Ken Stanley: Discovery Without Objectives
fzambetta751 HN recommender · recommended in 1 month, 2016-2018
6K views · 14 years ago · talk · evergreen
A 92-minute RMIT University seminar in which Ken Stanley argues that setting an objective can block achieving it. He presents objective-less, novelty-driven search as an alternative approach to innovation and discovery, drawing on evolutionary computation.
Cited as a source for the idea that open-ended search can beat objective-driven optimization, though one commenter found parts of it fluffy.
2:46:27Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned — Kenneth Stanley
Machine Learning Street Talk
154K views • 5 years ago
1:01:45Information, Evolution, and intelligent Design - With Daniel Dennett
The Royal Institution
586K views • 11 years ago
23:20Ali Rahimi's talk at NIPS(NIPS 2017 Test-of-time award presentation)
ObservantVids
78K views • 8 years ago
1:06:40Polyworld: Using Evolution to Design Artificial Intelligence
Google TechTalks
220K views • 18 years ago
49:35How did consciousness evolve? - with Nicholas Humphrey
The Royal Institution
333K views • 3 years ago
6:02OpenAI Plays Hide and Seek…and Breaks The Game! 🤖
Two Minute Papers
11M views • 7 years ago
1:16:22If Brains are Computers, Who Designs the Software? - with Daniel Dennett
The Royal Institution
873K views • 9 years ago
22:51NIPS 2017 Test of Time Award "Machine learning has become alchemy.” | Ali Rahimi, Google
Preserve Knowledge
26K views • 8 years ago
4:09Evolved Virtual Creatures (1994)
karlsims
43K views • 6 years ago
5:58MarI/O - Machine Learning for Video Games
SethBling
11.5M views • 11 years ago
59:52The Secret of Our Success | Joseph Henrich | Talks at Google
Talks at Google
40K views • 10 years ago
59:23Why Can't AI Make Its Own Discoveries? — With Yann LeCun
Alex Kantrowitz
222K views • 1 year ago
1:02:06Building Brains to Understand the World's Data
Google TechTalks
84K views • 13 years ago
1:18:06Michael Levin: Anatomical decision-making by cellular collectives
Thomas Ouldridge
32K views • 5 years ago
1:36:572. Behavioral Evolution
Stanford
7.8M views • 15 years ago
13:23Simulating Green Beard Altruism
Primer
4.5M views • 5 years ago
1:00:52Joscha: From Computation to Consciousness (31c3)
Joscha Bach
28K views • 11 years ago
1:21:28Lecture 01 - The Learning Problem
caltech
1.5M views • 14 years ago
3:05:25Travis Oliphant: NumPy, SciPy, Anaconda, Python & Scientific Programming | Lex Fridman Podcast #224
Lex Fridman
812K views • 5 years ago
4:10Karl Sims - Evolved Virtual Creatures, Evolution Simulation, 1994
MediaArtTube
797K views • 17 years ago
3 comments from Hacker News
I don't think this algorithm is very common. In particular, the colour palette can usually be chosen last , and a lot of generative art (at least all that shown in the article) will not need multiple resolution passes. I think a more common discovery/refinement process is to go from more random to less random, or random in particular kinds of ways. For example, you can specify the values or distributions (or at least ranges of values) for particular parameters based on things you think will look good or which should end up similar in ways you like to things you've found already. Generative art is a search in an extremely high dimensional space. The more you go into it aiming for something in particular, the more nailed down it is and the closer to traditional art (and the harder to pull off well IMHO, think how much difference slightly changing the position of one of the elements in these images would make, versus slightly changing the position of someone's eye). If you go looking for "new and interesting" or "looks good" without really aiming for anything in particular, it can be a lot easier to find good things. I've seen a couple of really interesting talks recently about the surprising successfulness of objective-less search by Ken Stanley: link (40 min.) ▶ this video (90 min.) He started off looking at human-directed machine-evolved generative art, and ended up with a far more general discovery.
Fascinating. Instead of banning money or fixing prices (did they try that in Russia?) we retain free markets but now with a new layer of government intervention. Not intervention by social spending or regulation but by buying and selling according to the dictats of an AI. And the utility function of this AI is set according to what exactly? My guess is it would have to be according to our values, not to specific goals: ▶ this video
Interesting talk. I really couldn't tell how much of it really meant something and how much of it was fluff like "power poses". In any case he's been giving similar talks for a while. ▶ this video