4 ms·
I think you are disagreeing with the rather absolute nature of Hawkins' statement while accepting that he may be on to something. My take is: we know that the b
by tragomaskhalos 8y ago
I think you are disagreeing with the rather absolute nature of Hawkins' statement while accepting that he may be on to something. My take is: we know that the brain works. OTOH the current ML-oriented focus in AI is apparently promising but leads to some surprising and disturbing anomalies - thinking in particular of how an image can be minutely "gamed" to fool a classifier into completely misidentifying it. So to me (as an outside amateur admittedly) it seems like we are missing some essential meta-information about how cognition really works, and that the known precedent of the brain is the obvious place to look.
- WhitneyLand 8y agoSure, agree with everything you've said. Moreover, understanding how the brain truly works, think of how much value that could have for medicine, psychology, etc. The point is, history has shown over and over, it may be more or less helpful in building the best general AI we can. We just don't know. Making an unqualified declaration that it's required is hard not to see as hyperbole as this point in history. So is his one statement wrong, yes. Do I want to stop him? Heck no, giddy up. I hope he makes big breakthroughs.