3 ms·
> Despite the huge success of deep neural networks, nobody is quite sure how they achieve their success. Is that true? After reading Jeff Hawkings - "On intell
by divan 10y ago
> Despite the huge success of deep neural networks, nobody is quite sure how they achieve their success.
Is that true?
After reading Jeff Hawkings - "On intelligence" book (2004), for me it's pretty much clear why they are so successful on that set of tasks. Despite of HTM model built by Jeff being kind of different from DNN, the idea and origin of brain and consciousness described pretty well.
All modern advances in neuroscience just prove how strong the theory in this book is.
- bbctol 10y agoJeff Hawkins has some pretty heterodox theories of intelligence, many of which are not backed up by modern neuroscience. Furthermore, as neuroscience advances, the similarities between so-called artificial neural networks and actual neurons are rapidly receding. Much of the current success of convolutional neural networks is (loosely) inspired by a particular part of the anatomy of the eye, but non-visual processing and abstract reasoning seems to take place under much more complicated patterns that ANNs may not be able to replicate as easily.
- p1esk 10y agofor me it's pretty much clear why they are so successful on that set of tasks What's less clear is why HTM has not been successful on any tasks since 2004. I remember a few years ago they entered Kaggle competition to detect anomalies in EEG. Their team finished in ~150th place (out of 500). Even though anomaly detection in time series data was supposed to be their strongest feature.