3 ms·
I read that last time I thought about this topic, and went over it again earlier when epistasis linked to it. The arguments against Russel's position really do
by nonbel 10y ago
I read that last time I thought about this topic, and went over it again earlier when epistasis linked to it. The arguments against Russel's position really do not do anything for me. As mentioned elsewhere, they seem to be a bunch of non-sequiturs about what we are told growing up.
Regarding the Turing prize, etc. That type of thing doesn't really convince me. What engineering feats or surprising predictions has Pearl's methodology lead to? When I look at what is successful in machine learning these days, it is RNNs, CNNS, gradient boosting, etc. Correlation-based methods seem to be king, at least for now.
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y agoHave you run into bayes nets or probabilistic graphical models? Or read the old Bayesian Automated Taxi paper from the 90's that got people thinking about autonomous vehicles based on these concepts? Pearl's work is heavily used: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10996260119229499611 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1099626011922949961... The Russel quote you posted is in no way some sort of rebuttal of Pearl et all's work. They aren't even in the same ballpark. I don't intended that as a slight agains Russel who I'm generally fond of.