4 ms·

>The important research in hardware for machine learning is focused on taking designs that work I'm sorry but that is a really glib remark. The best working ne

>The important research in hardware for machine learning is focused on taking designs that work I'm sorry but that is a really glib remark. The best working neural net is the human brain, and the current direction of neural networks have completely abandoned resembling a brain. While backpropogation has led to impressive results we shouldn't forget that it was never found in neurobiology, and it's pretty antithesis to how the brain operates. In my opinion machine learning should reconcile with neurobiology, but it's too obsessed with the results backprop is giving them. Frankly all "machine learning" right now is impressive exercises in high dimensional differentiation using backprop. I even remember a talk by a University of Toronto professors saying that even though neurobiologists have never found any support for large scale backprop at the heart of learning, maybe they should look again because neural nets are working so well with it. I would say they actually abandoned empiricism at this point. Keep in mind that if we assume the brain to be akin to an evolutionary system like DNA then backprop is even more agrecious because it's like saying the sunlight and the organism is conspiring to optimise. That the sun, or sperm/egg are getting feedback from the organism and it's fitness to finetune how they mutate the offspring.

modeless 10y ago
Given the choice between algorithms that work and algorithms that crudely mimic the brain but don't work, I'll choose algorithms that work every time. Why waste millions of dollars fabbing chips for algorithms that we know don't work very well? It's cargo cult science, thinking that if we just build brain imitations without even understanding how the brain works then it will magically produce AI. Spiking proponents should focus on simulation and brain measurement until they figure out how to simulate something that works. At that point we can start making chips to improve efficiency. Meanwhile, the machine learning people may end up arriving at an AI that works as well as the brain or better despite operating on different principles, and that would be just fine!
- threeseed 10y ago
  > Given the choice Why do we have to choose ? Surely it is better to attempt both. Throughout the history of science knowing when something does not work is just as important as knowing when something does work.
  - modeless 10y ago
    Of course we should investigate both. But when spending finite research dollars, we do have to choose. Should we fab chips for both? No, fabbing chips is very expensive. We should only fab chips for the one that works. The other can be investigated just fine in simulation.
blueprint 10y ago
For the most part I completely agree. However, while it might seem reasonable to presume the brain is generating consciousness, it remains a presumption - and an ill-defined one, at that.

modeless 10y ago

Given the choice between algorithms that work and algorithms that crudely mimic the brain but don't work, I'll choose algorithms that work every time. Why waste millions of dollars fabbing chips for algorithms that we know don't work very well? It's cargo cult science, thinking that if we just build brain imitations without even understanding how the brain works then it will magically produce AI. Spiking proponents should focus on simulation and brain measurement until they figure out how to simulate something that works. At that point we can start making chips to improve efficiency. Meanwhile, the machine learning people may end up arriving at an AI that works as well as the brain or better despite operating on different principles, and that would be just fine!

threeseed 10y ago
> Given the choice Why do we have to choose ? Surely it is better to attempt both. Throughout the history of science knowing when something does not work is just as important as knowing when something does work.
- modeless 10y ago
  Of course we should investigate both. But when spending finite research dollars, we do have to choose. Should we fab chips for both? No, fabbing chips is very expensive. We should only fab chips for the one that works. The other can be investigated just fine in simulation.

blueprint 10y ago

For the most part I completely agree. However, while it might seem reasonable to presume the brain is generating consciousness, it remains a presumption - and an ill-defined one, at that.