programming language design and implementation
From Word Models to World Models: Translating from Natural Language to the Probabilistic Language of Thought
Wong, Lionel, Grand, Gabriel, Lew, Alexander K., Goodman, Noah D., Mansinghka, Vikash K., Andreas, Jacob, Tenenbaum, Joshua B.
How does language inform our downstream thinking? In particular, how do humans make meaning from language--and how can we leverage a theory of linguistic meaning to build machines that think in more human-like ways? In this paper, we propose rational meaning construction, a computational framework for language-informed thinking that combines neural language models with probabilistic models for rational inference. We frame linguistic meaning as a context-sensitive mapping from natural language into a probabilistic language of thought (PLoT)--a general-purpose symbolic substrate for generative world modeling. Our architecture integrates two computational tools that have not previously come together: we model thinking with probabilistic programs, an expressive representation for commonsense reasoning; and we model meaning construction with large language models (LLMs), which support broad-coverage translation from natural language utterances to code expressions in a probabilistic programming language. We illustrate our framework through examples covering four core domains from cognitive science: probabilistic reasoning, logical and relational reasoning, visual and physical reasoning, and social reasoning. In each, we show that LLMs can generate context-sensitive translations that capture pragmatically-appropriate linguistic meanings, while Bayesian inference with the generated programs supports coherent and robust commonsense reasoning. We extend our framework to integrate cognitively-motivated symbolic modules (physics simulators, graphics engines, and planning algorithms) to provide a unified commonsense thinking interface from language. Finally, we explore how language can drive the construction of world models themselves. We hope this work will provide a roadmap towards cognitive models and AI systems that synthesize the insights of both modern and classical computational perspectives.
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.14)
- North America > United States > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.13)
- North America > Mexico > Gulf of Mexico (0.13)
- (19 more...)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area > Neurology (1.00)
- Education (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Cognitive Science > Problem Solving (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.66)
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, Rishi, Hudson, Drew A., Adeli, Ehsan, Altman, Russ, Arora, Simran, von Arx, Sydney, Bernstein, Michael S., Bohg, Jeannette, Bosselut, Antoine, Brunskill, Emma, Brynjolfsson, Erik, Buch, Shyamal, Card, Dallas, Castellon, Rodrigo, Chatterji, Niladri, Chen, Annie, Creel, Kathleen, Davis, Jared Quincy, Demszky, Dora, Donahue, Chris, Doumbouya, Moussa, Durmus, Esin, Ermon, Stefano, Etchemendy, John, Ethayarajh, Kawin, Fei-Fei, Li, Finn, Chelsea, Gale, Trevor, Gillespie, Lauren, Goel, Karan, Goodman, Noah, Grossman, Shelby, Guha, Neel, Hashimoto, Tatsunori, Henderson, Peter, Hewitt, John, Ho, Daniel E., Hong, Jenny, Hsu, Kyle, Huang, Jing, Icard, Thomas, Jain, Saahil, Jurafsky, Dan, Kalluri, Pratyusha, Karamcheti, Siddharth, Keeling, Geoff, Khani, Fereshte, Khattab, Omar, Kohd, Pang Wei, Krass, Mark, Krishna, Ranjay, Kuditipudi, Rohith, Kumar, Ananya, Ladhak, Faisal, Lee, Mina, Lee, Tony, Leskovec, Jure, Levent, Isabelle, Li, Xiang Lisa, Li, Xuechen, Ma, Tengyu, Malik, Ali, Manning, Christopher D., Mirchandani, Suvir, Mitchell, Eric, Munyikwa, Zanele, Nair, Suraj, Narayan, Avanika, Narayanan, Deepak, Newman, Ben, Nie, Allen, Niebles, Juan Carlos, Nilforoshan, Hamed, Nyarko, Julian, Ogut, Giray, Orr, Laurel, Papadimitriou, Isabel, Park, Joon Sung, Piech, Chris, Portelance, Eva, Potts, Christopher, Raghunathan, Aditi, Reich, Rob, Ren, Hongyu, Rong, Frieda, Roohani, Yusuf, Ruiz, Camilo, Ryan, Jack, Ré, Christopher, Sadigh, Dorsa, Sagawa, Shiori, Santhanam, Keshav, Shih, Andy, Srinivasan, Krishnan, Tamkin, Alex, Taori, Rohan, Thomas, Armin W., Tramèr, Florian, Wang, Rose E., Wang, William, Wu, Bohan, Wu, Jiajun, Wu, Yuhuai, Xie, Sang Michael, Yasunaga, Michihiro, You, Jiaxuan, Zaharia, Matei, Zhang, Michael, Zhang, Tianyi, Zhang, Xikun, Zhang, Yuhui, Zheng, Lucia, Zhou, Kaitlyn, Liang, Percy
AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature.
- Europe > Germany (0.45)
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.27)
- Asia > China (0.27)
- (18 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Overview (1.00)
- (2 more...)
- Social Sector (1.00)
- Media > News (1.00)
- Leisure & Entertainment > Games (1.00)
- (36 more...)
Program Synthesis Through Reinforcement Learning Guided Tree Search
Simmons-Edler, Riley, Miltner, Anders, Seung, Sebastian
Program Synthesis is the task of generating a program from a provided specification. Traditionally, this has been treated as a search problem by the programming languages (PL) community and more recently as a supervised learning problem by the machine learning community. Here, we propose a third approach, representing the task of synthesizing a given program as a Markov decision process solvable via reinforcement learning(RL). From observations about the states of partial programs, we attempt to find a program that is optimal over a provided reward metric on pairs of programs and states. We instantiate this approach on a subset of the RISC-V assembly language operating on floating point numbers, and as an optimization inspired by search-based techniques from the PL community, we combine RL with a priority search tree. We evaluate this instantiation and demonstrate the effectiveness of our combined method compared to a variety of baselines, including a pure RL ablation and a state of the art Markov chain Monte Carlo search method on this task.
- North America > United States > New Jersey > Mercer County > Princeton (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Search (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Reinforcement Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Undirected Networks > Markov Models (0.54)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.46)
The Three Pillars of Machine Programming
Gottschlich, Justin, Solar-Lezama, Armando, Tatbul, Nesime, Carbin, Michael, Rinard, Martin, Barzilay, Regina, Amarasinghe, Saman, Tenenbaum, Joshua B, Mattson, Tim
In this position paper, we describe our vision of the future of machine programming through a categorical examination of three pillars of research. Those pillars are: (i) intention, (ii) invention, and(iii) adaptation. Intention emphasizes advancements in the human-to-computer and computer-to-machine-learning interfaces. Invention emphasizes the creation or refinement of algorithms or core hardware and software building blocks through machine learning (ML). Adaptation emphasizes advances in the use of ML-based constructs to autonomously evolve software.
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.14)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.14)
- North America > United States > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.14)
- (37 more...)