Prospective Learning: Back to the Future
Joshua T Vogelstein
Timothy Verstynen
Konrad P Kording
Leyla Isik
John W Krakauer
Ralph Etienne-Cummings
Elizabeth L Ogburn
Carey E Priebe
Randal Burns
Kwame Kutten
James J Knierim
James B Potash
Thomas Hartung
Lena Smirnova
Paul Worley
Alena Savonenko
Ian Phillips
Michael I Miller
Rene Vidal
Jeremias Sulam
Adam Charles
Noah J Cowan
Maxim Bichuch
Archana Venkataraman
Chen Li
Nitish Thakor
Justus M Kebschull
Marilyn Albert
Jinchong Xu
Marshall Hussain Shuler
Brian Caffo
Tilak Ratnanather
Ali Geisa
Seung-Eon Roh
Eva Yezerets
Meghana Madhyastha
Javier J How
Tyler M Tomita
Jayanta Dey
Ningyuan
Huang
Jong M Shin
Kaleab Alemayehu Kinfu
Pratik Chaudhari
Ben Baker
Anna Schapiro
Dinesh Jayaraman
Eric Eaton
Michael Platt
Lyle Ungar
Leila Wehbe
Adam Kepecs
Amy Christensen
Onyema Osuagwu
Bing Brunton
Brett Mensh
Alysson R Muotri
Gabriel Silva
Francesca Puppo
Florian Engert
Elizabeth Hillman
Julia Brown
Chris White
Weiwei Yang

PDF page previews — scroll →
Abstract
Research on both natural intelligence (NI) and artificial intelligence (AI) generally assumes that the future resembles the past: intelligent agents or systems (what we call “intelligence”) observe and act on the world, then use this experience to act on future experiences of the same kind. We call this “retrospective learning”. For example, an intelligence may see a set of pictures of objects, along with their names, and learn to name them. A retrospective learning intelligence would merely be able to name more pictures of the same objects. We argue that this is not what true intelligence is about. In many real world problems, both NIs and AIs will have to learn for an uncertain future. Both must update their internal models to be useful for future tasks, such as naming fundamentally new objects and using these objects effectively in a new context or to achieve previously unencountered goals. This ability to learn for the future we call “prospective learning”. We articulate four relevant factors that jointly define prospective learning. Continual learning enables intelligences to remember those aspects of the past which it believes will be most useful in the future. Prospective constraints (including biases and priors) facilitate the intelligence finding general solutions that will be applicable to future problems. Curiosity motivates taking actions that inform future decision making, including in previously unmet situations. Causal estimation enables learning the structure of relations that guide choosing actions for specific outcomes, even when the specific action-outcome contingencies have never been observed before. We argue that a paradigm shift from retrospective to prospective learning will enable the communities that study intelligence to unite and overcome existing bottlenecks to more effectively explain, augment, and engineer intelligences.