Other replies are missing an explicit call-out to Reinforcement Learning. You can USE ML for RL, but the field itself is considered separate from ML and under AI in general.
From your link: “Due to its generality, reinforcement learning is studied in many disciplines, such as game theory, control theory, operations research, information theory, simulation-based optimization, multi-agent systems, swarm intelligence, and statistics.”
It all depends on whether you consider the new use as a particular application of a more general thing or as a thing on its own. (But I agree that if you call it with than name it’s not that general.)
The original comment was:
"So Artificial Intelligence is a superset of Machine Learning. What are some AI algorithms that are still in use, that is not Machine Learning"
It seems we agree with Wikipedia that ML contains RL?
It's true RL is also studied in other fields.
I struggle to see how that means that RL is a good answer to "What are some AI algorithms that are still in use, that is not Machine Learning".
Does ML contain game theory, control theory, operations research, information theory, simulation-based optimization, multi-agent systems, swarm intelligence, and statistics?
It may be the case if you define ML broadly enough. One may also define RL broadly to refer to things that existed well before ML was a thing (not that I would do it, but one may). I guess that may still be within the AI umbrella, but I’m not sure.
Reinforcement learning implies learning though. But of course that’s a term more appropriate in the context of “optimizing agents” than in the context of “optimizing prediction models”.
Reinforcement learning is a machine learning approach, there is no serious debate about that. The question is whether it is restricted to neural networks, or not.
For a bit of history on machine learning I recommend Rodney Brooks' seminal series of articles on machine learning, beginnign here:
The first article in the series, linked above has one section titled "Machine Learning Started with Games". In that section he goes over Arthur Samuel's checkers-playing program that beat a human champion in 1961.
The section also contains Brooks' description of Donald Michie's MENACE, which is widely considered to be one of the first reinforcement learning algorithms. For lack of a computer, it was implemented on a set of match boxes:
In 1960 Surgical Science did not have much pull in getting access to a digital computer. So Donald Michie himself built a machine that could learn to play the game of tic-tac-toe (Noughts and Crosses in British English) from 304 matchboxes, small rectangular boxes which were the containers for matches, and which had an outer cover and a sliding inner box to hold the matches. He put a label on one end of each of these sliding boxes, and carefully filled them with precise numbers of colored beads. With the help of a human operator, mindlessly following some simple rules, he had a machine that could not only play tic-tac-toe but could learn to get better at it.
> Reinforcement learning is a machine learning approach, there is no serious debate about that. The question is whether it is restricted to neural networks, or not.
The answer to the latter question is obviously “no”. Did anyone argue otherwise? mdp2021 suggested that redytedy may have meant that but what he or she actually wrote is “You can USE ML for RL, but the field itself is considered separate from ML and under AI in general.”
Maybe I'm confused, but I'm replying to feral's OP, where they say "Hmm, I don't see that." in response to mdp2021's comment that "Reinforcement Learning is not restricted to Neural Networks."
mdp2021: “The poster probably meant: Reinforcement Learning is not restricted to Neural Networks.”
feral: “Hmm, I don't see that.” [that RLinrtNN is probably what redytedy meant]
“In the spirit of the cutting edge, any chance you could give me a chain-of-reasoning on that inference?” [the inference that redytedy probably meant RLinrtNN]
I get what you mean. In principle things like policy iteration, value iteration and Q learning are not ML specific.
However, I didn't think of reinforcement learning when compiling that list, because in my experience non-ML RL solutions are rarely better than ML solutions. Happy to be corrected on that front.
I don't think this is necessarily correct; or, at least, your justification seems incomplete.
Of course if someone could choose between all the Ivies, there would be a single school that best suits them and should be chosen. However, there are certain applicant profiles where the acceptance variance is so high that it becomes completely rational to apply to all Ivies (or at least most of them). Anectodally, the cultured between the Ivies is homogenizing anyway and most students who actually attend have also applied to the other Ivies.
It's true that the culture is homogenizing, but Dartmouth or Cornell are very different communities than Penn or Columbia. Applying to some or most of the other Ivies is very different from applying to all the Ivies.
The question you have to answer in an application is why this school. If your answer is "I just want to go to an Ivy", each school gets to say "Ok, neat. Go to a different one." And if your answer is "I need to get in to an Ivy to validate myself", bless you sweet sweet heart. You answered honestly, but incorrectly.
It's like telling Columbia "I want to attend Columbia because I really want to go to college in NYC." Laugh, but it happens all the time. Their answer, of course, is "Ok, you have more than a hundred other options. Go there instead."
Give a better answer to the question. Even if the culture is homogenizing, pander to the audience and tell them things that they uniquely offer. Unless you've won the equivalent of the Siemens Competition or you have letters of recommendation from Fields Medalists, you've got to sell yourself to them.
This is part of the "space cadet" layout which I also use. The shift keys only function as parentheses when you tap the key (i.e. press and release without tapping another key in the meantime). It means that the character is typed when you physically lift the key instead of pressing it but worth it.
Wait for this to appear on FamilySearch (if not already) and search there I think will be your best bet. FamilySearch is owned by the Mormons but free and very functional.
FamilySearch is fantastic. They do require you to make an account to use their website, but it’s free. They are meticulous about records preservation worldwide and expansive about records access, at least when the underlying government archive or agency is not being a hardass about it.
They even have teams filming and photographing records in some of the Ukrainian archives branches right now, even while under siege. They are serious about saving copies of world cultural history, it’s just that they emphasize family history.
Yes, they are the best. I used them several years ago when constructing my family tree.
And a big raspberry to their competitors that lock everything behind a paywall. I think one of them (ancestry) has exclusive deals with some states, so they have records you can't see without signing up.
They do. I’ve seen the contracts, and even the RFP’s that led to the contracts. It’s illegal.
They will sometimes make a free gateway portal to those records, where you input your in-state zipcode to get access, or some other nonsense like that. But they actually have the gall to say in their contracts that the digital files cannot be redistributed by the (public, taxpayer-funded) state or local archive. Funny, the state law says they can’t do that…
And so the non-profit I founded and run is starting to reclaim those public records, for the public, for free.
Just curious, is there any special significance in pointing out it's owned by Mormons?
The Mormons are really good at this sort of thing. Really really good.
Also, it's trendy for a subset of angry people on the internet to hate the Mormons for various reasons, both real and imagined.
And, there is a very tiny, but very vocal, number of people who will not use any service that might be even tangentially related to a religion. They're afraid of getting Jesus cooties or something.
to be fair, people who are outside the organization and/or critical tend to say "Mormon" while those in the organization that I have spoken with, carefully say "Latter Day Saints" or LDS every time.
ps- sincere thanks to the LDS Temple letting me use their library and record search for many weeks, long ago
outside the organization and/or critical tend to say "Mormon" while those in the organization that I have spoken with, carefully say "Latter Day Saints" or LDS every time.
I used to be good like that, but since I've moved away from areas with high LDS populations, I've lapsed into just the word "Mormon" again. Probably because that's what I grew up with in a non-LDS region, so I don't automatically associate the word "Mormon" with bring critical of LDS.
To clarify, only direct relatives can give permission to baptize a deceased relative by proxy in the temple. So if you're worried that simply adding a name to FamilySearch guarantees they will be baptized, that is not the case unless you have a relative that is a member of the church.
This explains a strange interaction I had on FamilySearch. I knew they were owned by the Mormons, but I was doing some cleanup (think deduplication/obvious typo correction stuff) on older records in my line, when someone on the site messaged me and essentially gave me first dibs on... I don't remember the exact phrase, "registering ordinances" or something like this for the person in question, because I was a direct patrilineal descendant. In retrospect I think it was related to this baptism-by-proxy thing, maybe?
Yeah that definitely sounds like it was related to the baptism-by-proxy. There are other ordinances in the temple that are also done by proxy for the deceased which is why they phrased it like "registering ordinances".
It sounds like a distant relative of yours saw your contributions and assumed your were Mormon and wanted to make sure you had the chance to be the proxy for your ancestor before another relative did it for you. That's not required, it was just a common courtesy.
For clarity: I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). I've also done development work on sites that used the FamilySearch API, I've served as an "ordinance worker" in the temple, and have done some of my own family history work on FamilySearch.
> For clarity: I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). I've also done development work on sites that used the FamilySearch API, I've served as an "ordinance worker" in the temple, and have done some of my own family history work on FamilySearch.
Then may I ask you about the provisions available to opt-out for baptism by proxy?
Is it possible to contact the church of LDS to refuse in advance, should any descendent (or proxy) convert, then want me baptized at any point in the future?
[Just in case it's not clear, that's a serious question.]
I'm asking while I'm alive because I won't be able to opt-out when I'm dead.
Good question. I am not aware of any "opt-out" list for baptism by proxy.
The doctrine of the church, however, is that even if a person is baptized by proxy it has no efficacy if the person in the afterlife chooses not to accept it. The agency to choose is a core belief, and we believe it is important for the individual to decide whether they want to be baptized or not.
I still understand your desire to not even have the ordinance done in the first place regardless of whether you believe it does anything, but like I said before I'm not aware of any way to "opt-out". I wish I could be more helpful.
So I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and can I ask you an honest question. Is there a reason you don't want to have that happen? I am asking honestly in the Spirit of inquiry it's something that always confused me to a certain extant, if the religion isn't true and it doesn't mean anything is there a reason the idea of someone saying a prayer with your name in it after you are dead bothers you? I just am curious about the line of reasoning, if it is just a matter of you don't like the idea, and don't feel comfortable about it I can understand that as well. I am just curious.
> can I ask you an honest question. Is there a reason you don't want to have that happen?
Of course: it's just a question of consent and respect.
I respect your faith, I would hope mine would be respected too, which is why I do object to being engaged in a baptism even 1) after having very clearly expressed when I'm alive that I do not consent to that but 2) under the assumption that when I'm dead, if a descendant consents, my own consent is void and no longer matters!
> if the religion isn't true and it doesn't mean anything
My point is the exact opposite: if it's true and it means everything, then surely you can understand my rejection!
Let's look at that differently: imagine I belong to a different religious movement, and that we have an "antibaptism" that can retrospectively negate baptism, snatch your soul from wherever it may be, and send it on its way to our deity - or to oblivion, or to damnation, or to whatever feels uneasy and disturbing.
Would you not want to object to have that done do you, instead of saying it wouldn't matter when you're dead?
Even "if the religion isn't true and it doesn't mean anything", it may disturb you.
> I just am curious about the line of reasoning
I tried to explain in good faith my uneasiness with the practice.
More or less: "Before you perform ordinances for a deceased person born within the last 95 years, obtain permission from the closest living relative. Relatives may not want the ordinances performed or may want to perform the ordinances themselves. The closest living relatives are, in this order: a spouse, then children, then parents, then siblings." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/introductio...
They apparently care allot (thus try to do it right)
in part because they perform posthumous baptisms
to boost the numbers in their internal scorecards
to achieve a hi-score of some sort.
I have seen this news but have not seen any videos taken by a rider. On the other hand, members of the public have uploaded videos of their experiences in Waymo (Arizona, driverless).
There's also a perception challenge that doesn't exist in cities. At highway speeds and longer stopping distances, you need your perception stack to see much further. Still an active area of research.
