Babble
25Raemon
17Unnamed
7SquirrelInHell
2alkjash
2LawrenceC
15Ben Pace
14johnswentworth
12habryka
12alkjash
7TurnTrout
7Davide_Zagami
7cousin_it
12cousin_it
5adamShimi
5Jacob Falkovich
5zulupineapple
2alkjash
5Richard_Ngo
6Qiaochu_Yuan
5adrusi
3alkjash
2adrusi
5Куля Ботаніки
4alkjash
4TheWakalix
4Qiaochu_Yuan
7alkjash
3ScottyMaher
3CTA
-1CTA
3Ruby
3BriskClarity
2Benquo
1Gordon Seidoh Worley
1[comment deleted]
New Comment
I just re-read this sequence. Babble has definitely made its way into my core vocabulary. I think of "improving both the Babble and Prune of LessWrong" as being central to my current goals, and I think this post was counterfactually relevant for that. Originally I had planned to vote weakly in favor of this post, but am currently positioning it more at the upper-mid-range of my votes.
I think it's somewhat unfortunate that the Review focused only on posts, as opposed to sequences as a whole. I just re-read this sequence, and I think the posts More Babble, Prune, and Circumambulation have more substance/insight/gears/hooks than this one. (I didn't get as much out of Write). But, this one was sort of "the schelling post to nominate" if you were going to nominate one of them.
The piece as a whole succeeds very much as both Art as well as pedagogy.
Something something reinforcement learning partially observable Markov decision process I'm in over my head.
Some aspects of this remind me of generative adversarial networks (GANs).
In one use case: The Generator network (Babbler) takes some noies as input and generates an image. The Discriminator network (sorta Pruner) tries to say if that image came from the set of actual photographs or from the Generator. The Discriminator wins if it guesses correctly, the Generator wins if it fools the Discriminator. Both networks get trained up and get better and better at their task. Eventually (if things go right) the Generator makes photorealistic images.
So the pruning happens in two ways: first the Discriminator learns to recognize bad Babble by comparing the Babble with "reality". Then the Generator learns the structure behind what the Discriminator catches and learns a narrower target for what to generate so that it doesn't produce that kind of unrealistic Babble in the first place. And the process iterates - once the Generator learns not to make more obvious mistakes, then the Discriminator learns to catch subtler mistakes.
GANs share the failure mode of a too-strict Prune filter, or more specifically a Discriminator that is much better than the Generator. If every image that the Generator produces is recognized as a fake then it doesn't get feedback about some pieces of Babble being better than others so it stops learning.
(Some other features of Babble aren't captured by GANs.)
Cool, it seems like we're independently circumambulating the same set of ideas. I'm curious how much your models agree with the more fleshed out version I described in the other post.
I find the similarities between modern chatbots and the babble/prune model more appropriate. For example, the recent MILA chatbot uses several response models to generate candidate responses based on the dialogue history, and then a response selection policy to select which of the responses to return.
More generally, the concept of seperate algorithms for action proposal and action evaluation is quite widespread in modern deep learning. For example, you can think of AlphaGo's policy network as serving the action proposal/babble role, while the MCTS procedure serves does action evaluation/pruning. (More generally, you can see this with any sort of game tree search algorithm that uses a heuristic to expand promising nodes.) Or, with some stretching, you can think of actor-critic based reinforcement learning algorithms as being composed of babble/prune parts.
GANs fall into the Babble/Prune model mainly insofar as there are two parts, one serving as action proposal and the other serving as action evaluation; beyond this high level; the fit feels very forced. I think that from modern deep learning, both the MILA chatbot and AlphaGo's MCTS procedure are much better fits to the babble/prune model than GANs.
Curated for being a highly readable and memorable explanation of a useful concept. I especially like the concept handles “babble and prune” rather than “generate and evaluate/filter”. (Also extra awesome points for the post being an example of itself.)
This post opens with the claim that most human thinking amounts to babble-and-prune. My reaction was (1) that's basically right, (2) babble-and-prune is a pretty lame algorithm, (3) it is possible for humans to do better, even though we usually don't. More than anything else, "Babble" convinced me to pay attention to my own reasoning algorithms and strive to do better. I wrote a couple posts which are basically "how to think better than babble" - Mazes and Crayon and Slackness and Constraints Exercises - and will probably write more on the topic in the future.
"Babble" is the baseline for all that. It's a key background concept; the reason the techniques in "Mazes and Crayon" or "Slackness and Constraints" are important is because without them, we have to fall back on babble-and-prune. That's the mark to beat.
Wow, I really enjoyed reading this post. I am a bit unsure whether the post was just generally well written and I enjoyed the aesthetic experience of it, or whether it actually had a lot of insights. But I do actually feel that you've very compellingly explained an important concept. We will see how useful the concept will be over the coming weeks, but my immediate system 1 response to this post is very positive.
Thank you for highlighting that dichotomy; I pay a lot of attention to optimizing aesthetic experience over insight. A quote of Tolstoy's really stuck with me, "If I were told that I could write a novel whereby I might irrefutably establish what seemed to me the correct point of view on all social problems, I would not even devote two hours to such a novel; but if I were to be told that what I should write would be read in about twenty years’ time by those who are now children and that they would laugh and cry over it and love life, I would devote all my own life and all my energies to it." I'm not sure I quite agree with the first half of his sentiment, but I definitely agree with the second.
I weakly think this post should be included in Best of LessWrong 2018. Although I'm not an expert, the post seems sound. The writing style is nice and relaxed. The author highlights a natural dichotomy; thinking about Babble/Prune has been useful to me on several occasions. For example, in a research brainstorming / confusion-noticing session, I might notice I'm not generating any ideas (Prune is too strong!). Having this concept handle lets me notice that more easily.
One improvement to this post could be the inclusion of specific examples of how the author used this dichotomy to improve their idea generation process.
This post made a lot of things click for me. Also it made me realize I am one of those with an "overdeveloped" Prune filter compared to the Babble filter. How could I not notice this? I knew something was wrong all along, but I couldn't pin down what, because I wasn't Babbling enough. I've gotta Babble more. Noted.
Cool post! I've found that spending a few minutes away from all information sources and trying to think up new thoughts (optimized for not repeating anything I ever thought before) works well for me. After a minute my babble generator goes "okay, time to get creative!"
Update after two years: trying to think thoughts I never thought before (or words, images, sounds, etc) still works amazingly every time I try it. It's pretty much the key to creativity in every area. I find myself not doing it as often as I could, but when I know someone else will be interested (like when some friends want me to write lyrics for a song), it comes easily and naturally. So everyone, please demand more creativity from me and from each other!
Thanks for this awesome post! I like the babble/prune distinction, but the analogy to randomized algorithms was probably the more helpful idea in here for me. It made perfect sense, since a lot of probabilistic algorithms are really simple combinations of random babble and efficient pruning.
This analogy makes me wonder: given that many in complexity theory assume that BPP = P, what is the consequence of derandomization on Babble and Prune? Will we eventually be able to babble deterministically, such that we have a high guaranteed probability of finding what we looked for while pruning?
A slight issue with the post: I disagree that poetry is pure babble/phonetic babble. Some parts of poetry are only about the sounds and images, but many poems try to compress and share a feeling, an idea, an intuition. That is to say, meaning matters in poetry.
This post changed how I think about everything from what creativity is to why my friend loves talking one-on-one but falls silent in 5 person groups. I will write a longer review in December.
What alternatives to babble-prune algorithm are there? Every search algorithm with a vast search space (such as the space of all sentences) is going to look somewhat random, at least until you understand how it works. Ultimately babble is about selecting some candidates from the infinite search space and prune is about selecting good sentences from those candidates. The two steps are not that distinct. I propose that the reason you see a difference between babble and prune steps is that pruning is to some extent conscious while babble is always fully automatic.
I think you're right, this is essentially the main distinction, and that it is still an important one. In other discussion we've roughly agreed that useful filters in Prune are eventually pushed down into the subconscious Babble layer. Ultimately you don't have that much control over Babble but you do have control over in what direction and how tightly you Prune and that's where the leverage in the system is.
A good indication that this terminology is useful is that I immediately have an urge to use it to describe my thoughts. Specifically, does anyone else worry that less(er)wrong is particularly babble-unfriendly (particularly to the form of babble which involves multiple people)? And if so, is there anything which can/should be done about it?
EDIT: this probably should be in meta instead but I don't know how to delete it.
Yes, I have this worry. I'm trying to shift the norm by writing more poetic comments, and it looks like some other people are doing this too.
I've been thinking about this same idea, and I thought your post captured the heart of the algorithm (and damn you for beating me to it 😉). But I think you got the algorithm slightly wrong, or simplified the idea a bit. The “babble” isn't random, there are too many possible thoughts for random thought generation to ever arrive at something the prune filter would accept. Instead, the babble is the output of of a pattern matching process. That's why computers have become good at producing babble: neural networks have become competent pattern matchers.
This means that the algorithm is essentially the hypothetical-deductive model from philisophy of science, most obvious when the thoughts you're trying to come up with are explanations of phenomena: you produce an explanation by pattern matching, then prune the ones that make no goddamn sense (then if you're doing science you take the explanations you can't reject for making no sense and prune them again by experiment). That's why I've been calling your babble-prune algorithm “psychological adbuctivism.”
Your babble's pattern matching gets trained on what gets accepted by the prune filter, that's why it gets better over time. But if your prune filter is so strict that it seldom accepts any of your babble's output, your babble never improves. That's why you must constrain the tyranny of your prune filter if you find yourself with nothing to say. If you never accept any of your babble, then you will never learn to babble better. You can learn to babble better by pattern matching off of what others say, but if your prune filter is so strict, you're going to have a tough time finding other people who say things that pass your prune filter. You'll think “thats a fine thing to say, but I would never say it, certainly not that way.” Moreover, listening to other people is how your prune filter is trained, so your prune filter will be getting better (that is to say, more strict) at the same time as your straggling babble generator is.
I've had success over the past year with making my prune filter less strict in conversational speech, and I think my babble has improved enough that I can put my prune filter back up to its original level. But I need to do the same with my writing and I find it harder to do that. With conversational speech, you have a time constraint, so if your prune filter is too strict you simply end up saying nothing — the other person will say something or leave before you come up with a sufficiently witty response. In writing, you can just take your time. If it takes you an hour toncome up with the next sentence, then you sit down and wait that god-forsaken hour out. You can get fine writing out with that process, but it's slow. My writing is good enough that I never proofread (I could certainly still get something out of proofreading, but it isn't compulsory, even for longer pieces of writing), but to get that degree of quality takes me forever, and I cant produce lower quality writing faster (which would be very useful for finishing my exams on time).
That's an odd definition of poetry. It seems, at least to me, that people want it to make sense, maybe whimsical, unapologetic, comfy, soaring, blunt or some other specific kind of sense, which is hardly a filter that maximizes "rational thought", but - pure rhyme and meter? Seriously?
Fair enough, that's definitely an oversimplification on my part. I think the broader point that plugging into a weird filter is a general method (perhaps THE method) of stretching your Babble generator still stands.
Conversely, some people have no filter, and these are exactly the kind of people who don't read or listen enough. If all your Babble goes directly to your mouth, you need to install a better Prune filter. Impose export tariffs.
I read more than I talk, and yet I have almost no filter. This would seem to be a counterexample, although with a sample size of only one. However, this could be the result of other factors with the opposite sign of correlation - from one perspective, "not talking much" leads naturally to "having an underdeveloped filter". Alternatively, we're using the word "filter" differently. Perhaps I do have a filter (what I say is usually relevant), but my lack of social interaction/skills means that the filter is misaligned with social expectations or desires (it's not often what they want to hear).
Starting to read it, fantastic stuff. One initial comment:
One day, when I was eighteen, I was reading a book
and I began to weep. I was astounded. I'd had no idea that literature
could affect me in such a way. If I'd have wept over a poem in class
the teacher would have been appalled. I realised that my school had
been teaching me not to respond.
(In some universities students unconsciously learn to copy the
physical attitudes of their professors, leaning back away from the play
or film they're watching, and crossing their arms tighdy, and tilting
their heads back. Such postures help them to feel less 'involved', less
'subjective'. The response of untutored people is infinitely superior.)
I've always felt this is quite awful about mathematics classes, and very vindicated when I can get a bit of a reaction from people with a particularly nice proof. Tangentially related is an idea I've had that it might be possible and useful to build certain mathematical ideas or techniques into muscle memory.
Is your babble overdue? Who can say? Who, but you? It's true. The inner voice need not accrue. In lieu, let babble through, babble anew.
Adieu.
Since reading this I've noticed a connection between overactive pruning and depression-y feelings in my own life. When I feel "depressed" (used in the non-clinical sense) and really pay attention, I notice that I still have many fleeting impulses but that some part of my mind is smothering them almost below the level of conscious awareness. Just noticing this seems to help let those impulses flow to action, which in turn seems to counter the higher-level feeling of depression. In particular, letting these impulses manifest in physical babble--doing silly things with my body, like falling over or dancing--substantially improves my mood. I wonder what this mechanism is.
Babble and Prune has stuck as a concept in my mind since reading this sequence. The need for both of them has informed how I approach intellectually personally and also in how I think about the communal process I try to support on LessWrong. Like so many things, it's something we need to juggle the balance between.
A bug I mentioned earlier is having way too strict of a Prune filter, compared to the quality of your Babble. This occurs particularly to people who read and listen much more than they write or speak. When they finally trudge into the attic and turn on that dusty old Babble generator, it doesn't produce thoughts nearly as coherent, witty, or wise as their hyper-developed Prune filter is used to processing.
This quote perfectly describes a problem of mine. I have however, already received advice in the same vein as what's mentioned: let out more of your ideas/words regardless of how good they are--my "good pruning" will eventually leave me with the best of my slew of ideas. While I can't concretely say that I've experienced great improvement in my thought-quality, I can say that I've been able to actually "come up" with ideas. Rather than, well staying silent and having none whatsoever. Upvoted.
Cool. This reminds me of something I've been thinking about lately: the default mode network. I plan to circle around at some point and say some things about it in the context of Robert Wright's Why Buddhism is True, but for now might as well point out the association so you can explore it on your own if you are interested.