pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 1802.07740 · v2 · submitted 2018-02-21 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Machine Theory of Mind

Authors on Pith no claims yet
classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords agentsmindmodeltheoryabilitybehaviourbeliefsbuild
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Theory of mind (ToM; Premack & Woodruff, 1978) broadly refers to humans' ability to represent the mental states of others, including their desires, beliefs, and intentions. We propose to train a machine to build such models too. We design a Theory of Mind neural network -- a ToMnet -- which uses meta-learning to build models of the agents it encounters, from observations of their behaviour alone. Through this process, it acquires a strong prior model for agents' behaviour, as well as the ability to bootstrap to richer predictions about agents' characteristics and mental states using only a small number of behavioural observations. We apply the ToMnet to agents behaving in simple gridworld environments, showing that it learns to model random, algorithmic, and deep reinforcement learning agents from varied populations, and that it passes classic ToM tasks such as the "Sally-Anne" test (Wimmer & Perner, 1983; Baron-Cohen et al., 1985) of recognising that others can hold false beliefs about the world. We argue that this system -- which autonomously learns how to model other agents in its world -- is an important step forward for developing multi-agent AI systems, for building intermediating technology for machine-human interaction, and for advancing the progress on interpretable AI.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment

    cs.CY 2020-01 accept novelty 6.0

    AI alignment should target fair principles that receive reflective endorsement despite moral variation, rather than identifying true moral principles, with a principle-based approach combining different alignment elements.