Have we built machines that think like people?

A chief goal of artificial intelligence is to build machines that think like people. Yet it has been argued that deep neural network architectures fail to accomplish this. Researchers have asserted these models' limitations in the domains of causal reasoning, intuitive physics, and intuitive psychology. Yet recent advancements, namely the rise of large language models, particularly those designed for visual processing, have rekindled interest in the potential to emulate human-like cognitive abilities. This paper evaluates the current state of vision-based large language models in the domains of intuitive physics, causal reasoning, and intuitive psychology. Through a series of controlled experiments, we investigate the extent to which these modern models grasp complex physical interactions, causal relationships, and intuitive understanding of others' preferences. Our findings reveal that, while these models demonstrate a notable proficiency in processing and interpreting visual data, they still fall short of human capabilities in these areas. The models exhibit a rudimentary understanding of physical laws and causal relationships, but their performance is hindered by a lack of deeper insights-a key aspect of human cognition. Furthermore, in tasks requiring an intuitive theory of mind, the models fail altogether. Our results emphasize the need for integrating more robust mechanisms for understanding causality, physical dynamics, and social cognition into modern-day, vision-based language models, and point out the importance of cognitively-inspired benchmarks.

The Acquisition of Physical Knowledge in Generative Neural Networks

As children grow older, they develop an intuitive understanding of the physical processes around them. Their physical understanding develops in stages, moving along developmental trajectories which have been mapped out extensively in previous empirical research. Here, we investigate how the learning trajectories of deep generative neural networks compare to children's developmental trajectories using physical understanding as a testbed. We outline an approach that allows us to examine two distinct hypotheses of human development - stochastic optimization and complexity increase. We find that while our models are able to accurately predict a number of physical processes, their learning trajectories under both hypotheses do not follow the developmental trajectories of children.

Stochastic Gradient Descent Captures How Children Learn About Physics

As children grow older, they develop an intuitive understanding of the physical processes around them. They move along developmental trajectories, which have been mapped out extensively in previous empirical research. We investigate how children's developmental trajectories compare to the learning trajectories of artificial systems. Specifically, we examine the idea that cognitive development results from some form of stochastic optimization procedure. For this purpose, we train a modern generative neural network model using stochastic gradient descent. We then use methods from the developmental psychology literature to probe the physical understanding of this model at different degrees of optimization. We find that the model's learning trajectory captures the developmental trajectories of children, thereby providing support to the idea of development as stochastic optimization.

Trivial or impossible -- dichotomous data difficulty masks model differences (on ImageNet and beyond)

"The power of a generalization system follows directly from its biases" (Mitchell 1980). Today, CNNs are incredibly powerful generalisation systems -- but to what degree have we understood how their inductive bias influences model decisions? We here attempt to disentangle the various aspects that determine how a model decides. In particular, we ask: what makes one model decide differently from another? In a meticulously controlled setting, we find that (1.) irrespective of the network architecture or objective (e.g. self-supervised, semi-supervised, vision transformers, recurrent models) all models end up with a similar decision boundary. (2.) To understand these findings, we analysed model decisions on the ImageNet validation set from epoch to epoch and image by image. We find that the ImageNet validation set, among others, suffers from dichotomous data difficulty (DDD): For the range of investigated models and their accuracies, it is dominated by 46.0% "trivial" and 11.5% "impossible" images (beyond label errors). Only 42.5% of the images could possibly be responsible for the differences between two models' decision boundaries. (3.) Only removing the "impossible" and "trivial" images allows us to see pronounced differences between models. (4.) Humans are highly accurate at predicting which images are "trivial" and "impossible" for CNNs (81.4%). This implies that in future comparisons of brains, machines and behaviour, much may be gained from investigating the decisive role of images and the distribution of their difficulties.