Category: Visionary leadershp

Deepmind does sort

Posted on by Ray in Cognitive computing, Deep Learning, Reinforcement Learning, Strategic Inflection Points, System effectiveness, Visionary leadershp, Visionary organizations

Saw an article today on TNW on DeepMind’s new AI taps games to enhance fundamental algorithms which was discussing a recent Nature paper Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep reinforcement learning and website, which described AlphaDev.

Google DeepMind’s AlphaDev is a derivative of AlphaZero (follow on from AlphaMu and AlphaGo, the conquerer of Go and other strategy games). AlphaDev uses Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) to come up with new computer science algorithms. In the first incarnation, a way to sort (2,3,4 or 5 integers) using X86 instructions.

Sorting has been well explored over the years in computer science (CS, e.g. see Donald E. Knuth’s Volume 3 in The Art of Computer Programming, Sorting and Searching), so when a new more efficient/faster sort algorithm comes out it’s a big deal. Google used to ask job applicants how they would code sort algorithms for specific problems. Successful candidates would intrinsically know all the basic CS sorting algorithms and which one would work best in different circumstances.

Deepmind’s approach to sort

Reading the TNW news article, I couldn’t conceive of the action space involved in the reinforcement learning let alone what the state space would look like. However, as I read the Nature article, DeepMind researchers did a decent job of explaining their DRL approach to developing new basic CS algorithms like sorting.

AlphaDev uses a transformer-like framework and a very limited set of x86 (sort of, encapsulated) instructions with memory/register files and limited it to sorting 2, 3, 4, or 5 integer. Such functionality is at the heart of any sort algorithm and as such, is used a gazillion times over and over again in any sorting task involving a long string of items. I think Alphadev used a form of on-policy RL but can’t be sure.

Looking at the X86 basic instruction cheat sheet, there’s over 30 basic forms for X86 instructions which are then multiplied by type of data (registers, memory, constants, etc. and length of operands) being manipulated.

AlphaDev only used 4 (ok, 9 if you include the conditionals for conditional move and conditional jump) X86 instructions. The instructions were mov<A,B>, cmovX<A,B>, cmp<A,B> and jX<A,B> (where X identify the condition under which a conditional move [cmovX] or jump [jX] would take place). And they only used (full, 64 bit) integers in registers and memory locations.

AlphaDev actions

The types of actions that AlphaDev could take included the following:

  • Add transformation – which added an instruction to the end of the current program
  • Swap transformation – which swapped two instructions in the current program
  • Opcode transformation – which changed the opcode (e.g., instruction such as mov to cmp) of a step in the current program
  • Operand transformation – which changed the operand(s) for an instruction in the current program
  • Instruction transformation – which changed the opcode and operand(s) for some instruction in the current program.

They list in their paper a correctness cost function which at each transformation provides value function (I think) for the RL policy. They experimented with 3 different functions which were: 1) the %correctly placed items; 2) square_root(%correctly placed); and 3)the square_root(number of items – number correctly placed). They discovered that the last worked best.

They also placed some constraints on the code generated (called action pruning rules):

  • Memory locations are always read in incremental order
  • Registers are allocated in incremental order
  • Program cannot compare or conditionally move to memory location
  • Program can only read and write to each memory location once (it seems this would tell the RL algorithm when to end the program)
  • Program can not perform two consecutive compare instructions

AlphaDev states

How they determined the state of the program during each transformation was also different. They used one hot encodings (essentially a bit in a bit map is assigned to every instruction-operand pair) for opcode-operand steps in the current program and appended each encoded step into a single program string. Ditto for the state of the memory and registers (at each instruction presumably?). Both the instruction list and memory-register embeddings thenn fed into a state representation encoder.

This state “representation network” (DNN) generated a “latent representation of the State(t)” (maybe it classified the state into one of N classes). For each latent state (classification), there is another “prediction network” (DNN) that predicts the expected return value (presumably trained on correctness cost function above) for each state action. And between the state and expected return values AlphaDev created a (RL) policy to select the next action to perform.

Presumably they started with current basic CS sort algorithms, and 2-5 random integers in memory and fed this (properly encoded and embedded) in as a starting point. Then the AlphaDev algorithm went to work to improve it.

Do this enough times, with an intelligent approach between exploration (more randomly at first) and policy following (more use of policy later) selection of actions and you too can generate new sorting algorithms.

DeepMind also spent time creating a stochastic solution to sorting that they used to compare agains their AlphaDev DRL approach to see which did better. In the end they found the AlphaDev DRL approach worked faster and better than the stochastic solutions they tried.

DeepMind having conquered sorting did the same for hashing.

Why I think DeepMind’s AlphaDev is better

AlphaDev’s approach could just as easily be applied to any of Donald E. Knuth’s, 4 volume series on The Art of Computer Programming book algorithms.

I believe DeepMind’s approach is much more valuable to programmers (and humanity) than CoPilot, ChatGPT code, AlphaCode (DeepMind’s other code generator) or any other code generation transformers.

IMHO AlphaDev goes to the essence of computer science as it’s been practiced over the last 70 years. Here’s what we know and now let’s try to discover a better way do the work we all have to do. Once, we have discovered a new and better way, report and document them as widely as possible so that any programmers can stand on our shoulders, use our work to do what they need to get done.

If I’m going to apply AI to coding, having it generate better basic CS algorithms is much more fruitful for the programming industry (and I may add, humanity as a whole) than having it generate yet another IOS app code or web site from scratch.

Comments?

Picture Credit(s):

The Hollowing out of enterprise IT

Posted on by Ray in Cloud services, Forecasting, IoT, Market dynamics, Storage, Strategic Inflection Points, Strategic planning, Visionary leadershp

We had a relatively long discussion yesterday, amongst a bunch of independent analysts and one topic that came up was my thesis that enterprise IT is being hollowed out by two forces pulling in opposite directions on their apps. Those forces are the cloud and the edge.

Western part of the abandoned Packard Automotive Plant in Detroit, Michigan. by Albert Duce

Cloud sirens

The siren call of the cloud for business units, developers and modern apps has been present for a long time now. And their call is more omnipresent than Odysseus ever had to deal with.

The cloud’s allure is primarily low cost-instant infrastructure that just works, a software solution/tool box that’s overflowing, with locations close to most major metropolitan areas, and the extreme ease of starting up.

If your app ever hopes to scale to meet customer demand, where else can you go. If your data can literally come in from anywhere, it usually lands on the cloud. And if you have need for modern solutions, tools, frameworks or just about anything the software world can create, there’s nowhere else with more of this than the cloud.

Pre-cloud, all those apps would have run in the enterprise or wouldn’t have run at all. And all that data would have been funneled back into the enterprise.

Not today, the cloud has it all, its siren call is getting louder everyday, ever ready to satisfy every IT desire anyone could possibly have, except for the edge.

The Edge, last bastion for onsite infrastructure

The edge sort of emerged over the last decade or so kind of in stealth mode. Yes there were always pockets of edge, with unique compute or storage needs. For example, video surveillance has been around forever but the real acceleration of edge deployments started over the last decade or so as compute and storage prices came down drastically.

These days, the data being generated is stagering and compute requirements that go along with all that data are all over the place, from a few ARMv/RISC V cores to a server farm.

For instance, CERN’s LHC creates a PB of data every second of operation (see IEEE Spectrum article, ML shaking up particle physics too). But they don’t store all that. So they use extensive compute (and ML) to try to only store interesting events.

Seismic ships roam the seas taking images of underground structures, generating gobs of data, some of which is processed on ship and the rest elsewhere. A friend of mine creates RPi enabled devices that measure tank liquid levels deployed in the field.

More recently, smart cars are like a data center on tires, rolling across roads around the world generating more data than you want can even imagine. 5G towers are data centers ontop of buildings, in farmland, and in cell towers doting the highways of today. All off the beaten path, and all places where no data center has ever gone before.

In olden days there would have been much less processing done at the edge and more in an enterprise data center. But nowadays, with the advent of relatively cheap computing and storage, data can be pre-processed, compressed, tagged all done at the edge, and then sent elsewhere for further processing (mostly done in the cloud of course).

IT Vendors at the crossroads

And what does the hollowing out of the enterprise data centers mean for IT server and storage vendors, mostly danger lies ahead. Enterprise IT hardware spend will stop growing, if it hasn’t already, and over time, shrink dramatically. It may be hard to see this today, but it’s only a matter of time.

Certainly, all these vendors can become more cloud like, on prem, offering compute and storage as a service, with various payment options to make it easier to consume. And for storage vendors, they can take advantage of their installed base by providing software versions of their systems running in the cloud that allows for easier migration and onboarding to the cloud. The server vendors have no such option. I see all the above as more of a defensive, delaying or holding action.

This is not to say the enterprise data centers will go away. Just like, mainframe and tape before them, on prem data centers will exist forever, but will be relegated to smaller and smaller, niche markets, that won’t grow anymore. But, only as long as vendor(s) continue to upgrade technology AND there’s profit to be made.

It’s just that that astronomical growth, that’s been happening ever since the middle of last century, happen in enterprise hardware anymore.

Long term life for enterprise vendors will be hard(er)

Over the long haul, some server vendors may be able to pivot to the edge. But the diversity of compute hardware there will make it difficult to generate enough volumes to make a decent profit there. However, it’s not to say that there will be 0 profits there, just less. So, when I see a Dell or HPE server, under the hood of my next smart car or inside the guts of my next drone, then and only then, will I see a path forward (or sustained revenue growth) for these guys.

For enterprise storage vendors, their future prospects look bleak in comparison. Despite the data generation and growth at the edge, I don’t see much of a role for them there. The enterprise class feature and functionality, they have spent the decades creating and nurturing aren’t valued as much in the cloud nor are they presently needed in the edge. Maybe I’m missing something here, but I just don’t see a long term play for them in the cloud or edge.

~~~~

For the record, all this is conjecture on my part. But I have always believed that if you follow where new apps are being created, there you will find a market ready to explode. And where the apps are no longer being created, there you will see a market in the throws of a slow death.

Photo Credit(s):

Is AGI just a question of scale now – AGI part-5

Posted on by Ray in AGI, Cognitive computing, Neural network, Scenario planning, Strategic Inflection Points, Visionary leadershp

Read two articles over the past month or so. The more recent one was an Economist article (AI enters the industrial age, paywall) and the other was A generalist agent (from Deepmind). The Deepmind article was all about the training of Gato, a new transformer deep learning model trained to perform well on 600 separate task arenas from image captioning, to Atari games, to robotic pick and place tasks.

And then there was this one tweet from Nando De Frietas, research director at Deepmind:

“Someone’s opinion article. My opinion: It’s all about scale now! The Game is Over! It’s about making these models bigger, safer, compute efficient, faster at sampling, smarter memory, more modalities, INNOVATIVE DATA, on/offline, … 1/N“

I take this to mean that AGI is just a matter of more scale. Deepmind and others see the way to attain AGI is just a matter of throwing more servers, GPUs and data at the training the model.

We have discussed AGI in the past (see part-0 [ish], part-1 [ish], part-2 [ish], part-3ish and part-4 blog posts [We apologize, only started numbering them at 3ish]). But this tweet is possibly the first time we have someone in the know, saying they see a way to attain AGI.

Transformer models

It’s instructive from my perspective that, Gato is a deep learning transformer model. Also the other big NLP models have all been transformer models as well.

Gato (from Deepmind), SWITCH Transformer (from Google), GPT-3/GPT-J (from OpenAI), OPT (from meta), and Wu Dai 2.0 (from China’s latest supercomputer) are all trained on more and more text and image data scraped from the web, wikipedia and other databases.

Wikipedia says transformer models are an outgrowth of RNN and LSTM models that use attention vectors on text. Attention vectors encode, into a vector (matrix), all textual symbols (words) prior to the latest textual symbol. Each new symbol encountered creates another vector with all prior symbols plus the latest word. These vectors would then be used to train RNN models using all vectors to generate output.

The problem with RNN and LSTM models is that it’s impossible to parallelize. You always need to wait until you have encountered all symbols in a text component (sentence, paragraph, document) before you can begin to train.

Instead of encoding this attention vectors as it encounters each symbol, transformer models encode all symbols at the same time, in parallel and then feed these vectors into a DNN to assign attention weights to each symbol vector. This allows for complete parallelism which also reduced the computational load and the elapsed time to train transformer models.

And transformer models allowed for a large increase in DNN parameters (I read these as DNN nodes per layer X number of layers in a model). GATO has 1.2B parameters, GPT-3 has 175B parameters, and SWITCH Transformer is reported to have 7X more parameters than GPT-3 .

Estimates for how much it cost to train GPT-3 range anywhere from $10M-20M USD.

AGI will be here in 10 to 20 yrs at this rate

So if it takes ~$15M to train a 175B transformer model and Google has already done SWITCH which has 7-10X (~1.5T) the number of GPT-3 parameters. It seems to be an arms race.

If we assume it costs ~$65M (~2X efficiency gain since GPT-3 training) to train SWITCH, we can create some bounds as to how much it will cost to train an AGI model.

By the way, the number of synapses in the human brain is approximately 1000T (See Basic NN of the brain, …). If we assume that DNN nodes are equivalent to human synapses (a BIG IF), we probably need to get to over 1000T parameter model before we reach true AGI.

So my guess is that any AGI model lies somewhere between 650X to 6,500X parameters beyond SWITCH or between 1.5Q to 15Q model parameters.

If we assume current technology to do the training this would cost $40B to $400B to train. Of course, GPUs are not standing still and NVIDIA’s Hopper (introduced in 2022) is at least 2.5X faster than their previous gen, A100 GPU (introduced in 2020). So if we waited a 10 years, or so we might be able to reduce this cost by a factor of 100X and in 20 years, maybe by 10,000X, or back to where roughly where SWITCH is today.

So in the next 20 years most large tech firms should be able to create their own AGI models. In the next 10 years most governments should be able to train their own AGI models. And as of today, a select few world powers could train one, if they wanted to.

Where they get the additional data to train these models (I assume that data counts would go up linearly with parameter counts) may be another concern. However, I’m sure if you’re willing to spend $40B on AGI model training, spending a few $B more on data acquisition shouldn’t be a problem.

~~~~

At the end of the Deepmind article on Gato, it talks about the need for AGI safety in terms of developing preference learning, uncertainty modeling and value alignment. The footnote for this idea is the book, Human Compatible (AI) by S. Russell.

Preference learning is a mechanism for AGI to learn the “true” preference of a task it’s been given. For instance, if given the task to create toothpicks, it should realize the true preference is to not destroy the world in the process of making toothpicks.

Uncertainty modeling seems to be about having AI assume it doesn’t really understand what the task at hand truly is. This way there’s some sort of (AGI) humility when it comes to any task. Such that the AGI model would be willing to be turned off, if it’s doing something wrong. And that decision is made by humans.

Deepmind has an earlier paper on value alignment. But I see this as the ability of AGI to model human universal values (if such a thing exists) such as the sanctity of human life, the need for the sustainability of the planet’s ecosystem, all humans are created equal, all humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.

I can see a future post is needed soon on Human Compatible (AI).

Photo Credit(s):

For AGI, is reward enough – part 4

Posted on by Ray in AGI, Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive computing, Machine Learning, Reinforcement Learning, Scenario planning, Strategic Inflection Points, Strategic planning, Visionary leadershp

Last May, an article came out of DeepMind research titled Reward is enough. It was published in an artificial intelligence journal but PDFs of it are available free of charge.

The article points out that according to DeepMind researchers, using reinforcement learning and an appropriate reward signal is sufficient to attain AGI (artificial general intelligence). We have written about the perils and pitfalls of AGI before (see Existential event risks [-part-0], NVIDIA Triton GMI, a step to far[-part-1], The Myth of AGI [-part-2], and Towards a better AGI – part 3ish. (Sorry, I only started numbering them after part 3ish).

My last post on AGI inclined towards the belief that AGI was not possible without combining deduction, induction and abduction (probabilistic reasoning) together and that any such AGI was a distant dream at best.

Then I read the Reward is Enough article and it implied that they saw a realistic roadmap towards achieving AGI based solely on reward signals and Reinforcement Learning (wikipedia article on Reinforcement Learning ). To read the article was disheartening at best. After the article came out, I made it a hobby to understand everything I could about Reinforcement Learning to understand whether what they are talking is feasible or not.

Reinforcement learning, explained

Let’s just say that the text book, Reinforcement Learning, is not the easiest read I’ve seen. But I gave it a shot and although I’m no where near finished, (lost somewhere in chapter 4), I’ve come away with a better appreciation of reinforcement learning.

The premise of Reinforcement Learning, as I understand it, is to construct a program that performs a sequence of steps based on state or environment the program is working on, records that sequence and tags or values that sequence with a reward signal (i.e., +1 for good job, -1 for bad, etc.). Depending on whether the steps are finite, i.,e, always ends or infinite, never ends, the reward tagging could be cumulative (finite steps) or discounted (infinite steps).

The record of the program’s sequence of steps would include the state or the environment and the next step that was taken. Doing this until the program completes the task or if, infinite, whenever the discounted reward signal is minuscule enough to not matter anymore.

Once you have a log or record of the state, the step taken in that state and the reward for that step you have a policy used to take better steps. Over time, with sufficient state-step-reward sequences, one can build a policy that would work’s very well for the problem at hand.

Reinforcement learning, a chess playing example

Let’s say you want to create a chess playing program using reinforcement learning. If a sequence of moves ends the game, you can tag each move in that sequence with a reward (say +1 for wins, 0 for draws and -1 for losing), perhaps discounted by the number of moves it took to win. The “sequence of steps” would include the game board and the move chosen by the program for that board position.

Figure 2: Comparison with specialized programs. (A) Tournament evaluation of AlphaZero in chess, shogi, and Go in matches against respectively Stockfish, Elmo, and the previously published version of AlphaGo Zero (AG0) that was trained for 3 days. In the top bar, AlphaZero plays white; in the bottom bar AlphaZero plays black. Each bar shows the results from AlphaZero’s perspective: win (‘W’, green), draw (‘D’, grey), loss (‘L’, red). (B) Scalability of AlphaZero with thinking time, compared to Stockfish and Elmo. Stockfish and Elmo always receive full time (3 hours per game plus 15 seconds per move), time for AlphaZero is scaled down as indicated. (C) Extra evaluations of AlphaZero in chess against the most recent version of Stockfish at the time of writing, and against Stockfish with a strong opening book. Extra evaluations of AlphaZero in shogi were carried out against another strong shogi program Aperyqhapaq at full time controls and against Elmo under 2017 CSA world championship time controls (10 minutes per game plus 10 seconds per move). (D) Average result of chess matches starting from different opening positions: either common human positions, or the 2016 TCEC world championship opening positions . Average result of shogi matches starting from common human positions . CSA world
championship games start from the initial board position.

If your policy incorporates enough winning chess move sequences and the program encounters one of these in a game and if move recorded won, select that move, if lost, select another valid move at random. If the program runs across a board position its never seen before, choose a valid move at random.

Do this enough times and you can build a winning white playing chess policy. Doing something similar for black playing program would build a winning black playing chess policy.

The researchers at DeepMind explain their AlphaZero program which plays chess, shogi, and Go in another research article, A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi and Go through self-play.

Reinforcement learning and AGI

So now what does all that have to do with creating AGI. The premise of the paper is that by using rewards and reinforcement learning, one could program a policy for any domain that one encounters in the world.

For example, using the above chart, if we were to construct reinforcement learning programs that mimicked perception (object classification/detection) abilities, memory ((image/verbal/emotional/?) abilities, motor control abilities, etc. Each subsystem could be trained to solve the arena needed. And over time, if we built up enough of these subsystems one could somehow construct an AGI system of subsystems, that would match human levels of intelligence.

The paper’s main hypothesis is “(Reward is enough) Intelligence, and its associated abilities, can be understood as subserving the maximization of reward by an agent acting in its environment.”

Given where I am today, I agree with the hypothesis. But the crux of the problem is in the details. Yes, for a game of multiple players and where a reward signal of some type can be computed, a reinforcement learning program can be crafted that plays better than any human but this is only because one can create programs that can play that game, one can create programs that understand whether the game is won or lost and use all this to improve the game playing policy over time and game iterations.

Does rewards and reinforcement learning provide a roadmap to AGI

To use reinforcement learning to achieve AGI implies that

  • One can identify all the arenas required for (human) intelligence
  • One can compute a proper reward signal for each arena involved in (human) intelligence,
  • One can programmatically compute appropriate steps to take to solve that arena’s activity,
  • One can save a sequence of state-steps taken to solve that arena’s problem, and
  • One can run sequences of steps enough times to produce a good policy for that arena.

There are a number of potential difficulties in the above. For instance, what’s the state the program operates in.

For a human, which has 500K(?) pressure, pain, cold, & heat sensors throughout the exterior and interior of the body, two eyes, ears, & nostrils, one tongue, two balance sensors, tired, anxious, hunger, sadness, happiness, and pleasure signals, and 600 muscles actuating the position of five fingers/hand, toes/foot, two eyes ears, feet, legs, hands, and arms, one head and torso. Such a “body state, becomes quite complex. Any state that records all this would be quite large. Ok it’s just data, just throw more storage at the problem – my kind of problem.

The compute power to create good policies for each subsystem would also be substantial and in the end determining the correct reward signal would be non-trivial for each and every subsystem. Yet, all it takes is money, time and effort and all this could be accomplished.

So, yes, given all the above creating an AGI, that matches human levels of intelligence, using reinforcement learning techniques and rewards is certainly possible. But given all the state information, action possibilities and reward signals inherent in a human interacting in the world today, any human level AGI, would seem unfeasible in the next year or so.

One item of interest, recent DeepMind researchers have create MuZero which learns how to play Go, Chess, Shogi and Atari games without any pre-programmed knowledge of the games (that is how to play the game, how to determine if the game is won or lost, etc.). It managed to come up with it’s own internal reward signal for each game and determined what the proper moves were for each game. This seemed to combine a deep learning neural network together with reinforcement learning techniques to craft a rewards signal and valid move policies.

Alternatives to full AGI

But who says you need AGI, for something that might be a useful to us. Let’s say you just want to construct an intelligent oracle that understood all human generated knowledge and science and could answer any question posed to it. With the only response capabilities being audio, video, images and text.

Even an intelligent oracle such as the above would need an extremely large state. Such a state would include all human and machine generated information at some point in time. And any reward signal needed to generate a good oracle policy would need to be very sophisticated, it would need to determine whether the oracle’s answer; was good or not. And of course the steps to take to answer a query are uncountable, 1st there’s understanding the query, next searching out and examining every piece of information in the state space for relevance, and finally using all that information to answer to the question.

I’m probably missing a few steps in the above, and it almost makes creating a human level AGI seem easier.

Perhaps the MuZero techniques might have an answer to some or all of the above.

~~~~

Yes, reinforcement learning is a valid roadmap to achieving AGI, but can it be done today – no. Tomorrow, perhaps.

Photo credit(s):

New era of graphical AI is near #AIFD2 @Intel

Posted on by Ray in Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive computing, Deep Learning, Information economy, Machine Learning, Optical networking, Processing performance, Strategic Inflection Points, Strategic planning, Visionary leadershp

I attended AIFD2 ( videos of their sessions available here) a couple of weeks back and for the last session, Intel presented information on what they had been working on for new graphical optimized cores and a partner they have, called Katana Graph, which supports a highly optimized graphical analytics processing tool set using latest generation Xeon compute and Optane PMEM.

What’s so special about graphs

The challenges with graphical processing is that it’s nothing like standard 2D tables/images or 3D oriented data sets. It’s essentially a non-Euclidean data space that has nodes with edges that connect them.

But graphs are everywhere we look today, for instance, “friend” connection graphs, “terrorist” networks, page rank algorithms, drug impacts on biochemical pathways, cut points (single points of failure in networks or electrical grids), and of course optimized routing.

The challenge is that large graphs aren’t easily processed with standard scale up or scale out architectures. Part of this is that graphs are very sparse, one node could point to one other node or to millions. Due to this sparsity, standard data caching fetch logic (such as fetching everything adjacent to a memory request) and standardized vector processing (same instructions applied to data in sequence) don’t work very well at all. Also standard compute branch prediction logic doesn’t work. (Not sure why but apparently branching for graph processing depends more on data at the node or in the edge connecting nodes).

Intel talked about a new compute core they’ve been working on, which was was in response to a DARPA funded activity to speed up graphical processing and activities 1000X over current CPU/GPU hardware capabilities.

Intel presented on their PIUMA core technology was also described in a 2020 research paper (Programmable Integrated and Unified Memory Architecture) and YouTube video (Programmable Unified Memory Architecture).

Intel’s PIUMA Technology

DARPA’s goals became public in 2017 and described their Hierarchical Identity Verify Exploit (HIVE) architecture. HIVE is DOD’s description of a graphical analytics processor and is a multi-institutional initiative to speed up graphical processing. .

Intel PIUMA cores come with a multitude of 64-bit RISC processor pipelines with a global (shared) address space, memory and network interfaces that are optimized for 8 byte data transfers, a (globally addressed) scratchpad memory and an offload engine for common operations like scatter/gather memory access.

Each multi-thread PIUMA core has a set of instruction caches, small data caches and register files to support each thread (pipeline) in execution. And a PIUMA core has a number of multi-thread cores that are connected together.

PIUMA cores are optimized for TTEPS (Tera-Traversed Edges Per Second) and attempt to balance IO, memory and compute for graphical activities. PIUMA multi-thread cores are tied together into (completely connected) clique into a tile, multiple tiles are connected within a single node and multiple nodes are tied together with a 8 byte transfer optimized network into a PIUMA system.

P[I]UMA (labeled PUMA in the video) multi-thread cores apparently eschew extensive data and instruction caching to focus on creating a large number of relatively simple cores, that can process a multitude of threads at the same time. Most of these threads will be waiting on memory, so the more threads executing, the less likely that whole pipeline will need to be idle, and hopefully the more processing speedup can result.

Performance of P[I]UMA architecture vs. a standard Xeon compute architecture on graphical analytics and other graph oriented tasks were simulated with some results presented below.

Simulated speedup for a single node with P[I]UMAtechnology vs. Xeon range anywhere from 3.1x to 279x and depends on the amount of computation required at each node (or edge). (Intel saw no speedups between a single Xeon node and multiple Xeon Nodes, so the speedup results for 16 P[I]UMA nodes was 16X a single P[I]UMA node).

Having a global address space across all PIUMA nodes in a system is pretty impressive. We guess this is intrinsic to their (large) graph processing performance and is dependent on their use of photonics HyperX networking between nodes for low latency, small (8 byte) data access.

Katana Graph software

Another part of Intel’s session at AIFD2 was on their partnership with Katana Graph, a scale out graph analytics software provider. Katana Graph can take advantage of ubiquitous Xeon compute and Optane PMEM to speed up and scale-out graph processing. Katana Graph uses Intel’s oneAPI.

Katana graph is architected to support some of the largest graphs around. They tested it with the WDC12 web data commons 2012 page crawl with 3.5B nodes (pages) and 128B connections (links) between nodes.

Katana runs on AWS, Azure, GCP hyperscaler environment as well as on prem and can scale up to 256 systems.

Katana Graph performance results for Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) is shown below. GNNs are similar to AI/ML/DL CNNs but use graphical data rather than images. One can take a graph and reduce (convolute) and summarize segments to classify them. Moreover, GNNs can be used to understand whether two nodes are connected and whether two (sub)graphs are equivalent/similar.

In addition to GNNs, Katana Graph supports Graph Transformer Networks (GTNs) which can analyze meta paths within a larger, heterogeneous graph. The challenge with large graphs (say friend/terrorist networks) is that there are a large number of distinct sub-graphs within the graph. GTNs can break heterogenous graphs into sub- or meta-graphs, which can then be used to understand these relationships at smaller scales.

At AIFD2, Intel also presented an update on their Analytics Zoo, which is Intel’s MLops framework. But that will need to wait for another time.

~~~~

It was sort of a revelation to me that graphical data was not amenable to normal compute core processing using today’s GPUs or CPUs. DARPA (and Intel) saw this defect as a need for a completely different, brand new compute architecture.

Even so, Intel’s partnership with Katana Graph says that even today compute environment could provide higher performance on graphical data with suitable optimizations.

It would be interesting to see what Katana Graph could do using PIUMA technology and appropriate optimizations.

In any case, we shouldn’t need to wait long, Intel indicated in the video that P[I]UMA Technology chips could be here within the next year or so.

Comments?

Photo Credit(s):

  • From Intel’s AIFD2 presentations
  • From Intel’s PUMA you tube video

Using AI to identify research to invest in

Posted on by Ray in Artificial Intelligence, Data analytics, Deep Learning, Forecasting, Machine Learning, R&D measures, Visionary leadershp

Saw an article from MIT News (Using machine learning to predict high-impact research) on how researchers there were able to train an AI model to predict which scientific research was going to be the most impactful (foundational) over time. The news article was reporting on research written up in a Nature article (Learning on knowledge graph dynamics provides an early warning of impactful research, behind paywall). The researchers proposed that institutions and VC should use their new DELPHI (Dynamic Early-warning by Learning to Predict High Impact [research]) tool to find foundational research to invest in.

Attempts to identify good research have been active for years. For example, CiteSeerX and other’s like them, use an articles citation index to rank research. Citation indexes are sort of like Google’s page rank and uses a count of how many citations a research paper has garnered since publication as their metric of importance.

Although citation indices are a single, easy to calculate metric, they don’t seem to be a foolproof method to identify foundational research and it takes a number of years to become evident. The researchers at MIT decided to see if using an AI model to identify high impact research would work better.

But first please take our new poll:

How DELPHI works

Apparently, DELPHI uses article metadata, such as one can find looking at the Nature article behind this research (linked to above), to create a knowledge graph. They then use the knowledge graph and an AI model to predict whether the research will become high impact or not. The threshold they used for their publication was any research DELPHI predicts would be in the top 5% of all research in a domain.

Not having access to their paper (or code, see below), we can’t determine if they used a DNN or some other AI/data analytics approach to come up with their prediction.

The input data (article metadata) came from a website, Lens.org which provides metadata for ~230M research articles and ~130M patent filings. The researchers focused on life sciences as the domain to analyze to predict impact, but presumably their approach would work on any scientific domain.

The research analyzed all scientific articles for 42 life sciences journals (listed in articles supplementary information). They used as their training set articles written prior to 2017. And then used their model to predict the impact for articles published since 2018.

In the Nature article’s supplementary information they provide a table (Table 2) which lists some of life-sciences articles since 2018 that DELPHI predicts will have high ((top 5%) impact . There’s ~50 articles listed in the table and they supply the (knowledge) Full-graph (citation) count as well as citation counts for the articles.

2nd of 3 pages for table 2 in Nature article’s supplementary information

The Nature article’s home page also list links to the researchers code and data on one of the researchers GitHub repos. When I attempted to download the trained model and sample dataset, it generated a “links had expired” error message from Dropbox . The repo readme file suggested reaching out to the researcher if this happened. We did that, but had not received any response prior to this post’s publication. .

In any case, in the GitHub repository, there are a sample Jupiter notebook and dockerfile used to create a container to run the notebook in. The data they supplied, supposedly is a sample of 206 articles (metadata) and the notebook uses their model to predicts the impact level for those sample articles .

I would have liked to see more information on their model layer structure, hyper-parameters and other model information as well as prediction reliability statistics. But perhaps this is outlined in the Nature article or provided in the model download.

But the approach seems sound enough and even if the researchers didn’t use a DNN, it would easily lend itself to a DNN prediction, assuming you could :

1. Algorithmically create the knowledge graph from article metadata,

2. Digitize and quantify the metadata knowledge graph for all the articles, and

3. Had an independent assessment of impact levels for all research in the training set.

~~~~

Now if we could just do this for blog posts and podcasts it might be even more useful (for us).

Comments?

Towards a better AGI – part 3(ish)

Posted on by Ray in Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive computing, Executive leadership, R&D measures, Scenario planning, Strategic Inflection Points, System effectiveness, Visionary leadershp

Read an article this past week in Nature about the need for Cooperative AI (Cooperative AI: machines must learn to find common ground) which supplies the best view I’ve seen as to a direction research needs to go to develop a more beneficial and benign AI-AGI.

Not sure why, but this past month or so, I’ve been on an AGI fueled frenzy (at leastihere). I didn’t realize this was going to be a multi-part journey otherwise, I would have lableled them AGI part-1 & -2 ( please see: Existential event risks [part-0], NVIDIA Triton GMI, a step to far [part-1] and The Myth of AGI [part-2] to learn more).

But first please take our new poll:

The Nature article puts into perspective what we all want from future AI (or AGI). That is,

  • AI-AI cooperation: AI systems that cooperate with one another while at the same time understand that not all activities are zero sum competitions (like chess, go, Atari games) but rather most activities, within the human sphere, are cooperative activities where one agent has a set of goals and a different agent has another set of goals, some of which overlap while others are in conflict. Sport games like soccer lacrosse come to mind. But there are other card and (Risk & Diplomacy) board games that use cooperating parties, with diverse goals to achieve common ends.
  • AI-Human cooperation: AI systems that cooperate with humans to achieve common goals. Here too, most humans have their own sets of goals, some of which may be in conflict with the AI systems goals. However, all humans have a shared set of goals, preservation of life comes to mind. It’s in this arena where the challenges are most acute for AI systems. Divining human and their own system underlying goals and motivations is not simple. And of course giving priority to the “right” goals when they compete or are in conflict will be an increasingly difficult task to accomplish, given todays human diversity.
  • Human-Human cooperation: Here it gets pretty interesting, but the paper seems to say that any future AI system should be designed to enhance human-human interaction, not deter or interfere with it. One can see the challenge of disinformation today and how wonderful it would be to have some AI agent that could filter all this and present a proper picture of our world. But, humans have different goals and trying to figure out what they are and which are common and thereby something to be enhanced will be an ongoing challenge.

The problem with today’s AI research is that its all about improving specific activities (image recognition, language understanding, recommendation engines, etc) but all are point solutions and none (if any) are focused on cooperation.

Tit for tat wins the award

To that end, the authors of the paper call for a new direction one that attempts to imbue AI systems with social intelligence and cooperative intelligence to work well in the broader, human dominated world that lies ahead.

In the Nature article they mentioned a 1984 book by Richard Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation. Perhaps, the last great research on cooperation that was ever produced.

In this book it talked about a world full of simulated prisoner dilemma actors that interacted, one with another, at random.

The experimenters programmed some agents to always do the proper thing for their current partner, some to always do the wrong thing to their partner, others to do right once than wrong from that point forward, etc. The experimenters tried every sort of cooperation policy they could think of.

Each agent in an interaction would get some number of points for an interaction. For example, if both did the right thing they would each get 3 points, if one did wrong, the sucker would get 1 and the bad actor would get 4, both did wrong each got 1 point, etc.

The agents that had the best score during a run (of 1000s of random pairings/interactions) would multiply for the the next run and the agents that did worse would disappear over time in the population of agents in simulated worlds.

The optimal strategy that emerged from these experiments was

  1. Do the right thing once with every new partner, and
  2. From that point forward tit for tat (if the other party did right the last time, then you do right thing the next time you interact with them, if they did wrong the last time, then you do wrong the next time you interact with them).

It was mind boggling at the time to realize that such a simple strategy could be so effective/sustainable in simulation and perhaps in the real world. It turns out that in a (simulated) world of bad agents, there would be this group of Tit for Tat agents that would build up, defend itself and expand over time to succeed.

That was the state of the art in cooperation research back then (1984). I’ve not seen anything similar to this since.

I haven’t seen anything like this that discusses how to implement algorithms in support of social intelligence.

~~~~

The authors of the Nature article believe it’s once again time to start researching cooperation techniques and start researching social intelligence so we can instill proper cooperation and social intelligence technology into future AI (AGI) systems .

Perhaps if we can do this, we may create a better AI (or AGI) so that both it and we can live better in our world, galaxy and universe.

Comments?

The myth of AGI

Posted on by Ray in Artificial Intelligence, Brain emulation, Cognitive computing, Decision making, Deep Learning, Strategic Inflection Points, Visionary leadershp

Sorry seem to be on an AGI bent this month…

Read an article the other day about a new book (The myth of AI, by Erik. J. Larson) that explains how the present direction of AI-ML-DL will be very unlikely to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI) given it’s current direction. Amazon and others offer a short preview of the book which is where most of this discussion comes from.

Types of (human) reasoning

Near as I can tell, (don’t have the book), the book discusses the three types of reasoning that exist in human intellect, i.e., deduction, induction and abduction.

  • Deduction uses formal logic (or its equivalents) to derive facts or theorems from basic principles.
  • Induction uses a multitude of samples and constructs general principles from the analysis of them
  • Abduction uses a set of probabilistic assertions and formal logic, to come up with a probabilistic principle.

Deduction is most famously observed in geometry and arithmetic proofs and was most evident in the early years of AI through its use of expert systems. The challenge with expert systems is that the real world is vastly more complex than any geometrical or arithmetical artifice that humankind can produce.

Expert systems became champions of checkers, chess and some other games but in the end was not easily generalizable beyond a few (gaming and medically) restricted domains.

Induction is presently all the rage and represents what machine learning and deep neural networks (DNN) are doing with all that training data and resultant classification inferencing.

Today we have DNNs that can classify the objects in an image, can learn to play any game on the planet better than humans, and can even safely drive a car down the road.

The current AI world view is that this form of reasoning, DNN induction, will if taken to its extreme will ultimately result in some level of AGI, or human-equivalent levels of intelligence in a system. The author of the book begs to differ.

Abduction is less well known or discussed in rational circles. It’s essentially what any human does when presented with real world examples/experiences to derive an understanding (or principe) of what happened.

For example, a plate full of cookies last night becomes an almost empty plate of crumbs and two cookies. So what happened, your son woke up early, consumed most if not all of them, and left for work. This is a probabilistic (most likely) inference, but has a high probability of being true.

Any AGI will need all forms of reasoning

The challenge is that AI has been through the deduction phase through the rise of expert systems which crashed and burned because of the cost and time required to produce an exhaustive and correct expert system. And AI is currently in the induction phase, via DNN training, which seems to be entirely more generalizable and successfully usable in many different domains, but no one is talking seriously about doing abduction in AI (anymore).

The author claims (again, have not read the book) that any AGI will require as much abduction as induction (as well as perhaps deduction), and therefore, AGI is not inevitable based on our current AI DNN (or induction) intensive path.

Previous and current attempts at abduction reasoning

Some may recall fuzzy logic as one of the avenues taken after expert systems seemed to fail at doing successful and realistic inferencing around the end of last century. Fuzzy logic was a way of bring probabilities into deduction, not unlike abduction as defined above. With fuzzy logic each assertion or base assumption was given a probabilistic value (of being true) and the final derivation was assigned some level of probability of being true.

The wikipedia article has definitions for fuzzy logic and, or and not which of course would allow any system to make these assertions. But fuzzy logic (like expert systems above) suffered from the inability to exhaustively cover all examples in a real world situation.

Furthermore, the (funny) thing about DNNs is that they are much more probabilistic than it appears. If one examines classification outputs of any DNN, it is extremely rare to see some sort of boolean (true or false) yes or no answers. Mostly one sees a series of probabilities that are assigned to each classification bucket.

DNN systems hide these probabilities by just selecting the maximum (or minimum) probability generated as its final classification. This is entirely an artifact of needing to have some discrete output (classification selection). But DNN (internal) results always result in probabilistic values.

So although, pure induction doesn’t include probabilities, DNN induction as practiced today in AI systems, uses probabilistic reasoning in every layer of a DNN and in its final results.

What else may be missing from AI to allow AGI to be developed

Personally, AGI seems to require not just the reasoning approaches above, but a more workable and general purpose planning solution. I’ve tried to identify to see whether some researchers are using DNNs to provide general purpose planning solutions but have been yet to find any (in publcly available research). These are probably the one place where expert (or control) fuzzy systems still shine. But again they are hard to generalize and prove almost impossible to be completely exhaustive.

Nonetheless, in the end, I think that all the above just proves, that there are a number of distinct reasoning and other (planning) techniques that may need to come together to provide AGI. As any of us can attest, all of these different approaches are available within any human intellect.

And if we assume that any AGI will need to follow the human design to intelligence (not a given), they will all need to be stitched together, combined and brought to bear to realize AGI.

But, at present, with all the focus on DNN/induction, we, as AI researchers, are not making any progress on using these other techniques or in combining them into a single system.

And for that I am happy. I would be very pleased to have any AGI be farther out than nearer term. Because for the life of me, AGI scares the s&#t out of me.

Mostly because I don’t see any real way to control AGI, once unleashed. That and given the diversity of motives around this world, I don’t see any realistic mechanism to instill a universal and firm (unalterable) belief in the sanctity of human and other life, the dependance this life has on our environment/biosphere and the rule of law needed to maintain peace across humankind (and I’m probably missing a half dozen more things that we would want any AGI to adhere to).

Maybe, if I saw more effort on how, we as a species can come up with universal views on these and other topics and can come up with some way of instilling, essentially a system of programs, with these unalterable beliefs and AGI controls based on these, I’d be less fearful of AGI emerging.

Lacking that, any way of delaying its emergence, is fine by me.

Comments?

Photo Credit(s):