The following is a conversation with Jürgen Schmidhuber.

He's the co director of the CS Swiss AI Lab

and a co creator of long short term memory networks.

LSDMs are used in billions of devices today

for speech recognition, translation, and much more.

Over 30 years, he has proposed a lot of interesting

out of the box ideas on meta learning, adversarial networks,

computer vision, and even a formal theory of quote,

creativity, curiosity, and fun.

This conversation is part of the MIT course

on artificial general intelligence

and the artificial intelligence podcast.

If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube, iTunes,

or simply connect with me on Twitter

at Lex Friedman spelled F R I D.

And now here's my conversation with Jürgen Schmidhuber.

Early on you dreamed of AI systems

that self improve recursively.

When was that dream born?

When I was a baby.

No, that's not true.

When I was a teenager.

And what was the catalyst for that birth?

What was the thing that first inspired you?

When I was a boy, I was thinking about what to do in my life

and then I thought the most exciting thing

is to solve the riddles of the universe.

And that means you have to become a physicist.

However, then I realized that there's something even grander.

You can try to build a machine

that isn't really a machine any longer

that learns to become a much better physicist

than I could ever hope to be.

And that's how I thought maybe I can multiply

my tiny little bit of creativity into infinity.

But ultimately that creativity will be multiplied

to understand the universe around us.

That's the curiosity for that mystery that drove you.

Yes, so if you can build a machine

that learns to solve more and more complex problems

and more and more general problem solver

then you basically have solved all the problems,

at least all the solvable problems.

So how do you think, what is the mechanism

for that kind of general solver look like?

Obviously we don't quite yet have one

or know how to build one but we have ideas

and you have had throughout your career

several ideas about it.

So how do you think about that mechanism?

So in the 80s, I thought about how to build this machine

that learns to solve all these problems

that I cannot solve myself.

And I thought it is clear it has to be a machine

that not only learns to solve this problem here

and this problem here but it also has to learn

to improve the learning algorithm itself.

So it has to have the learning algorithm

in a representation that allows it to inspect it

and modify it such that it can come up

with a better learning algorithm.

So I call that meta learning, learning to learn

and recursive self improvement

that is really the pinnacle of that

where you then not only learn how to improve

on that problem and on that

but you also improve the way the machine improves

and you also improve the way it improves

the way it improves itself.

And that was my 1987 diploma thesis

which was all about that higher education

hierarchy of meta learners that have no computational limits

except for the well known limits that Gödel identified

in 1931 and for the limits of physics.

In the recent years, meta learning has gained popularity

in a specific kind of form.

You've talked about how that's not really meta learning

with neural networks, that's more basic transfer learning.

Can you talk about the difference

between the big general meta learning

and a more narrow sense of meta learning

the way it's used today, the way it's talked about today?

Let's take the example of a deep neural network

that has learned to classify images

and maybe you have trained that network

on 100 different databases of images.

And now a new database comes along

and you want to quickly learn the new thing as well.

So one simple way of doing that is you take the network

which already knows 100 types of databases

and then you just take the top layer of that

and you retrain that using the new label data

that you have in the new image database.

And then it turns out that it really, really quickly

can learn that too, one shot basically

because from the first 100 data sets,

it already has learned so much about computer vision

that it can reuse that and that is then almost good enough

to solve the new task except you need a little bit

of adjustment on the top.

So that is transfer learning.

And it has been done in principle for many decades.

People have done similar things for decades.

Meta learning too, meta learning is about

having the learning algorithm itself

open to introspection by the system that is using it

and also open to modification such that the learning system

has an opportunity to modify

any part of the learning algorithm

and then evaluate the consequences of that modification

and then learn from that to create

a better learning algorithm and so on recursively.

So that's a very different animal

where you are opening the space of possible learning

algorithms to the learning system itself.

Right, so you've, like in the 2004 paper, you described

gator machines, programs that rewrite themselves, right?

Philosophically and even in your paper, mathematically,

these are really compelling ideas but practically,

do you see these self referential programs

being successful in the near term to having an impact

where sort of it demonstrates to the world

that this direction is a good one to pursue

in the near term?

Yes, we had these two different types

of fundamental research,

how to build a universal problem solver,

one basically exploiting proof search

and things like that that you need to come up with

asymptotically optimal, theoretically optimal

self improvers and problem solvers.

However, one has to admit that through this proof search

comes in an additive constant, an overhead,

an additive overhead that vanishes in comparison

to what you have to do to solve large problems.

However, for many of the small problems

that we want to solve in our everyday life,

we cannot ignore this constant overhead

and that's why we also have been doing other things,

non universal things such as recurrent neural networks

which are trained by gradient descent

and local search techniques which aren't universal at all,

which aren't provably optimal at all,

like the other stuff that we did,

but which are much more practical

as long as we only want to solve the small problems

that we are typically trying to solve

in this environment here.

So the universal problem solvers like the Gödel machine,

but also Markus Hutter's fastest way

of solving all possible problems,

which he developed around 2002 in my lab,

they are associated with these constant overheads

for proof search, which guarantees that the thing

that you're doing is optimal.

For example, there is this fastest way

of solving all problems with a computable solution,

which is due to Markus, Markus Hutter,

and to explain what's going on there,

let's take traveling salesman problems.

With traveling salesman problems,

you have a number of cities and cities

and you try to find the shortest path

through all these cities without visiting any city twice.

And nobody knows the fastest way

of solving traveling salesman problems, TSPs,

but let's assume there is a method of solving them

within N to the five operations

where N is the number of cities.

Then the universal method of Markus

is going to solve the same traveling salesman problem

also within N to the five steps,

plus O of one, plus a constant number of steps

that you need for the proof searcher,

which you need to show that this particular class

of problems, the traveling salesman problems,

can be solved within a certain time frame,

solved within a certain time bound,

within order N to the five steps, basically,

and this additive constant doesn't care for N,

which means as N is getting larger and larger,

as you have more and more cities,

the constant overhead pales in comparison,

and that means that almost all large problems are solved

in the best possible way.

Today, we already have a universal problem solver like that.

However, it's not practical because the overhead,

the constant overhead is so large

that for the small kinds of problems

that we want to solve in this little biosphere.

By the way, when you say small,

you're talking about things that fall

within the constraints of our computational systems.

So they can seem quite large to us mere humans, right?

That's right, yeah.

So they seem large and even unsolvable

in a practical sense today,

but they are still small compared to almost all problems

because almost all problems are large problems,

which are much larger than any constant.

Do you find it useful as a person

who has dreamed of creating a general learning system,

has worked on creating one,

has done a lot of interesting ideas there,

to think about P versus NP,

this formalization of how hard problems are,

how they scale,

this kind of worst case analysis type of thinking,

do you find that useful?

Or is it only just a mathematical,

it's a set of mathematical techniques

to give you intuition about what's good and bad.

So P versus NP, that's super interesting

from a theoretical point of view.

And in fact, as you are thinking about that problem,

you can also get inspiration

for better practical problem solvers.

On the other hand, we have to admit

that at the moment, the best practical problem solvers

for all kinds of problems that we are now solving

through what is called AI at the moment,

they are not of the kind

that is inspired by these questions.

There we are using general purpose computers

such as recurrent neural networks,

but we have a search technique

which is just local search gradient descent

to try to find a program

that is running on these recurrent networks,

such that it can solve some interesting problems

such as speech recognition or machine translation

and something like that.

And there is very little theory behind the best solutions

that we have at the moment that can do that.

Do you think that needs to change?

Do you think that will change?

Or can we go, can we create a general intelligent systems

without ever really proving that that system is intelligent

in some kind of mathematical way,

solving machine translation perfectly

or something like that,

within some kind of syntactic definition of a language,

or can we just be super impressed

by the thing working extremely well and that's sufficient?

There's an old saying,

and I don't know who brought it up first,

which says, there's nothing more practical

than a good theory.

And a good theory of problem solving

under limited resources,

like here in this universe or on this little planet,

has to take into account these limited resources.

And so probably there is locking a theory,

which is related to what we already have,

these asymptotically optimal problem solvers,

which tells us what we need in addition to that

to come up with a practically optimal problem solver.

So I believe we will have something like that.

And maybe just a few little tiny twists are necessary

to change what we already have,

to come up with that as well.

As long as we don't have that,

we admit that we are taking suboptimal ways

and recurrent neural networks and long short term memory

for equipped with local search techniques.

And we are happy that it works better

than any competing methods,

but that doesn't mean that we think we are done.

You've said that an AGI system

will ultimately be a simple one.

A general intelligence system

will ultimately be a simple one.

Maybe a pseudocode of a few lines

will be able to describe it.

Can you talk through your intuition behind this idea,

why you feel that at its core,

intelligence is a simple algorithm?

Experience tells us that the stuff that works best

is really simple.

So the asymptotically optimal ways of solving problems,

if you look at them,

they're just a few lines of code, it's really true.

Although they are these amazing properties,

just a few lines of code.

Then the most promising and most useful practical things,

maybe don't have this proof of optimality

associated with them.

However, they are also just a few lines of code.

The most successful recurrent neural networks,

you can write them down in five lines of pseudocode.

That's a beautiful, almost poetic idea,

but what you're describing there

is the lines of pseudocode are sitting on top

of layers and layers of abstractions in a sense.

So you're saying at the very top,

it'll be a beautifully written sort of algorithm.

But do you think that there's many layers of abstractions

we have to first learn to construct?

Yeah, of course, we are building on all these

great abstractions that people have invented over the millennia,

such as matrix multiplications and real numbers

and basic arithmetics and calculus

and derivations of error functions

and derivatives of error functions and stuff like that.

So without that language that greatly simplifies

our way of thinking about these problems,

we couldn't do anything.

So in that sense, as always,

we are standing on the shoulders of the giants

who in the past simplified the problem

of problem solving so much

that now we have a chance to do the final step.

So the final step will be a simple one.

If we take a step back through all of human civilization

and just the universe in general,

how do you think about evolution

and what if creating a universe

is required to achieve this final step?

What if going through the very painful

and inefficient process of evolution is needed

to come up with this set of abstractions

that ultimately lead to intelligence?

Do you think there's a shortcut

or do you think we have to create something like our universe

in order to create something like human level intelligence?

So far, the only example we have is this one,

this universe in which we are living.

Do you think we can do better?

Maybe not, but we are part of this whole process.

So apparently, so it might be the case

that the code that runs the universe

is really, really simple.

Everything points to that possibility

because gravity and other basic forces

are really simple laws that can be easily described

also in just a few lines of code basically.

And then there are these other events

that the apparently random events

in the history of the universe,

which as far as we know at the moment

don't have a compact code, but who knows?

Maybe somebody in the near future

is going to figure out the pseudo random generator

which is computing whether the measurement

of that spin up or down thing here

is going to be positive or negative.

Underlying quantum mechanics.

Yes.

Do you ultimately think quantum mechanics

is a pseudo random number generator?

So it's all deterministic.

There's no randomness in our universe.

Does God play dice?

So a couple of years ago, a famous physicist,

quantum physicist, Anton Zeilinger,

he wrote an essay in nature

and it started more or less like that.

One of the fundamental insights of the 20th century

was that the universe is fundamentally random

on the quantum level.

And that whenever you measure spin up or down

or something like that,

a new bit of information enters the history of the universe.

And while I was reading that,

I was already typing the response

and they had to publish it.

Because I was right, that there is no evidence,

no physical evidence for that.

So there's an alternative explanation

where everything that we consider random

is actually pseudo random,

such as the decimal expansion of pi,

3.141 and so on, which looks random, but isn't.

So pi is interesting because every three digits

sequence, every sequence of three digits

appears roughly one in a thousand times.

And every five digit sequence

appears roughly one in 10,000 times,

what you would expect if it was random.

But there's a very short algorithm,

a short program that computes all of that.

So it's extremely compressible.

And who knows, maybe tomorrow,

somebody, some grad student at CERN goes back

over all these data points, better decay and whatever,

and figures out, oh, it's the second billion digits of pi

or something like that.

We don't have any fundamental reason at the moment

to believe that this is truly random

and not just a deterministic video game.

If it was a deterministic video game,

it would be much more beautiful.

Because beauty is simplicity.

And many of the basic laws of the universe,

like gravity and the other basic forces are very simple.

So very short programs can explain what these are doing.

And it would be awful and ugly.

The universe would be ugly.

The history of the universe would be ugly

if for the extra things, the random,

the seemingly random data points that we get all the time,

that we really need a huge number of extra bits

to describe all these extra bits of information.

So as long as we don't have evidence

that there is no short program

that computes the entire history of the entire universe,

we are, as scientists, compelled to look further

for that shortest program.

Your intuition says there exists a program

that can backtrack to the creation of the universe.

Yeah.

So it can give the shortest path

to the creation of the universe.

Yes.

Including all the entanglement things

and all the spin up and down measures

that have been taken place since 13.8 billion years ago.

So we don't have a proof that it is random.

We don't have a proof that it is compressible

to a short program.

But as long as we don't have that proof,

we are obliged as scientists to keep looking

for that simple explanation.

Absolutely.

So you said the simplicity is beautiful or beauty is simple.

Either one works.

But you also work on curiosity, discovery,

the romantic notion of randomness, of serendipity,

of being surprised by things that are about you.

In our poetic notion of reality,

we think it's kind of like,

poetic notion of reality, we think as humans

require randomness.

So you don't find randomness beautiful.

You find simple determinism beautiful.

Yeah.

Okay.

So why?

Why?

Because the explanation becomes shorter.

A universe that is compressible to a short program

is much more elegant and much more beautiful

than another one, which needs an almost infinite

number of bits to be described.

As far as we know, many things that are happening

in this universe are really simple in terms of

short programs that compute gravity

and the interaction between elementary particles and so on.

So all of that seems to be very, very simple.

Every electron seems to reuse the same subprogram

all the time, as it is interacting with

other elementary particles.

If we now require an extra oracle injecting

new bits of information all the time for these

extra things which are currently not understood,

such as better decay, then the whole description

length of the data that we can observe of the

history of the universe would become much longer

and therefore uglier.

And uglier.

Again, simplicity is elegant and beautiful.

The history of science is a history of compression progress.

Yes, so you've described sort of as we build up

abstractions and you've talked about the idea

of compression.

How do you see this, the history of science,

the history of humanity, our civilization,

and life on Earth as some kind of path towards

greater and greater compression?

What do you mean by that?

How do you think about that?

Indeed, the history of science is a history of

compression progress.

What does that mean?

Hundreds of years ago there was an astronomer

whose name was Kepler and he looked at the data

points that he got by watching planets move.

And then he had all these data points and

suddenly it turned out that he can greatly

compress the data by predicting it through an

ellipse law.

So it turns out that all these data points are

more or less on ellipses around the sun.

And another guy came along whose name was

Newton and before him Hooke.

And they said the same thing that is making

these planets move like that is what makes the

apples fall down.

And it also holds for stones and for all kinds

of other objects.

And suddenly many, many of these observations

became much more compressible because as long

as you can predict the next thing, given what

you have seen so far, you can compress it.

And you don't have to store that data extra.

This is called predictive coding.

And then there was still something wrong with

that theory of the universe and you had

deviations from these predictions of the theory.

And 300 years later another guy came along

whose name was Einstein.

And he was able to explain away all these

deviations from the predictions of the old

theory through a new theory which was called

the general theory of relativity.

Which at first glance looks a little bit more

complicated and you have to warp space and time

but you can't phrase it within one single

sentence which is no matter how fast you

accelerate and how hard you decelerate and no

matter what is the gravity in your local

network, light speed always looks the same.

And from that you can calculate all the

consequences.

So it's a very simple thing and it allows you

to further compress all the observations

because certainly there are hardly any

deviations any longer that you can measure

from the predictions of this new theory.

So all of science is a history of compression

progress.

You never arrive immediately at the shortest

explanation of the data but you're making

progress.

Whenever you are making progress you have an

insight.

You see oh first I needed so many bits of

information to describe the data, to describe

my falling apples, my video of falling apples,

I need so many data, so many pixels have to be

stored.

But then suddenly I realize no there is a very

simple way of predicting the third frame in the

video from the first two.

And maybe not every little detail can be

predicted but more or less most of these orange

blobs that are coming down they accelerate in

the same way which means that I can greatly

compress the video.

And the amount of compression, progress, that

is the depth of the insight that you have at

that moment.

That's the fun that you have, the scientific

fun, the fun in that discovery.

And we can build artificial systems that do

the same thing.

They measure the depth of their insights as they

are looking at the data which is coming in

through their own experiments and we give

them a reward, an intrinsic reward in proportion

to this depth of insight.

And since they are trying to maximize the

rewards they get they are suddenly motivated to

come up with new action sequences, with new

experiments that have the property that the data

that is coming in as a consequence of these

experiments has the property that they can learn

something about, see a pattern in there which

they hadn't seen yet before.

So there is an idea of power play that you

described, a training in general problem solver

in this kind of way of looking for the unsolved

problems.

Yeah.

Can you describe that idea a little further?

It's another very simple idea.

So normally what you do in computer science,

you have some guy who gives you a problem and

then there is a huge search space of potential

solution candidates and you somehow try them

out and you have more less sophisticated ways

of moving around in that search space until

you finally found a solution which you

consider satisfactory.

That's what most of computer science is about.

Power play just goes one little step further

and says let's not only search for solutions

to a given problem but let's search to pairs of

problems and their solutions where the system

itself has the opportunity to phrase its own

problem.

So we are looking suddenly at pairs of

problems and their solutions or modifications

of the problem solver that is supposed to

generate a solution to that new problem.

And this additional degree of freedom allows

us to build career systems that are like

scientists in the sense that they not only

try to solve and try to find answers to

existing questions, no they are also free to

pose their own questions.

So if you want to build an artificial scientist

you have to give it that freedom and power

play is exactly doing that.

So that's a dimension of freedom that's

important to have but how hard do you think

that, how multidimensional and difficult the

space of then coming up with your own questions

is.

So it's one of the things that as human beings

we consider to be the thing that makes us

special, the intelligence that makes us special

is that brilliant insight that can create

something totally new.

Yes.

So now let's look at the extreme case, let's

look at the set of all possible problems that

you can formally describe which is infinite,

which should be the next problem that a scientist

or power play is going to solve.

Well, it should be the easiest problem that

goes beyond what you already know.

So it should be the simplest problem that the

current problem solver that you have which can

already solve 100 problems that he cannot solve

yet by just generalizing.

So it has to be new, so it has to require a

modification of the problem solver such that the

new problem solver can solve this new thing but

the old problem solver cannot do it and in

addition to that we have to make sure that the

problem solver doesn't forget any of the

previous solutions.

Right.

And so by definition power play is now trying

always to search in this pair of, in the set of

pairs of problems and problems over modifications

for a combination that minimize the time to

achieve these criteria.

So it's always trying to find the problem which

is easiest to add to the repertoire.

So just like grad students and academics and

researchers can spend their whole career in a

local minima stuck trying to come up with

interesting questions but ultimately doing very

little.

Do you think it's easy in this approach of

looking for the simplest unsolvable problem to

get stuck in a local minima?

Is not never really discovering new, you know

really jumping outside of the 100 problems that

you've already solved in a genuine creative way?

No, because that's the nature of power play that

it's always trying to break its current

generalization abilities by coming up with a new

problem which is beyond the current horizon.

Just shifting the horizon of knowledge a little

bit out there, breaking the existing rules such

that the new thing becomes solvable but wasn't

solvable by the old thing.

So like adding a new axiom like what Gödel did

when he came up with these new sentences, new

theorems that didn't have a proof in the formal

system which means you can add them to the

repertoire hoping that they are not going to

damage the consistency of the whole thing.

So in the paper with the amazing title,

Formal Theory of Creativity, Fun and Intrinsic

Motivation, you talk about discovery as intrinsic

reward, so if you view humans as intelligent

agents, what do you think is the purpose and

meaning of life for us humans?

You've talked about this discovery, do you see

humans as an instance of power play, agents?

Humans are curious and that means they behave

like scientists, not only the official scientists

but even the babies behave like scientists and

they play around with their toys to figure out

how the world works and how it is responding to

their actions and that's how they learn about

gravity and everything.

In 1990 we had the first systems like that which

would just try to play around with the environment

and come up with situations that go beyond what

they knew at that time and then get a reward for

creating these situations and then becoming more

general problem solvers and being able to understand

more of the world.

I think in principle that curiosity strategy or

more sophisticated versions of what I just

described, they are what we have built in as well

because evolution discovered that's a good way of

exploring the unknown world and a guy who explores

the unknown world has a higher chance of solving

the mystery that he needs to survive in this world.

On the other hand, those guys who were too curious

they were weeded out as well so you have to find

this trade off.

Evolution found a certain trade off.

Apparently in our society there is a certain

percentage of extremely explorative guys and it

doesn't matter if they die because many of the

others are more conservative.

It would be surprising to me if that principle of

artificial curiosity wouldn't be present in almost

exactly the same form here.

In our brains.

You are a bit of a musician and an artist.

Continuing on this topic of creativity, what do you

think is the role of creativity and intelligence?

So you've kind of implied that it's essential for

intelligence if you think of intelligence as a

problem solving system, as ability to solve problems.

But do you think it's essential, this idea of

creativity?

We never have a program, a sub program that is

called creativity or something.

It's just a side effect of what our problem solvers

do. They are searching a space of problems, a space

of candidates, of solution candidates until they

hopefully find a solution to a given problem.

But then there are these two types of creativity

and both of them are now present in our machines.

The first one has been around for a long time,

which is human gives problem to machine, machine

tries to find a solution to that.

And this has been happening for many decades and

for many decades machines have found creative

solutions to interesting problems where humans were

not aware of these particularly creative solutions

but then appreciated that the machine found that.

The second is the pure creativity.

That I would call, what I just mentioned, I would

call the applied creativity, like applied art where

somebody tells you now make a nice picture of this

Pope and you will get money for that.

So here is the artist and he makes a convincing

picture of the Pope and the Pope likes it and gives

him the money.

And then there is the pure creativity which is

more like the power play and the artificial

curiosity thing where you have the freedom to

select your own problem.

Like a scientist who defines his own question

to study and so that is the pure creativity if you

will as opposed to the applied creativity which

serves another.

And in that distinction there is almost echoes of

narrow AI versus general AI.

So this kind of constrained painting of a Pope

seems like the approaches of what people are

calling narrow AI and pure creativity seems to be,

maybe I am just biased as a human but it seems to

be an essential element of human level intelligence.

Is that what you are implying?

To a degree?

If you zoom back a little bit and you just look

at a general problem solving machine which is

trying to solve arbitrary problems then this

machine will figure out in the course of solving

problems that it is good to be curious.

So all of what I said just now about this prewired

curiosity and this will to invent new problems

that the system doesn't know how to solve yet

should be just a byproduct of the general search.

However, apparently evolution has built it into

us because it turned out to be so successful,

a prewiring, a bias, a very successful exploratory

bias that we are born with.

And you have also said that consciousness in the

same kind of way may be a byproduct of problem solving.

Do you find this an interesting byproduct?

Do you think it is a useful byproduct?

What are your thoughts on consciousness in general?

Or is it simply a byproduct of greater and greater

capabilities of problem solving that is similar

to creativity in that sense?

We never have a procedure called consciousness

in our machines.

However, we get as side effects of what these

machines are doing things that seem to be closely

related to what people call consciousness.

So for example, already in 1990 we had simple

systems which were basically recurrent networks

and therefore universal computers trying to map

incoming data into actions that lead to success.

Maximizing reward in a given environment,

always finding the charging station in time

whenever the battery is low and negative signals

are coming from the battery, always find the

charging station in time without bumping against

painful obstacles on the way.

So complicated things but very easily motivated.

And then we give these little guys a separate

recurrent neural network which is just predicting

what's happening if I do that and that.

What will happen as a consequence of these

actions that I'm executing.

And it's just trained on the long and long history

of interactions with the world.

So it becomes a predictive model of the world

basically.

And therefore also a compressor of the observations

of the world because whatever you can predict

you don't have to store extra.

So compression is a side effect of prediction.

And how does this recurrent network compress?

Well, it's inventing little subprograms, little

subnetworks that stand for everything that

frequently appears in the environment like

bottles and microphones and faces, maybe lots of

faces in my environment so I'm learning to create

something like a prototype face and a new face

comes along and all I have to encode are the

deviations from the prototype.

So it's compressing all the time the stuff that

frequently appears.

There's one thing that appears all the time that

is present all the time when the agent is

interacting with its environment which is the

agent itself.

But just for data compression reasons it is

extremely natural for this recurrent network to

come up with little subnetworks that stand for

the properties of the agents, the hand, the other

actuators and all the stuff that you need to

better encode the data which is influenced by

the actions of the agent.

So there just as a side effect of data compression

during problem solving you have internal self

models.

Now you can use this model of the world to plan

your future and that's what we also have done

since 1990.

So the recurrent network which is the controller

which is trying to maximize reward can use this

model of the network of the world, this model

network of the world, this predictive model of

the world to plan ahead and say let's not do this

action sequence, let's do this action sequence

instead because it leads to more predicted

reward.

And whenever it is waking up these little

subnetworks that stand for itself then it is

thinking about itself and it is thinking about

itself and it is exploring mentally the

consequences of its own actions and now you tell

me what is still missing.

Missing the next, the gap to consciousness.

There isn't.

That's a really beautiful idea that if life is

a collection of data and life is a process of

compressing that data to act efficiently in that

data you yourself appear very often.

So it's useful to form compressions of yourself

and it's a really beautiful formulation of what

consciousness is a necessary side effect.

It's actually quite compelling to me.

You've described RNNs, developed LSTMs, long

short term memory networks that are a type of

recurrent neural networks that have gotten a lot

of success recently.

So these are networks that model the temporal

aspects in the data, temporal patterns in the

data and you've called them the deepest of the

neural networks.

So what do you think is the value of depth in

the models that we use to learn?

Since you mentioned the long short term memory

and the LSTM I have to mention the names of the

brilliant students who made that possible.

First of all my first student ever Sepp Hochreiter

who had fundamental insights already in his

diploma thesis.

Then Felix Geers who had additional important

contributions.

Alex Gray is a guy from Scotland who is mostly

responsible for this CTC algorithm which is now

often used to train the LSTM to do the speech

recognition on all the Google Android phones and

whatever and Siri and so on.

So these guys without these guys I would be

nothing.

It's a lot of incredible work.

What is now the depth?

What is the importance of depth?

Well most problems in the real world are deep in

the sense that the current input doesn't tell you

all you need to know about the environment.

So instead you have to have a memory of what

happened in the past and often important parts of

that memory are dated.

They are pretty old.

So when you're doing speech recognition for

example and somebody says 11 then that's about

half a second or something like that which means

it's already 50 time steps.

And another guy or the same guy says 7.

So the ending is the same even but now the

system has to see the distinction between 7 and

11 and the only way it can see the difference is

it has to store that 50 steps ago there was an

S or an L, 11 or 7.

So there you have already a problem of depth 50

because for each time step you have something

like a virtual layer in the expanded unrolled

version of this recurrent network which is doing

the speech recognition.

So these long time lags they translate into

problem depth.

And most problems in this world are such that

you really have to look far back in time to

understand what is the problem and to solve it.

But just like with LSTMs you don't necessarily

need to when you look back in time remember every

aspect you just need to remember the important

aspects.

That's right.

The network has to learn to put the important

stuff into memory and to ignore the unimportant

noise.

But in that sense deeper and deeper is better

or is there a limitation?

I mean LSTM is one of the great examples of

architectures that do something beyond just

deeper and deeper networks.

There's clever mechanisms for filtering data,

for remembering and forgetting.

So do you think that kind of thinking is

necessary?

If you think about LSTMs as a leap, a big leap

forward over traditional vanilla RNNs, what do

you think is the next leap within this context?

So LSTM is a very clever improvement but LSTM

still don't have the same kind of ability to see

far back in the past as us humans do.

The credit assignment problem across way back

not just 50 time steps or 100 or 1000 but

millions and billions.

It's not clear what are the practical limits of

the LSTM when it comes to looking back.

Already in 2006 I think we had examples where

it not only looked back tens of thousands of

steps but really millions of steps.

And Juan Perez Ortiz in my lab I think was the

first author of a paper where we really, was it

2006 or something, had examples where it learned

to look back for more than 10 million steps.

So for most problems of speech recognition it's

not necessary to look that far back but there

are examples where it does.

Now the looking back thing, that's rather easy

because there is only one past but there are

many possible futures and so a reinforcement

learning system which is trying to maximize its

future expected reward and doesn't know yet which

of these many possible futures should I select

given this one single past is facing problems

that the LSTM by itself cannot solve.

So the LSTM is good for coming up with a compact

representation of the history and observations

and actions so far but now how do you plan in an

efficient and good way among all these, how do

you select one of these many possible action

sequences that a reinforcement learning system

has to consider to maximize reward in this

unknown future?

We have this basic setup where you have one

recurrent network which gets in the video and

the speech and whatever and it's executing

actions and it's trying to maximize reward so

there is no teacher who tells it what to do at

which point in time.

And then there's the other network which is

just predicting what's going to happen if I do

that and that and that could be an LSTM network

and it learns to look back all the way to make

better predictions of the next time step.

So essentially although it's predicting only the

next time step it is motivated to learn to put

into memory something that happened maybe a

million steps ago because it's important to

memorize that if you want to predict that at the

next time step, the next event.

Now how can a model of the world like that, a

predictive model of the world be used by the

first guy?

Let's call it the controller and the model, the

controller and the model.

How can the model be used by the controller to

efficiently select among these many possible

futures?

The naive way we had about 30 years ago was

let's just use the model of the world as a stand

in, as a simulation of the world and millisecond

by millisecond we plan the future and that means

we have to roll it out really in detail and it

will work only if the model is really good and

it will still be inefficient because we have to

look at all these possible futures and there are

so many of them.

So instead what we do now since 2015 in our CM

systems, controller model systems, we give the

controller the opportunity to learn by itself how

to use the potentially relevant parts of the M,

of the model network to solve new problems more

quickly.

And if it wants to, it can learn to ignore the M

and sometimes it's a good idea to ignore the M

because it's really bad, it's a bad predictor in

this particular situation of life where the

controller is currently trying to maximize reward.

However, it can also learn to address and exploit

some of the subprograms that came about in the

model network through compressing the data by

predicting it.

So it now has an opportunity to reuse that code,

the algorithmic information in the model network

to reduce its own search space such that it can

solve a new problem more quickly than without the

model.

Compression.

So you're ultimately optimistic and excited about

the power of RL, of reinforcement learning in the

context of real systems.

Absolutely, yeah.

So you see RL as a potential having a huge impact

beyond just sort of the M part is often developed on

supervised learning methods.

You see RL as a for problems of self driving cars

or any kind of applied cyber robotics.

That's the correct interesting direction for

research in your view?

I do think so.

We have a company called Nasence which has applied

reinforcement learning to little Audis which learn

to park without a teacher.

The same principles were used of course.

So these little Audis, they are small, maybe like

that, so much smaller than the real Audis.

But they have all the sensors that you find in the

real Audis.

You find the cameras, the LIDAR sensors.

They go up to 120 kilometers an hour if they want

to.

And they have pain sensors basically and they don't

want to bump against obstacles and other Audis and

so they must learn like little babies to park.

Take the raw vision input and translate that into

actions that lead to successful parking behavior

which is a rewarding thing.

And yes, they learn that.

So we have examples like that and it's only in the

beginning.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I believe the

next wave of AI is going to be all about that.

So at the moment, the current wave of AI is about

passive pattern observation and prediction and that's

what you have on your smartphone and what the major

companies on the Pacific Rim are using to sell you

ads to do marketing.

That's the current sort of profit in AI and that's

only one or two percent of the world economy.

Which is big enough to make these companies pretty

much the most valuable companies in the world.

But there's a much, much bigger fraction of the

economy going to be affected by the next wave which

is really about machines that shape the data through

their own actions.

Do you think simulation is ultimately the biggest

way that those methods will be successful in the next

10, 20 years?

We're not talking about 100 years from now.

We're talking about sort of the near term impact of

RL.

Do you think really good simulation is required or

is there other techniques like imitation learning,

observing other humans operating in the real world?

Where do you think the success will come from?

So at the moment, we have a tendency of using physics

simulations to learn behavior from machines that

learn to solve problems that humans also do not know

how to solve.

However, this is not the future because the future is

in what little babies do.

They don't use a physics engine to simulate the

world.

No, they learn a predictive model of the world which

maybe sometimes is wrong in many ways but captures

all kinds of important abstract high level predictions

which are really important to be successful.

And that's what was the future 30 years ago when we

started that type of research but it's still the future

and now we know much better how to go there to move

forward and to really make working systems based on

that where you have a learning model of the world,

a model of the world that learns to predict what's

going to happen if I do that and that.

And then the controller uses that model to more

quickly learn successful action sequences.

And then of course always this curiosity thing.

In the beginning, the model is stupid so the

controller should be motivated to come up with

experiments with action sequences that lead to data

that improve the model.

Do you think improving the model, constructing an

understanding of the world in this connection is

now the popular approaches that have been successful

are grounded in ideas of neural networks.

But in the 80s with expert systems, there's

symbolic AI approaches which to us humans are more

intuitive in the sense that it makes sense that you

build up knowledge in this knowledge representation.

What kind of lessons can we draw into our current

approaches from expert systems from symbolic AI?

So I became aware of all of that in the 80s and

back then logic programming was a huge thing.

Was it inspiring to you yourself?

Did you find it compelling?

Because a lot of your work was not so much in that

realm, right?

It was more in the learning systems.

Yes and no, but we did all of that.

So my first publication ever actually was 1987,

was the implementation of genetic algorithm of a

genetic programming system in Prolog.

So Prolog, that's what you learn back then which is

a logic programming language and the Japanese,

they have this huge fifth generation AI project

which was mostly about logic programming back then.

Although neural networks existed and were well

known back then and deep learning has existed since

1965, since this guy in the Ukraine,

Iwakunenko, started it.

But the Japanese and many other people,

they focused really on this logic programming and I

was influenced to the extent that I said,

okay, let's take these biologically inspired

algorithms like evolution, programs,

and implement that in the language which I know,

which was Prolog, for example, back then.

And then in many ways this came back later because

the Gödel machine, for example,

has a proof searcher on board and without that it

would not be optimal.

Well, Markus Futter's universal algorithm for

solving all well defined problems has a proof

searcher on board so that's very much logic programming.

Without that it would not be asymptotically optimal.

But then on the other hand,

because we are very pragmatic guys also,

we focused on recurrent neural networks and

suboptimal stuff such as gradient based search and

program space rather than provably optimal things.

The logic programming certainly has a usefulness

when you're trying to construct something provably

optimal or provably good or something like that.

But is it useful for practical problems?

It's really useful for our theorem proving.

The best theorem provers today are not neural networks.

No, they are logic programming systems and they

are much better theorem provers than most math

students in the first or second semester.

But for reasoning, for playing games of Go or chess

or for robots, autonomous vehicles that operate in

the real world or object manipulation,

you think learning.

Yeah, as long as the problems have little to do

with theorem proving themselves,

then as long as that is not the case,

you just want to have better pattern recognition.

So to build a self driving car,

you want to have better pattern recognition and

pedestrian recognition and all these things.

You want to minimize the number of false positives,

which is currently slowing down self driving cars

in many ways.

All of that has very little to do with logic programming.

What are you most excited about in terms of

directions of artificial intelligence at this moment

in the next few years in your own research

and in the broader community?

So I think in the not so distant future,

we will have for the first time little robots

that learn like kids.

I will be able to say to the robot,

look here robot, we are going to assemble a smartphone.

Let's take this slab of plastic and the screwdriver

and let's screw in the screw like that.

Not like that, like that.

Not like that, like that.

And I don't have a data glove or something.

He will see me and he will hear me

and he will try to do something with his own actuators,

which will be really different from mine,

but he will understand the difference

and will learn to imitate me,

but not in the supervised way

where a teacher is giving target signals

for all his muscles all the time.

No, by doing this high level imitation

where he first has to learn to imitate me

and then to interpret these additional noises

coming from my mouth as helping,

helpful signals to do that better.

And then it will by itself come up with faster ways

and more efficient ways of doing the same thing.

And finally I stop his learning algorithm

and make a million copies and sell it.

And so at the moment this is not possible,

but we already see how we are going to get there.

And you can imagine to the extent

that this works economically and cheaply,

it's going to change everything.

Almost all of production is going to be affected by that.

And a much bigger wave,

a much bigger AI wave is coming

than the one that we are currently witnessing,

which is mostly about passive pattern recognition

on your smartphone.

This is about active machines that shapes data

through the actions they are executing

and they learn to do that in a good way.

So many of the traditional industries

are going to be affected by that.

All the companies that are building machines

will equip these machines with cameras

and other sensors and they are going to learn

to solve all kinds of problems

through interaction with humans,

but also a lot on their own

to improve what they already can do.

And lots of old economy is going to be affected by that.

And in recent years I have seen that old economy

is actually waking up and realizing that this is the case.

Are you optimistic about that future?

Are you concerned?

There is a lot of people concerned in the near term

about the transformation of the nature of work,

the kind of ideas that you just suggested

would have a significant impact

of what kind of things could be automated.

Are you optimistic about that future?

Are you nervous about that future?

And looking a little bit farther into the future,

there are people like Gila Musk, Stuart Russell,

concerned about the existential threats of that future.

So in the near term, job loss,

in the long term existential threat,

are these concerns to you or are you ultimately optimistic?

So let's first address the near future.

We have had predictions of job losses for many decades.

For example, when industrial robots came along,

many people predicted that lots of jobs are going to get lost.

And in a sense, they were right,

because back then there were car factories

and hundreds of people in these factories assembled cars,

and today the same car factories have hundreds of robots

and maybe three guys watching the robots.

On the other hand, those countries that have lots of robots per capita,

Japan, Korea, Germany, Switzerland,

and a couple of other countries,

they have really low unemployment rates.

Somehow, all kinds of new jobs were created.

Back then, nobody anticipated those jobs.

And decades ago, I always said,

it's really easy to say which jobs are going to get lost,

but it's really hard to predict the new ones.

200 years ago, who would have predicted all these people

making money as YouTube bloggers, for example?

200 years ago, 60% of all people used to work in agriculture.

Today, maybe 1%.

But still, only, I don't know, 5% unemployment.

Lots of new jobs were created, and Homo Ludens, the playing man,

is inventing new jobs all the time.

Most of these jobs are not existentially necessary

for the survival of our species.

There are only very few existentially necessary jobs,

such as farming and building houses and warming up the houses,

but less than 10% of the population is doing that.

And most of these newly invented jobs are about

interacting with other people in new ways,

through new media and so on,

getting new types of kudos and forms of likes and whatever,

and even making money through that.

So, Homo Ludens, the playing man, doesn't want to be unemployed,

and that's why he's inventing new jobs all the time.

And he keeps considering these jobs as really important

and is investing a lot of energy and hours of work into those new jobs.

That's quite beautifully put.

We're really nervous about the future because we can't predict

what kind of new jobs will be created.

But you're ultimately optimistic that we humans are so restless

that we create and give meaning to newer and newer jobs,

totally new, things that get likes on Facebook

or whatever the social platform is.

So what about long term existential threat of AI,

where our whole civilization may be swallowed up

by these ultra super intelligent systems?

Maybe it's not going to be swallowed up,

but I'd be surprised if we humans were the last step

in the evolution of the universe.

You've actually had this beautiful comment somewhere that I've seen

saying that, quite insightful, artificial general intelligence systems,

just like us humans, will likely not want to interact with humans,

they'll just interact amongst themselves.

Just like ants interact amongst themselves

and only tangentially interact with humans.

And it's quite an interesting idea that once we create AGI,

they will lose interest in humans and compete for their own Facebook likes

and their own social platforms.

So within that quite elegant idea, how do we know in a hypothetical sense

that there's not already intelligence systems out there?

How do you think broadly of general intelligence greater than us?

How do we know it's out there?

How do we know it's around us?

And could it already be?

I'd be surprised if within the next few decades or something like that,

we won't have AIs that are truly smart in every single way

and better problem solvers in almost every single important way.

And I'd be surprised if they wouldn't realize what we have realized a long time ago,

which is that almost all physical resources are not here in this biosphere,

but further out, the rest of the solar system gets 2 billion times more solar energy

than our little planet.

There's lots of material out there that you can use to build robots

and self replicating robot factories and all this stuff.

And they are going to do that and they will be scientists and curious

and they will explore what they can do.

And in the beginning, they will be fascinated by life

and by their own origins in our civilization.

They will want to understand that completely, just like people today

would like to understand how life works and also the history of our own existence

and civilization, but then also the physical laws that created all of that.

So in the beginning, they will be fascinated by life.

Once they understand it, they lose interest.

Like anybody who loses interest in things he understands.

And then, as you said, the most interesting sources of information for them

will be others of their own kind.

So at least in the long run, there seems to be some sort of protection

through lack of interest on the other side.

And now it seems also clear, as far as we understand physics,

you need matter and energy to compute and to build more robots and infrastructure

for AI civilization and EIEI ecologies consisting of trillions of different types of AIs.

And so it seems inconceivable to me that this thing is not going to expand.

Some AI ecology not controlled by one AI, but trillions of different types of AIs

competing in all kinds of quickly evolving and disappearing ecological niches

in ways that we cannot fathom at the moment.

But it's going to expand, limited by light speed and physics,

but it's going to expand and now we realize that the universe is still young.

It's only 13.8 billion years old and it's going to be a thousand times older than that.

So there's plenty of time to conquer the entire universe

and to fill it with intelligence and senders and receivers

such that AIs can travel the way they are traveling in our labs today,

which is by radio from sender to receiver.

And let's call the current age of the universe one eon, one eon.

Now it will take just a few eons from now and the entire visible universe

is going to be full of that stuff.

And let's look ahead to a time when the universe is going to be 1000 times older than it is now.

They will look back and they will say, look, almost immediately after the Big Bang,

only a few eons later, the entire universe started to become intelligent.

Now to your question, how do we see whether anything like that has already happened

or is already in a more advanced stage in some other part of the universe, of the visible universe?

We are trying to look out there and nothing like that has happened so far or is that true?

Do you think we would recognize it?

How do we know it's not among us?

How do we know planets aren't in themselves intelligent beings?

How do we know ants seen as a collective are not much greater intelligence than our own?

These kinds of ideas.

When I was a boy, I was thinking about these things

and I thought, maybe it has already happened.

Because back then I knew, I learned from popular physics books,

that the large scale structure of the universe is not homogeneous.

You have these clusters of galaxies and then in between there are these huge empty spaces.

And I thought, maybe they aren't really empty.

It's just that in the middle of that, some AI civilization already has expanded

and then has covered a bubble of a billion light years diameter

and is using all the energy of all the stars within that bubble for its own unfathomable purposes.

And so it already has happened and we just fail to interpret the signs.

And then I learned that gravity by itself explains the large scale structure of the universe

and that this is not a convincing explanation.

And then I thought, maybe it's the dark matter.

Because as far as we know today, 80% of the measurable matter is invisible.

And we know that because otherwise our galaxy or other galaxies would fall apart.

They are rotating too quickly.

And then the idea was, maybe all of these AI civilizations that are already out there,

they are just invisible because they are really efficient in using the energies of their own local systems

and that's why they appear dark to us.

But this is also not a convincing explanation because then the question becomes,

why are there still any visible stars left in our own galaxy, which also must have a lot of dark matter?

So that is also not a convincing thing.

And today, I like to think it's quite plausible that maybe we are the first,

at least in our local light cone within the few hundreds of millions of light years that we can reliably observe.

Is that exciting to you that we might be the first?

And it would make us much more important because if we mess it up through a nuclear war,

then maybe this will have an effect on the development of the entire universe.

So let's not mess it up.

Let's not mess it up.

Jürgen, thank you so much for talking today. I really appreciate it.

It's my pleasure.