4 ms·
That seems incredibly reductionist, and you might as well say they're the same because "you add a bunch of numbers together and see if the result is bigger or l
by GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
That seems incredibly reductionist, and you might as well say they're the same because "you add a bunch of numbers together and see if the result is bigger or less than zero."
(Also how do you know or why would you expect that it's categorizing by shape? Neural networks are infamous for finding "irrelevant" features in training data).
- sbierwagen 10y agoI don't understand your objection. Letter recognition takes a bitmap, and sorts it into one of 26 categories, cucumber grading takes a bitmap, and sorts it into one of 9 categories. Of course it's reductionist. Generalizing an abstraction across many things that superficially look different is what programmers do. Reducing problem complexity to make something easier to automate is what programming is for. Saying cucumber grading is like letter recognition is a true generalization that is also useful. Saying that they're both "adding a bunch of numbers" is a true generalization that is less useful. Programming, and (way more) broadly, science and engineering itself, is about finding useful generalizations.