKER_01
these two, and you have 100 units, and okay.
2
SPEAKER_01
But if you have, say, 200 by 200 pixel images, now this is 40,000, whatever.
2
SPEAKER_00
And that- We again go to the size of the universe pretty quickly.
2
SPEAKER_01
Exactly, 10 to the 40,000 or something.
2
SPEAKER_01
And so this is called the curse of dimensionality.
2
SPEAKER_01
Not quite appropriately.
2
SPEAKER_00
And the hope is with the extra layers, you can remove the curse.
2
SPEAKER_01
What we proved is that if you have deep layers or hierarchical architecture with local connectivity of the type of convolutional deep learning, and if you re dealing with a function that has this kind of hierarchical architecture, then you avoid completely the curse.
2
SPEAKER_00
You ve spoken a lot about supervised deep learning.
2
SPEAKER_00
What are your thoughts, hopes, views on the challenges of unsupervised learning with GANs, with Generative Adversarial Networks?
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you see those as distinct, the power of GANs, do you see those as distinct from supervised methods in neural networks, or are they all in the same representation ballpark?
2
SPEAKER_01
GANs is one way to get estimation of probability densities, which is a somewhat new way that people have not done before.
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t know whether this will really play an important role in, you know, in intelligence.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s interesting.
2
SPEAKER_01
I m less enthusiastic about it than many people in the field.
2
SPEAKER_01
I have the feeling that many people in the field are really impressed by the ability of producing realistic looking images in this generative way.
2
SPEAKER_00
Which describes the popularity of the methods, but you re saying that while that s exciting and cool to look at, it may not be the tool that s useful for it.
2
SPEAKER_00
So you describe it kind of beautifully.
2
SPEAKER_00
Current supervised methods go n to infinity in terms of number of labeled points, and we really have to figure out how to go to n to 1.
2
SPEAKER_00
And you re thinking GANs might help, but they might not be the right...
2
SPEAKER_01
I don t think for that problem, which I really think is important, I think they may help.
2
SPEAKER_01
They certainly have applications, for instance, in computer graphics.
2
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, I did work long ago
2
SPEAKER_01
which was a little bit similar in terms of saying, okay, I have a network and I present images and I can, so input is images and output is, for instance, the pose of the image, you know, a face, how much is smiling, is rotated 45 degrees or not.
2
SPEAKER_01
What about having a network that I train with the same data set, but now I invert input and output.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now the input is the pose or the expression, a number, set of numbers, and the output is the image, and I train it.
2
SPEAKER_01
And we did pretty good, interesting results in terms of producing very realistic looking images.
2
SPEAKER_01
It was, you know, a less sophisticated mechanism, but the output was pretty less than GANs, but the output was pretty much of the same quality.
2
SPEAKER_01
So I think for a computer graphics type application, yeah, definitely GANs can be quite useful, and not only for that,
2
SPEAKER_01
But for helping, for instance, on this problem of unsupervised example of reducing the number of labeled examples, I think people, it s like they think they can get out more than they put in.
2
SPEAKER_00
There s no free lunches, you said.
2
SPEAKER_00
What s your intuition?
2
SPEAKER_00
How can we slow the growth of end-to-infinity in supervised learning?
2
SPEAKER_00
So, for example, Mobileye has very successfully, I mean, essentially annotated large amounts of data to be able to drive a car.
2
SPEAKER_00
Now, one thought is, so we re trying to teach machines, school of AI, and we re trying to, so how can we become better teachers, maybe?
2
SPEAKER_00
That s one way.
2
SPEAKER_01
You know, I like that, because one, again, one caricature of the history of computer science, you could say, begins with programmers.
2
SPEAKER_01
Expensive.
2
SPEAKER_01
Continuous labelers, cheap.
2
SPEAKER_01
And the future will be schools, like we have for kids.
2
SPEAKER_00
Currently, the labeling methods, we re not selective about which examples we teach networks with.
2
SPEAKER_00
I think the focus of making networks that learn much faster is often on the architecture side, but how can we pick better examples with which to learn?
2
SPEAKER_00
Do you have intuitions about that?
2
SPEAKER_01
Well, that s part of the problem, but the other one is...
2
SPEAKER_01
If we look at biology, a reasonable assumption, I think, is in the same spirit that I said, evolution is opportunistic and has weak priors.
2
SPEAKER_01
The way I think the intelligence of a child, a baby may develop is by bootstrapping
2
SPEAKER_01
weak priors from evolution.
2
SPEAKER_01
For instance, in
2
SPEAKER_01
You can assume that you have in most organisms, including human babies, built in some basic machinery to detect motion and relative motion.
2
SPEAKER_01
And in fact, there is, you know, we know all insects from fruit flies to other animals, they have this.
2
SPEAKER_01
even in the retinas, in the very peripheral part.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s very conserved across species, something that evolution discovered early.
2
SPEAKER_01
It may be the reason why babies tend to look, in the first few days, to moving objects and not to not moving objects.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now, moving objects means, okay, they re attracted by motion, but motion also means that motion gives automatic segmentation from the background.
2
SPEAKER_01
So because of motion boundaries, you know, either the object is moving or the eye of the baby is tracking the moving object and the background is moving, right?
2
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
2
SPEAKER_00
So just purely on the visual characteristics of the scene, that seems to be the most useful.
2
SPEAKER_01
Right.
2
SPEAKER_01
So it s like looking at an object without background.
2
SPEAKER_01
It s ideal for learning the object.
2
SPEAKER_01
Otherwise, it s really difficult because you have so much stuff.
2
SPEAKER_01
So suppose you do this at the beginning, first weeks.
2
SPEAKER_01
Then after that, you can recognize object.
2
SPEAKER_01
Now they are imprinted a number of objects.
2
SPEAKER_01
even in the background, even without motion.
2
SPEAKER_00
So that s the, by the way, I just want to ask, on the object recognition problem, so there s this being responsive to movement and doing edge detection, essentially.
2
SPEAKER_00
What s the gap between being effectively, effective at visually recognizing stuff, detecting where it is, and understanding the scene?
2
SPEAKER_00
Is this a huge gap in many layers, or is it close?
2
SPEAKER_00
No, I think that s a huge gap.
2
SPEAKER_01
I think present algorithm with all the success that we have and the fact that there are a lot of very useful, I think we are in a golden age for applications of low-level vision and low-level speech recognition and so on, you know, Alexa and so on.
2
SPEAKER_01
There are many more things of similar level to be done, including medical diagnosis and so on, but we are far from what we call understanding of a scene, of language, of actions, of people.
2
SPEAKER_01
That is, despite the claims, that s, I think, very far.
2
SPEAKER_00
We re a little bit off.
2
SPEAKER_00
So in popular culture and among many researchers, some of which I ve spoken with, the
3
SPEAKER_00
to Russell and Elon Musk, in and out of the AI field, there s a concern about the existential threat of AI.
3
SPEAKER_00
And how do you think about this concern?
3
SPEAKER_00
And is it valuable to think about large-scale, long-term, unintended consequences of
3
SPEAKER_00
intelligence systems we try to build.
3
SPEAKER_01
I always think it s better to worry first, you know, early rather than late.
3
SPEAKER_00
So worry is good.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
I m not against worrying at all.
3
SPEAKER_01
Personally, I think that, you know, it will take a long time before there is a real reason to be worried.
3
SPEAKER_01
But as I said, I think it s good to put in place and think about possible safety against what I find a bit misleading are things like that have been said by people I know like Elon Musk and what is Bostrom in particular, what is his first name?
3
SPEAKER_01
Nick Bostrom, right.
3
SPEAKER_01
And a couple of other people that, for instance, AI is more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think that s really wrong.
3
SPEAKER_01
That can be misleading because in terms of priority, we should still be more worried about nuclear weapons and what people are doing about it and so on than AI.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you ve spoken about Demis Hassabis and yourself saying that you think you ll be about 100 years out before we have a general intelligence system that s on par with a human being.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you have any updates for those predictions?
3
SPEAKER_00
He said 20, I think.
3
SPEAKER_01
He said 20, right.
3
SPEAKER_01
This was a couple of years ago.
3
SPEAKER_01
I have not asked him again, so I should have.
3
SPEAKER_00
Your own prediction?
3
SPEAKER_00
What s your prediction about when you ll be truly surprised?
3
SPEAKER_00
And what s the confidence interval on that?
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, it s so difficult to predict the future and even the present sometimes.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s pretty hard to predict, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_01
But I would be, as I said, this is completely, I would be more like Rod Brooks.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think he s about 200 years.
3
SPEAKER_01
200 years.
3
SPEAKER_00
When we have this kind of AGI system, Artificial General Intelligence system, and you re sitting in a room with her, him, it, do you think it will be the underlying design of such a system is something we ll be able to understand?
3
SPEAKER_00
It ll be simple?
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it ll be explainable?
3
SPEAKER_00
Understandable by us?
3
SPEAKER_00
Your intuition, again, we re in the realm of philosophy a little bit.
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, probably no, but again, it depends what you really mean for understanding.
3
SPEAKER_01
So I think
3
SPEAKER_01
We don t understand how deep networks work.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think we are beginning to have a theory now.
3
SPEAKER_01
But in the case of deep networks, or even in the case of the simpler kernel machines or linear classifier,
3
SPEAKER_01
We really don t understand the individual units or so.
3
SPEAKER_01
But we understand, you know, what the computation and the limitations and the properties of it are.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s similar to many things.
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, what does it mean to understand how a fusion bomb works?
3
SPEAKER_01
How many of us
3
SPEAKER_01
Many of us understand the basic principle, and some of us may understand deeper details.
3
SPEAKER_00
In that sense, understanding is, as a community, as a civilization, can we build another copy of it?
3
SPEAKER_00
Okay.
3
SPEAKER_00
And in that sense, do you think there ll need to be some evolutionary component where it runs away from our understanding?
3
SPEAKER_00
Or do you think it could be engineered from the ground up, the same way you go from the transistor to PowerPoint?
3
SPEAKER_01
All right, so many years ago, this was actually, let me see, 40, 41 years ago, I wrote a paper with David Marr, who was one of the founding father of computer vision, computational vision.
3
SPEAKER_01
I wrote a paper about levels of understanding, which is related to the question I discussed earlier about understanding PowerPoint, understanding transistors and so on.
3
SPEAKER_01
And, you know, in that kind of framework, we had the level of the hardware and the top level of the algorithms.
3
SPEAKER_01
We did not have learning.
3
SPEAKER_01
Recently, I updated adding levels, and one level I added to those three was
3
SPEAKER_01
learning.
3
SPEAKER_01
And you can imagine you could have a good understanding of how you construct a learning machine, like we do.
3
SPEAKER_01
But being unable to describe in detail what the learning machines will discover.
3
SPEAKER_01
Right?
3
SPEAKER_01
Now that would be still a powerful understanding if I can build a learning machine, even if I don t understand in detail every time it learns something.
3
SPEAKER_00
Just like our children, if they start listening to a certain type of music, I don t know, Miley Cyrus or something, you don t understand why they came to that particular preference, but you understand the learning process.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s very interesting.
3
SPEAKER_00
unlearning for systems to be part of our world.
3
SPEAKER_00
It has a certain, one of the challenging things that you ve spoken about is learning ethics, learning morals.
3
SPEAKER_00
And how hard do you think is the problem of
3
SPEAKER_00
first of all, humans understanding our ethics.
3
SPEAKER_00
What is the origin on the neural and low level of ethics?
3
SPEAKER_00
What is it at the higher level?
3
SPEAKER_00
Is it something that s learnable for machines in your intuition?
3
SPEAKER_01
I think, yeah, ethics is learnable, very likely.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think it s one of these problems where, I think understanding the,
3
SPEAKER_01
Neuroscience of ethics.
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, people discuss there is an ethics of neuroscience.
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, how a neuroscientist should or should not behave.
3
SPEAKER_01
You can think of a neurosurgeon and the ethics rule he has to obey or she has to obey.
3
SPEAKER_01
But I m more interested on the neuroscience of ethics.
3
SPEAKER_01
You re blowing my mind right now.
3
SPEAKER_01
The neuroscience of ethics, it s very meta.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I think that would be important to understand also for being able to design machines that have, that are ethical machines in our sense of ethics.
3
SPEAKER_00
And you think there is something in neuroscience, there s patterns, tools in neuroscience that could help us shed some light on ethics?
3
SPEAKER_00
Or is it mostly on the psychologist s sociology in which higher level?
3
SPEAKER_01
No, there is psychology, but there is also, in the meantime, there is evidence, fMRI, of specific areas of the brain that are involved in certain ethical judgment.
3
SPEAKER_01
And not only this, you can stimulate those area with magnetic fields and change the ethical decisions.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, wow.
3
SPEAKER_01
So that s work by a colleague of mine, Rebecca Sachs, and there is other researchers doing similar work.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I think, you know, this is the beginning, but ideally at some point we ll have an understanding of how this works and why it evolved, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
The big why question.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, it must have some purpose.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, obviously it has some social purposes.
3
SPEAKER_01
Probably.
3
SPEAKER_00
If neuroscience holds the key to at least eliminate some aspect of ethics, that means it could be a learnable problem.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, exactly.
3
SPEAKER_00
And as we re getting into harder and harder questions, let s go to the hard problem of consciousness.
3
SPEAKER_00
Is this an important problem for us to think about and solve on the engineering of intelligence side of your work, of our dream?
3
SPEAKER_00
You know, it s unclear.
3
SPEAKER_01
So, you know, again, this is a deep problem partly because it s very difficult to define consciousness and
3
SPEAKER_01
and there is a debate among neuroscientists about whether consciousness, and philosophers of course, whether consciousness is something that requires flesh and blood, so to speak, or could be, you know, that we could have silicon devices that are conscious,
3
SPEAKER_01
or up to statement like everything has some degree of consciousness and some more than others.
3
SPEAKER_01
This is like Giulio Tognoni and Fee.
3
SPEAKER_01
We just recently talked to Christophe Koch.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, Christoph was my first graduate student.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think it s important to illuminate aspects of consciousness in order to engineer intelligence systems?
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think an intelligence system would ultimately have consciousness?
3
SPEAKER_00
Are they interlinked?
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, most of the people working in artificial intelligence I think would answer, we don t strictly need consciousness to have an intelligent system.
3
SPEAKER_00
That s sort of the easier question because it s a very engineering answer to the question.
3
SPEAKER_00
Pass the Turing test, we don t need consciousness.
3
SPEAKER_00
But if you were to go, do you think it s possible that we need to have
3
SPEAKER_00
So that kind of self-awareness.
3
SPEAKER_00
We may, yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
So for instance, I personally think that when test a machine or a person in a Turing test, in an extended Turing test, you know,
3
SPEAKER_01
I think consciousness is part of what we require in that test.
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, implicitly, to say that this is intelligent.
3
SPEAKER_01
Christoph disagrees.
3
SPEAKER_00
So.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes, he does.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
Despite many other romantic notions he holds, he disagrees with that one.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yes, that s right.
3
SPEAKER_00
So, you know, we ll see.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think, as a quick question,
3
SPEAKER_00
Ernest Becker, fear of death.
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think mortality and those kinds of things are important for
3
SPEAKER_00
Well, for consciousness and for intelligence?
3
SPEAKER_00
The finiteness of life?
3
SPEAKER_00
Finiteness of existence?
3
SPEAKER_00
Or is that just the evolutionary side effect that s useful for natural selection?
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think this interview is going to run out of time soon?
3
SPEAKER_00
Our life will run out of time soon?
3
SPEAKER_00
Do you think that s needed to make this conversation good and life good?
3
SPEAKER_01
You know, I never thought about it.
3
SPEAKER_01
It s a very interesting question.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think Steve Jobs in his commencement speech at Stanford argued that, you know, having a finite life was important for stimulating achievement.
3
SPEAKER_01
So it was a different
3
SPEAKER_00
You live every day like it s your last, right?
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah, so rationally I don t think strictly you need mortality for consciousness, but.
3
SPEAKER_00
Who knows, they seem to go together in our biological system, right?
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah, yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
You ve mentioned before, and students are associated with, AlphaGo immobilized the big recent success stories in AI.
3
SPEAKER_00
I think it s captivated the entire world of what AI can do.
3
SPEAKER_00
So what do you think will be the next breakthrough?
3
SPEAKER_00
And what s your intuition about the next breakthrough?
3
SPEAKER_01
Of course, I don t know where the next breakthroughs is.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think that there is a good chance, as I said before, that the next breakthrough would also be inspired by neuroscience.
3
SPEAKER_00
But which one, I don t know.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there s, so MIT has this quest for intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_00
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
And there s a few moonshots, which in that spirit, which ones are you excited about?
3
SPEAKER_00
What, which projects kind of
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, of course, I m excited about one of the moonshots, which is our Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines, which is the one which is fully funded by NSF.
3
SPEAKER_01
And it is about visual intelligence.
3
SPEAKER_01
And that one is particularly about understanding.
3
SPEAKER_01
Visual intelligence, so the visual cortex and visual intelligence in the sense of
3
SPEAKER_01
how we look around ourselves and understand the world around ourselves, meaning what is going on, how we could go from here to there without hitting obstacles, whether there are other agents, people in the environment.
3
SPEAKER_01
These are all things that we perceive very quickly and
3
SPEAKER_01
And it s something actually quite close to being conscious, not quite.
3
SPEAKER_01
But there is this interesting experiment that was run at Google X, which is in a sense is just a virtual reality experiment, but in which they had subjects sitting, say, in a chair with goggles like Oculus and so on.
3
SPEAKER_01
earphones, and they were seeing through the eyes of a robot nearby, two cameras, microphones for receiving.
3
SPEAKER_01
So their sensory system was there.
3
SPEAKER_01
And the impression of all the subject, very strong, they could not shake it off, was that they were where the robot was.
3
SPEAKER_01
they could look at themselves from the robot and still feel they were where the robot is.
3
SPEAKER_01
They were looking at their body.
3
SPEAKER_00
Their self had moved.
3
SPEAKER_00
So some aspect of seeing and understanding has to have ability to place yourself, have a self-awareness about your position in the world and what the world is.
3
SPEAKER_00
Right.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yeah.
3
SPEAKER_00
So we may have to solve the hard problem of consciousness to solve it.
3
SPEAKER_00
On their way, yes.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s quite a moonshot.
3
SPEAKER_00
So you ve been an advisor to some incredible minds, including Demis Hassabis, Christophe Koch, Amnon Shashua, like you said, all went on to become seminal figures in their respective fields.
3
SPEAKER_00
From your own success as a researcher and from perspective as a mentor of these researchers, having guided them, in the way of advice, what does it take to be successful in science and engineering careers?
3
SPEAKER_00
Whether you re talking to somebody in their teens, 20s, and 30s, what does that path look like?
3
SPEAKER_01
It s curiosity and having fun.
3
SPEAKER_01
And I think it s important also having fun with other curious minds.
3
SPEAKER_00
It s the people you surround with too.
3
SPEAKER_00
So fun and curiosity, is there, you mentioned Steve Jobs, is there also an underlying ambition that s unique that you saw or is it really does boil down to insatiable curiosity and fun?
3
SPEAKER_01
Well, of course, you know, it s being curious in an active and ambitious way.
3
SPEAKER_01
Yes.
3
SPEAKER_01
Definitely.
3
SPEAKER_01
But I think sometimes in science, there are friends of mine who are like this.
3
SPEAKER_01
you know, there are some of the scientists like to work by themselves and kind of communicate only when they completed their work or discover something.
3
SPEAKER_01
I think I always found the actual process of
3
SPEAKER_01
discovering something is more fun if it s together with other intelligent and curious and fun people.
3
SPEAKER_00
So if you see the fun in that process, the side effect of that process will be that you ll actually end up discovering some interesting things.
3
SPEAKER_00
So as you ve led