4 ms·

> What model of human cognition are you claiming is "incorrect"? And is it the one presented by Marcus, or are you strawmanning? The model of human cognition I

by shafte 8y ago

> What model of human cognition are you claiming is "incorrect"? And is it the one presented by Marcus, or are you strawmanning? The model of human cognition I'm referring to is the hybrid connectionist-symbolic one that Marcus is well known for advocating (are YOU strawmanning? lol). I'm criticizing it for being more a theoretical model than one grounded in the physical realities of the brain, which of course no one really understands. Proposing a research program on that basis requires a high burden of proof. > Are you claiming Marcus has produced no interesting research results? Yes I am claiming that, if the benchmark for "interesting" is deep learning. There are indeed areas where deep learning is limited, and hybrid approaches could be superior. I would argue that there is not even close to enough evidence that a hybrid approach has improved generalizable power. > Why use the term "kvetching"? I'm curious. Huh? I guess it's the term my mother would use.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>the physical realities of the brain, which of course no one really understands. No-one in machine learning, yeah, because machine learners mostly don't take neuroscience classes ;-).
antidesitter 8y ago
> The model of human cognition I'm referring to is the hybrid connectionist-symbolic one that Marcus is well known for advocating > I'm criticizing it for being more a theoretical model than one grounded in the physical realities of the brain, which of course no one really understands You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you claim Marcus' model is "incorrect". On the other, you claim there's insufficient evidence either way. Which is it? > are YOU strawmanning? lol Do you know what the term "strawmanning" means? What could I possibly be strawmanning since I was asking for clarification? > Proposing a research program on that basis requires a high burden of proof. As opposed to...? > Yes I am claiming that, if the benchmark for "interesting" is deep learning. "Deep learning" isn't the correct benchmark since that's what Marcus is critiquing (to some extent) in the first place. > I would argue that there is not even close to enough evidence that a hybrid approach has improved generalizable power. Then you'd be wrong. Here's a good place to start your research: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1279 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1279 > Huh? I guess it's the term my mother would use. Your mother taught you to describe scientific debate as "kvetching"? That's disappointing.
- dang 8y ago
  Can you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've been doing it a lot. We want thoughtful dicussion here, not gotcha vendettas here. In particular, your comments have broken this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > Can you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've been doing it a lot. Can you clarify? How have I "been doing it a lot"? And how was my comment "in the flamewar style"? > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Which part of the GP's comment do you think I'm unfairly interpreting?
    - dang 8y ago
      Here are other recent cases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18503013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18503013, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18447094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18447094, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18378261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18378261. That is what we're asking you not to do. HN threads are supposed to be thoughtful conversation—not cross examinations or verbal boxing matches, let alone setups to make other people look bad.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        How would you rephrase those comments while retaining their content? Genuine question. Because sometimes I get the impression that simply stating facts is enough to induce knee-jerk flagging. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the second comment you linked to, in particular. What do you find objectionable about it? I'm also still curious to know which part of the GP's comment you think I'm strawmanning.

by shafte 8y ago

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

>the physical realities of the brain, which of course no one really understands. No-one in machine learning, yeah, because machine learners mostly don't take neuroscience classes ;-).

antidesitter 8y ago

> The model of human cognition I'm referring to is the hybrid connectionist-symbolic one that Marcus is well known for advocating > I'm criticizing it for being more a theoretical model than one grounded in the physical realities of the brain, which of course no one really understands You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you claim Marcus' model is "incorrect". On the other, you claim there's insufficient evidence either way. Which is it? > are YOU strawmanning? lol Do you know what the term "strawmanning" means? What could I possibly be strawmanning since I was asking for clarification? > Proposing a research program on that basis requires a high burden of proof. As opposed to...? > Yes I am claiming that, if the benchmark for "interesting" is deep learning. "Deep learning" isn't the correct benchmark since that's what Marcus is critiquing (to some extent) in the first place. > I would argue that there is not even close to enough evidence that a hybrid approach has improved generalizable power. Then you'd be wrong. Here's a good place to start your research: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1279 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1279 > Huh? I guess it's the term my mother would use. Your mother taught you to describe scientific debate as "kvetching"? That's disappointing.

dang 8y ago
Can you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've been doing it a lot. We want thoughtful dicussion here, not gotcha vendettas here. In particular, your comments have broken this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Can you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've been doing it a lot. Can you clarify? How have I "been doing it a lot"? And how was my comment "in the flamewar style"? > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Which part of the GP's comment do you think I'm unfairly interpreting?
  - dang 8y ago
    Here are other recent cases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18503013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18503013, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18447094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18447094, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18378261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18378261. That is what we're asking you not to do. HN threads are supposed to be thoughtful conversation—not cross examinations or verbal boxing matches, let alone setups to make other people look bad.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      How would you rephrase those comments while retaining their content? Genuine question. Because sometimes I get the impression that simply stating facts is enough to induce knee-jerk flagging. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the second comment you linked to, in particular. What do you find objectionable about it? I'm also still curious to know which part of the GP's comment you think I'm strawmanning.