3 ms·
I give some context in the blog post linked above. This quotation comes from https://web.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/hofstadter.html https://web.stanford.e
by stared 9y ago
I give some context in the blog post linked above.
This quotation comes from https://web.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/hofstadter.html https://web.stanford.edu/group/SHR/4-2/text/hofstadter.html.
And yes, he expected machine to have some 'deep understanding' of what is a letter. My approach (partly in the lines of Dennett, partly my experience with deep learning) is that we overestimate human cognition, which may be more 'a bunch of heuristics' than something 'really deep'. Especially, as some problems can be solved by... pigeons: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/pigeons-spot-cancer-well-human-experts http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/pigeons-spot-cancer-w....
- ska 9y agoIn that context, it makes no sense to claim that convolutional NN have solved his problem at all, let alone claim it is a simple assignment. It is interesting to ask if he was asking the right question or not, but misleading to trivialize it.
- stared 9y agoWell, it is exactly what I meant this "artificial intelligence" is line that changes. First we consider something some problem too hard for machines. Then, once we solve it - it's "well, but it is just a singular case". In any case, what do you mean by "the right question"?