3 ms·
1. This article doesn't mention neural networks. 2. "Your brain isn't doing anything a neural network can't do." Really, now? 3. The paper mentions "over 100
by dblotsky 9y ago
1. This article doesn't mention neural networks.
2. "Your brain isn't doing anything a neural network can't do." Really, now?
3. The paper mentions "over 100 factors" the algorithm uses. Ad agencies have way more than 100 factors on me, and I still get irrelevant ads every day.
Humans aren't perfect, but they can catch things that stats won't, and vice versa.
- quotemstr 9y ago> 2. "Your brain isn't doing anything a neural network can't do." Really, now? They're both Turing machine approximators after all. Granted, ANNs aren't quite sophisticated enough to match the brain yet, but this capability gap is a difference of degree, not kind. But I don't think the similarity of the brain to ANNs really matters to my argument, as interesting as this discussion might be --- so I've edited my original comment to make it more general and to focus on my higher-level point.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dblotsky 9y agoThe difference between mathematical neural networks and humans is how they're trained and how they function, which is not just a difference in kind. The way that they adjust weights and perform inference is different enough that them being "theoretically isomorphic" is not a viable argument.