Dr. THOMAS PARR - Active Inference

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
  • Thomas Parr and his collaborators wrote a book titled "Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain and Behavior" which introduces Active Inference from both a high-level conceptual perspective and a low-level mechanistic, mathematical perspective.
    Active inference, developed by the legendary neuroscientist Prof. Karl Friston - is a unifying mathematical framework which frames living systems as agents which minimize surprise and free energy in order to resist entropy and persist over time. It unifies various perspectives from physics, biology, statistics, and psychology - and allows us to explore deep questions about agency, biology, causality, modelling, and consciousness.
    Buy Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain, and Behavior
    Thomas Parr, Giovanni Pezzulo, Karl Friston
    amzn.to/4dj0iMj
    Please support us on Patreon to get access to the private Discord server, bi-weekly calls, early access and ad-free listening.
    / mlst
    Pod: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
    TOC:
    00:00:00 Intro
    00:05:10 When Thomas met Friston
    00:06:13 ChatGPT comparison
    00:08:40 Do NNs learn a world model?
    00:11:04 Book intro
    00:13:22 High road low road of Active Inference
    00:17:16 Resisting entropic forces
    00:20:51 Agency vs free will
    00:26:01 Are agents real? non-physical agents
    00:35:54 Mind is flat / predictive brain
    00:44:23 Volition
    00:50:26 Externalism
    00:51:57 Bridge with Enactivism
    00:53:27 Bayesian Surprise
    01:01:47 Variational inference
    01:05:47 Why Bayesian?
    01:12:04 Causality
    01:17:35 Hand crafted models
    01:26:45 Chapter 10 - bringing it together
    01:28:58 Consciousness
    01:33:10 Humans are incoherent
    01:35:25 Experience writing a book
    Interviewer: Dr. Tim Scarfe
  • Věda a technologie

Komentáře • 51

  • @rezamirkhani4747
    @rezamirkhani4747 Před měsícem +29

    Thank you for making this video. I'm working through this book and I'm finding it very difficult and enjoyable! Difficult because there are so many gaps in my knowledge from Physics to Psychology; Enjoyable, because of the way they have built Active Inference on solid scientific foundations.

  • @NeuroScientician
    @NeuroScientician Před měsícem +12

    You are making me to spend quite a bit on books.
    EDIT: Book is excellent, very dense reading, but the book itself it feels oddly light.

  • @simonahrendt9069
    @simonahrendt9069 Před měsícem +10

    I am deeply thankful for the magnificent and free content of this channel. Always interesting guests and topics and thorough explorations from which I learn a lot. If I had more money, I would definitely consider backing on Patreon but being as it is I just wanted to say a heartfelt thanks!

  • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
    @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem +4

    Great work by everyone involved on both sides. Science needs communicators to bring it to the masses... 😊

  • @Shaunmcdonogh-shaunsurfing
    @Shaunmcdonogh-shaunsurfing Před měsícem +3

    Both exciting and thought provoking. Excellent production too

  • @Quix-otic
    @Quix-otic Před měsícem +5

    شئ مبهر حقاً كان لقاء عفوي وغني بالمعلومات وقد مر الوقت سريعاً كذلك شكراً على الترجمه الرائعه.

  • @anthonyfinbow9638
    @anthonyfinbow9638 Před měsícem +2

    I think the quote that Dr. Parr might have been searching for, at around 45 minutes in is the Schopenhauer aphorism. „I can will what I want but I cannot will what I will..“

  • @laplace862
    @laplace862 Před měsícem +1

    Getting more and more cinematic. Love the theme! (and the content too)

  • @abby5493
    @abby5493 Před 27 dny +1

    Seeing a cute little dog right at the beginning I could tell this was good be a good watch.

  • @ArtOfTheProblem
    @ArtOfTheProblem Před měsícem +4

    fan of your work

  • @therrealquickquack
    @therrealquickquack Před měsícem +5

    (amazing video as usual) In the first minute, I do not agree that the low road starts with bayesian mechanics, because bayesian mechanics (= approach consisting in describing physical systems as encoding probabilistic belief, at the core of which lies the free energy principle) is inherently associated with the high road slash the free energy principle, as opposed to the low road which consists in going through all the conceptual advances made in psychology and neuroscience in the 20th century that ultimately lead to active inference.

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem +1

      The bayesian approach is like a ledger. It keeps track of the provenance of our understanding of a problem. It's a ground up approach. Even if we started the ledger from the top. There is also room to add stuff as our understanding increases. That's the changing beliefs part. Our map of understanding changes, the actuality of the system shouldn't.
      The free energy principle requires a certain level of understanding of semantically driven arguments. It is a theory. It is not ground up because you have to start with prior information, which you point out.

    • @therrealquickquack
      @therrealquickquack Před měsícem +1

      ​@@Robert_McGarry_Poems I'm not sure to understand your comment

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem

      @@therrealquickquack If you had to construct a road map from quarks all the way through whatever phenomenon you are explaining, and define each different order of magnitude, quarks to protons to atoms to molecules to higher level complexity. That is inherently a ground up approach. You are not relying on prior information, you are relying on observed outcomes of experiments. You ask for the prior of the last action and add it to the list, once it has been observed. Eventually you end up at pure energy.
      Theories are new constructions that use complexity baked into their definitions. They are not a ledger of understanding, but an attempt to use old ideas to create new ideas. Once the framework has been completed, it then can be used to derive experiments with, which can be used to better our ability to make new observations. That is not ground up.

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem +2

      @@therrealquickquack Quantum mechanics is a ground up approach. It starts at the bottom and works its way up. Relativity doesn't do that at all. In fact, it assumes a bunch of things that don't even matter in quantum mechanics. If you don't already understand complex Newtonian mechanics, it's hard to even begin learning relativity.

  • @redacted5035
    @redacted5035 Před měsícem

    00:00:00 Intro
    00:05:10 When Thomas met Friston
    00:06:13 ChatGPT comparison
    00:08:40 Do NNs learn a world model?
    00:11:04 Book intro
    00:13:22 High road low road of Active Inference
    00:17:16 Resisting entropic forces
    00:20:51 Agency vs free will
    00:26:01 Are agents real? non-physical agents
    00:35:54 Mind is flat / predictive brain
    00:44:23 Volition
    00:50:26 Externalism
    00:51:57 Bridge with Enactivism
    00:53:27 Bayesian Surprise
    01:01:47 Variational inference
    01:05:47 Why Bayesian?
    01:12:04 Causality
    01:17:35 Hand crafted models
    01:26:45 Chapter 10 - bringing it together
    01:28:58 Consciousness
    01:33:10 Humans are incoherent
    01:35:25 Experience writing a book

  • @oncedidactic
    @oncedidactic Před měsícem +1

    this will be good.

  • @dr.mikeybee
    @dr.mikeybee Před měsícem +1

    Surprise is an emotional error function. That's what makes it different from y - y-hat. I've had long arguments with LLMs about how it's still just a biological error function. If an artifact had our slow chemical messaging system (faster than our reasoning system), they would agree that it is just an error function.

  • @muttch
    @muttch Před měsícem +1

    ❤ interesting views on world construction and modelling.

  • @fburton8
    @fburton8 Před měsícem +5

    I palpate this channel with my undivided attention.

    • @schwajj
      @schwajj Před měsícem

      Palpate?

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem

      To explore, especially the human body, by touch, mainly in a medical setting. To learn from feeling with the fingers. To investigate by actively pressing against something.

    • @schwajj
      @schwajj Před měsícem +1

      @@Robert_McGarry_Poems Yes. How does one do to a channel, with undivided attention?

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem +1

      @@schwajj You can press against the want to learn by moving your eyes across a page of writing. You can press against the want to learn by watching a video. Active inference is a kind of palpating.

    • @fburton8
      @fburton8 Před měsícem

      @@schwajj 1:38 "You are palpating..." Did you miss that bit?

  • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
    @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem +2

    @ 1:10:00 I just thought about a GAN that uses two teachers. One for each side of the network. Isolate the teachers from the generative arena. They only teach the player and update after each iteration based on outcome. That would be interesting.

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem

      Or a teacher in the middle type setup. One GAN runs. A teacher is connected to one of the players. The teacher learns from the players, as it teaches. The teacher is also hooked to a second player, external to the first GAN. The second player might be playing the current best model.

  • @jonashallgren4446
    @jonashallgren4446 Před měsícem +1

    This was really nice, maybe I will have to make it pass chap 3 in the FEP book. I'm wondering of there's a way to apply structural learning for alignment. Hopefully or we're probably throwing a dice with random objective learning

  • @dr.mikeybee
    @dr.mikeybee Před měsícem +1

    Minimizing surprise is probably appropriate for maximizing machine intelligence, but human motivation is more complex. Adrenaline is a substitute for dopamine in that it works on the same receptors. While they are distinct neurotransmitters, they share some similarities. As you point out, humans seek out adventure. It's an important evolutionary survival mechanism. Successful hunters need to enjoy surprise. It's a kind of built-in cognitive dissonance. I call it a chemical bath of toxic content injections.

  • @NER0IDE
    @NER0IDE Před měsícem

    Great conversation.
    I wish you would have touched on the field of curiosity-based exploration in reinforcement learning, as it is an approach to implement active-inference using implicit (internal) rewards based on an agent's world model. There are plenty of works that discuss the issue behind simple prediction-error minimization (such as the dark room thought experiment or the noisy TV problem). Schmidhuber brought up ideas back in his old papers how compression improvement of an agent's world model solves some of these issues, but plenty of more recent works have further generalized these ideas to accommodate for disentangling of epistemic/aleatoric uncertainty, and even implemented them in RL terms.

    • @Daniel-Six
      @Daniel-Six Před 20 dny

      Jurgen is pleased. More proof that he invented everything.

  • @smicha15
    @smicha15 Před měsícem +1

    This is the most important video in the world today.

  • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
    @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem +1

    @ 45:00 Your question... would the act of imparting or inputing the dynamic portions of an autonomous system keep it from being its own active agent?
    My question to you is... how did you learn language and culture? Were those things imparted or input into/onto you at birth?

  • @transquantrademarkquantumf8894

    If you believe in Newton and the philosopher's Stone and his layout of the physics of certain types of spirituality and interaction then understanding the way he coded and shielded the understanding brings about a rarity that there are those that would find rocks very important 41 knows how to use them they can be likened to the philosopher's Stone according to Newton almost anything will do

  • @abuomit
    @abuomit Před měsícem

    Hi, you have a tremendous amount of content on your channel. Can you make a playlist listing only your favorites? I see that there is one with staffs favorite but I am interested in about your personal favorites…because I have a similar angle when coming to approach ai and I think I can relate to your list better than the whole staffs favorites. Thank you.

  • @BsktImp
    @BsktImp Před měsícem +2

    Does AI have anything to say about complexity vs chaos vs randomness vs non-deterministic systems, particularly: does randomness even exist?

    • @normalhuman6260
      @normalhuman6260 Před měsícem +3

      i dont think you get how AI works.

    • @Robert_McGarry_Poems
      @Robert_McGarry_Poems Před měsícem +1

      I interpret this question as asking... have humans learned from making and watching AI evolve, whether we can answer your original point.
      Complexity, as used in the video, is an anthropomorphic construction of observable boundaries. Or systems of dynamic interaction between objects that lead to stable outcomes. We then label those observations and outcomes with names that imply the understood parts of the dynamic nature that create them. Energy dynamically becomes mass, which clumps together into particles. Which then clumps together into atoms. And molecules. And so on...
      Chaos is the state of not knowing what individual particles are going to do next and therefore not being able to determine the evolution of a system. We call it coherence and decoherance. Or laminar and turbulent.
      Randomness is also related to not knowing. However, it differs in one key aspect. Chaos can be mapped and turned into order. Randomness can not, by definition, be ordered, ever.
      Non-deterministic systems are just systems that we can't know the outcome to before running the problem through it's algorithm. The halting problem posed by Allen Turing covers this in depth. Life is non-deterministic, but everything that goes into building a body short of consciousness is understood.
      Randomness does exist, in some sense, in reality. However, we can't build a system to do randomness. See the problem... If we build it, we understand how it works. If we understand how it works it can't be randomness. Energy, in it's purest form, is random. But we can't measure that.
      What you can do is set up an arbitrary system. That measures something that can't be known beforehand. Like the best random number generator uses cosmic rays to create the closest approximation of randomness that we can get. But it doesn't just use every input. There is a convolution that takes place. First, the device is constantly scrolling through pseudo random numbers, second it flips a coin, and then if the system gets a heads then it publishes a number. A cosmic ray comes in, it flips a coin, and sometimes spits out a number. We understand exactly how it works but because of the non-deterministic nature between when a cosmic ray shows up and if the generator will flip a heads, we can't be exactly certain of the order of the numbers... now hook this up to a global network of similar devices and you have yourself the closest thing we can get to random... It basically is random for all intents and purposes, even though it actually isn't. It's exactly like key exchange encryption. The amount of energy and processing power it would take to time incoming cosmic rays, is too great. Easy to do one way, hard to do the other...

    • @kevinscales
      @kevinscales Před měsícem

      These concepts are all about what you don't know or understand or can know. Randomness and chaos exist because there are things we can't measure that have effects we can measure. No matter how things actually work there will always be this human centric concept of randomness, but also it's just a concept in peoples minds. What do you mean by exist?

  • @transquantrademarkquantumf8894

    Isaac Newton said almost anything will do so Newton's viewpoint is rocks were not trivial that is if you subscribe to Newton

  • @Darth_Bateman
    @Darth_Bateman Před měsícem

    Pazuzu?

  • @palfers1
    @palfers1 Před 14 dny

    I've been trying to get Bard to discuss Trump's criminality. The filters they have set up are pretty intense. Even using the word "president" shuts down the dialogue with a boilerplate response.