Category Archives: AI

Two Rules of AI Business and Startups That Ignore Them

Posted on by
Reply

These rules are not new, and they are not mine; I stole them from Andrew Ng and Benedict Evans, two men with a huge following. Still, a large majority of AI entrepreneurs and engineers don’t pay attention to them, maybe because these rules show why their AI project will fail.

AI’s Law of Diminishing Returns

To paraphrase Andrew’s words from Coursera’s Deep Learning Specialization course:

The effort to half an AI system’s error rate is similar, regardless of the starting error rate. 

This is not very intuitive. If an AI system passes 90% of test cases and errors on 10%, then you are 90% done, right? Fix the remaining 10% of errors, and you will have 100% accuracy? Absolutely not. If it took you six months to halve the error rate from 20% to 10%, it will take you approximately another six months to halve 10% to 5%. And another six months to halve 5% to 2.5%. Ad infinitum. You will never achieve a 0% error rate on a real-world AI system. For an illustrative example, see this typical chart of error rate vs the number of training samples:

Notice that later in the training process, training set size increases exponentially with each error rate halving, and the error rate never reaches zero. Sure, you will get more efficient with acquiring training data (e.g., by using low-quality sources or synthetic data). Still, it is hard to believe that acquiring 10X more data is going to be much easier than acquiring the initial set. 

This rule becomes more intuitive when dissecting what an AI system error rate represents: uncovered real-world special cases. There are an infinite number of them. For example, one of the easiest machine learning (ML) tasks is classifying images of dogs and cats. It is an introductory task with online tutorials that get 99% accuracy. But solving the last 1% is incredibly hard. For example, is the creature in the image below a dog or a cat?

It is Atchoum the cat, who rose to fame because half of humans recognized him as a dog. The human accuracy on dog/cat classification within 30 seconds is 99.6%. A dog/cat classifier with less than a 0.4% error rate would be superhuman. But it is possible. A training set with hundreds of thousands of strange-looking dogs and cats would teach a neural network to focus just on details encoded in dog or cat chromosomes (e.g. cat eyes). However, building such a dataset is orders of magnitude more complex than a tutorial with 99% accuracy. Other problems lurk in that 1% error rate: photos that are too dark, photos in low resolution, photo compression artifacts, photo post-processing by modern smartphones (adding of non-existing details), dogs and cats with medical conditions etc. The problem space is infinite. This is still considered a solved ML problem though, because a 1% error rate is low enough for all practical purposes. 

But for some problems, even a 0.01% error rate is not satisfactory, for example: full-self driving (FSD). Elon Musk said in a 2015 article with Forbes:

“We’re going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years.”

Tesla was so confident in that prediction that they started selling a full self-driving add-on package in 2016, and they weren’t the only ones. Kyle Vogt, CEO of Cruise, wrote a piece called How we built the first real self-driving car (really) in 2017, in which he claimed:

“the most critical requirement for deployment at scale is actually the ability to manufacture the cars that run that software”

So, the software and the working prototype are done; they just need to mass-produce “100,000 vehicles per year.” 

Fast forward to 2024. Elon Musk’s predictions for autonomous Tesla vehicles deserved a lengthy Wikipedia table, mostly in red: 

What about Kyle Vogt? In October of 2023 Cruise’s car dragged a pedestrian for 20 feet, after which California’s DMV suspended Cruise’s self-driving taxi license. Kyle “resigned” as CEO in November 2023.  

Don’t misunderstand me—I believe autonomous cars will have a significant market share, probably in the next decade. The failed predictions above illustrate what happens when entrepreneurs don’t respect the AI law of diminishing returns. Elon and Kyle probably saw a demo of a full-self driving car that could drive on its own, on a sunny day, on a marked road. Sure, a safety driver needed to intervene sometimes, but that was only 1% of the drive time. It is easy to conclude that “autonomous driving is a solved problem,” as Elon said in 2016. Notice how ML scientists and engineers didn’t make such bombastic claims. They were aware of many edge cases, some of which are described in crash reports. Edge cases include:

Why so many companies promised a drastic reduction in self-driving error rates in such a short time without having a completely new ML architecture is an open question. Scaling laws for convolutional neural networks have been known for some time, and the new transformer architecture obeys a similar scaling law. 

AI’s Product vs Feature Rule

When is an AI system a good stand-alone product, and when is it just a feature? In the words of Benedict Evans from The AI Summer podcast: “Is this feature or a product? Well, if you can’t guarantee it is right, it’s a feature. It needs to be wrapped in something that manages or controls expectations.” I love that statement. The “it is right” part can be broken down using error rate:

If your AI system has a higher error rate than target users, you have an AI feature in an existing workflow, not a stand-alone AI product.

This rule is more intuitive than the law of diminishing returns. If target users are better at a task, they will not like stand-alone AI system results. They could still use AI to save them effort and time, but they will want to review and edit AI output. If AI completely fails at a task, humans will use the old workflow and the old software to finish the task.

Let’s take MidJourney for example, which generates whole images based on a text prompt. When I used it for a hobby project last year, satisfying artistic images appeared instantly, like magic. But then I spent hours fixing creepy hands, similar to the ones below:

Each time MidJourney created a new image, one of the hands had strange artifacts. Finally, it generated an image with two normal hands—but then it destroyed the ears in another part of the image. The problem was less with wrong details and more with bad UI, which didn’t allow correction of the AI’s mistakes.

Adobe’s approach is different—it treats generative AI as just one feature in its product suite. You use an existing tool, select an area, and then do a generative fill:

You can use it for the smallest of tasks, like removing cigarette butts from grass in a wedding photoshoot. If you dislike AI grass, no problem—revert to the old designer joy of manually cloning grass. Also, Adobe Illustrator has generative Vector AI that generates vector shapes you can edit to your liking.

MidJourney makes more impressive demos, but Adobe’s approach is more useful to professional designers. That doesn’t mean MidJourney doesn’t make sense as a product, its target users are the ones who don’t care about details. For example, last Christmas, I got the following greetings image over WhatsApp:

Did you notice baby Jesus’ hands and eyes? Take another look:

That would never pass with a designer, but that is not the point. There is a whole army of users who don’t care about image composition and details, they just want images that go with their content. In other words, MidJourney is not a replacement for Adobe’s Creative Suite—it is a replacement for stock photo libraries like Shutterstock and Getty Images. And judging by the recent popularity of AI-generated images on social media and the web, people like artsy MidJourney images more than stock photos.

Low-hanging fruit in stand-alone AI products are use cases where a high error rate doesn’t matter or is still better than the human error rate. An unfortunate example is guided missiles; in the Gulf War, the accuracy of Tomahawk missiles was less than 60%. But the army was happy to buy Tomahawks because they were still much more accurate than older alternatives, as fewer than 1 in 14 unguided bombs hit their targets.

Evaluating startups based on the above rules

The great thing is that error rates are measurable, so the above rules give a framework to judge an AI startup quickly. Below is a simple startup example.

Devin AI made quite a splash in March of 2024 with a video demo of developer AI that can create fully working software projects. The announcement says that Devin was “evaluated on the SWE-Bench” (relevant benchmark), and “correctly resolves 13.86% of the issues unassisted, far exceeding the previous state-of-the-art model performance of 1.96% unassisted.” So, the current state-of-the-art (SOTA) has a 98% error rate, and they claim to have an 86% error rate. Even if that claim is valid (it wasn’t independently verified), why do their promo videos show success after success? It turns out that the video examples were cherry-picked, the task description was changed, and Devin took hours to complete.

In my opinion, Microsoft took the right approach with GitHub Copilot. Although LLMs work surprisingly well for coding, they still make a ton of mistakes and don’t make sense as a stand-alone product. Copilot is a feature integrated into popular IDEs that pops up with suggestions when they are likely to help. You can review, edit, or improve on each suggestion.  

Again, don’t get me wrong. I think coding SOTA will drastically improve over the next few years, and one day, AI will be able to solve 80% of GitHub issues. Devin AI is still far away from that day, although the company has a valuation of $2 billion in 2024.

More formally, the framework for evaluation is:

  1. Find a relevant benchmark for a specific AI use case. 
  2. Find the current state-of-the-art (SOTA) error rate and human error rate on that benchmark.
  3. Is the SOTA better or comparable to the human error rate?
    1. If yes (unlikely): Great, the problem is solved, and you can create a stand-alone AI product by reproducing SOTA results.
    2. If no (likely): Check if there is a niche customer segment that is more tolerant of errors. If yes, you can still have a niche stand-alone product. If you can’t find such a niche, go to the next step.
  4. You can’t release a stand-alone AI product. Wait for SOTA to get better, pour money into research, or go to the next step.
  5. Think about how to integrate AI as a feature into the existing product. Make it easy for users to detect and correct AI’s mistakes. Then, measure AI’s return on investment:

    AI_ROI = Effort_saved_by_AI / Effort_lost_correcting_AI

    If too much user time is spent checking and correcting AI errors (AI_ROI<=1), you don’t even have a feature.

Or, to summarize everything discussed here in one sentence:

Every innovative AI use case will eventually become a feature or a product, once the error rates allow it. If you want to make it happen faster, become a researcher. OpenAI’s early employees spent seven years on AI research before overnight success with ChatGPT. Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist, still didn’t want to release ChatGPT 3.5 because he was afraid it hallucinated too much. Science takes time.

If you found this article useful, please share.

 

 

Computers Have Had Emotions for Quite Some Time

Posted on by

A common assumption is that computers can’t have emotions. But there is a strong philosophical argument that AI systems have had emotions for many decades now.

Before making an argument, we need to define “emotion”. That definition shouldn’t require consciousness self-awareness (reddit was fast to correct this) or physical manifestation.

Self-awareness can’t be a requirement for the presence of emotions because that would contradict current research findings that even simple animals have emotions. Experiments on honeybees in 2011 show that agitated honeybees display an increased expectation of bad outcomes, similar to the emotional state displayed by vertebrates. Research published in Science in 2014 concluded that crayfish show anxiety-like behavior controlled by serotonin. However, we wouldn’t consider honeybees or crayfish to be self-aware. But you don’t have to look to the animal world. When you are sleeping, you are not self-aware, yet when a bad nightmare wakes you up, would you say you didn’t experience emotions?

Physical manifestation in any form (facial expression, gesture, voice, sweating, heart rate, etc.), can’t be a requirement for the presence of emotions because it would imply that people with complete paralysis (e.g. Stephen Hawking) don’t experience emotions. And, as before, we have the sleep problem: you experience emotions in your dreams, even when your body doesn’t show it.

This is a bit of a problem. As self-awareness is not a requirement, we can’t simply ask the subject if they experience emotions. As a physical manifestation is not a requirement, we can’t simply observe the subject. So, how do we determine if one is capable of emotional response?

As a starting point, let’s look at evolution:

The evolutionary purpose of emotions in animals and humans is to direct behavior toward specific, simple, innate needs: food, sex, shelter, teamwork, raising offspring, etc.

Emotional subsystems in living creatures do that by constantly analyzing their current model of the world. Generally wanted behavior produces positive emotions (happiness, love, etc.) while generally unwanted behavior produces negative emotions (fear, sadness, etc.).

Emotions are simple and sometimes irrational, so evolution enabled intelligence to partially suppress emotions. When we sense that lovely smell of freshly baked goods, we feel a craving to eat them, but we can suppress the urge because we know they are not healthy for us.

Based on that, we can provide a more general definition of “emotion” for any intelligent agent:

Emotion is an output of an irrational, built-in, fast subsystem that constantly evaluates the agent’s world model and directs the agent’s focus toward desired behavior.

Take a look at a classic diagram of a model-based, utility-based agent (from Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach textbook), and you will find something similar:

Do you notice it? In the middle of the diagram stands this funny little artifact:

Even professional philosophers in the realm of AI have overlooked this. Many presume AI systems are rational problem solvers that calculate an optimal plan for achieving a goal. Utility-based agents are nothing like that. Utility function is always simple, ignores a lot of model details, and is often wrong. It is an irrational component of the system.

But why would anybody put such a silly thing in code? Because introducing “happiness” to an AI system solves the computational explosion problem. The real world, and even many mathematical problems, has many more possible outcomes than particles in the universe. A nonoptimal solution is better than no solution at all. And paradoxically, utility-based agents make more efficient use of computational resources, so they produce better solutions.

To understand this, let’s examine two famous AI systems from the 1990s that used utility functions to play a simple game.

The first one is Deep Blue, a computer specifically designed to crunch chess data. It was a big black box with 30 processors and 480 special-purpose chess chips, and it was capable of evaluating 200 million chess positions per second. But even that is not enough to play perfect chess, as the shannon number states that the lower bound of possible situations in a chess game is 10120. To overcome this, engineers could have limited search to only N future chess moves. But there was a better approach: Deep Blue could plan longer into the future if it could discard unpromising combinations.

Human chess players had known for a long time an incorrect but fast way to do that. Count the number of chess pieces on the board and multiply by the value of each piece. Most chess books say that your pawn is worth one point and the queen is worth nine points. Deep Blue had such a utility function, which enabled it to go many moves deeper. With the help of this utility function, Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in 1997.

It is important to note two things:

  1. A utility function is irrational. Kids play chess by counting numbers of pieces; grandmasters do not. In the chess game of the century, 13-year-old Bobby Fischer defeated a top chess master by sacrificing the queen. He was executing a strategy, not counting pieces.
  2. A utility function needs to be irrational. If it were rational, it would calculate every possible move, which would make it slow and therefore defeat its purpose. Instead, it needs to be simple and very fast, so it can be calculating in every nanosecond.

This chess experiment proved that utility-based agents that use “intuition” to achieve solutions vastly outperform perfectly rational AI systems.

But it gets even better.

At the same time that IBM was pouring money in Deep Blue, two programmers started developing a downloadable chess program you could run on any PC. Deep Fritz ran on retail hardware, so it was able to analyze only 8 million positions per second—so it was 25 times slower than Deep Blue. But the developers realized they could beat the game with a better utility function. After all, that is how humans play: they are slower but have stronger intuition.

In 1995 the Deep Blue prototype lost to Deep Fritz, which was running on a 90MhZ Pentium. How is it possible that the 25-times-slower computer won? It had better utility function that made the program “happy” with better moves. Or should we say it had better “emotional intelligence”?

This shows the power of emotion. The immediacy of the real world requires that you sometimes stop thinking and just go with your gut feeling, programmed into you by billions of years of evolution. Not only is there a conflict between emotions and rationality, but different emotions also play tug-of-war with each other. For example, a hungry animal will overcome its fear and take risks to get food.

Note that in both higher-order animals and advanced AI systems, the fixed part of a utility function is augmented with utility calculation based on experience. For example, a fixed part of human taste perception is a love of sugars and a strong dislike for rotten eggs. But if one gets sick after eating a bowl of gummy bears, the association “gummy bears cause sickness” is stored and retrieved in the future, as a disgusting taste. The author of this article is painfully aware of that association, after a particular gummy bear incident from his childhood.

To summarize the main points:

  • Emotions are fast subsystems that evaluate the agent’s current model of the world and constantly provide positive or negative feedback, directing action.
  • Because emotional subsystems need to provide immediate feedback, they need to be computationally fast. As a consequence, they are irrational.
  • Emotions are still rational on a statistical level, as they condense “knowledge” that has worked many times in the past.
  • In the case of animals, utility functions are crafted by evolution. In the case of AI agents, they are crafted by us. In both cases, a utility function can rapidly look up past experience to guide actions.
  • Real-world agents don’t have only one emotion but a myriad of them, the interplay of which directs agents into satisfying solutions.

In conclusion, an AI agent is emotional if it has a utility function that (a) is separate from the main computational part that contains the world model and (b) constantly monitors its world model and provides positive or negative feedback.

Utility-based agents that play chess satisfy those criteria, so I consider them emotional—although in a very primitive way.

Obviously, this is not the same as human emotions, which are much more intricate. But the principle is the same. The fact that honeybees and crayfish have very simple emotional subsystems doesn’t change the fact that they experience emotions. And if we consider honeybees and crayfish emotional, then we should do the same with complex utility-based agents.

This may feel implausible. But we need to ask ourselves, is that because the above arguments are wrong? Or, maybe, because the utility function in our brain is a little out of date?

 

 

Zeljko Svedic is a Berlin-based tech philosopher. If you liked this piece of modern philosophy, you will probably like Singularity and the Anthropocentric Bias and Car Sharing and the Death of Parking.