4 ms·

This comes across a bit like the Tanenbaum–Torvalds monolithic/microkernel debate in the 90s. Tanenbaum in this case is Marcus and Torvalds is LeCunn. There

This comes across a bit like the Tanenbaum–Torvalds monolithic/microkernel debate in the 90s. Tanenbaum in this case is Marcus and Torvalds is LeCunn. There are so many well established benchmarks out there. Just build whatever this symbolic system is that you're advocating and beat the benchmarks. Or maybe create your own benchmarks and then we can also apply Deep Learning to those problems too and see who wins? Until then, no one really has to pay any serious attention to these clamourings.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
That's what the work I mentioned above does- it beats benchmarks and shows impressive results. The work by Evans and Grefenstette in particular is all out of chewing gum [1]. Somewhat depressingly, your comment makes me guess that you really think that none of that work has actually been done, that it's somehow all theoretical or speculative, or just a lot of twitter talk by Gary Marcus. That couldn't be farther from the truth. It's really the case that many people have no idea about AI beyond a quick article in the popular press here and there, and despite this, they have already formed very strong opinions about it. _________________ [1] Here: https://deepmind.com/blog/learning-explanatory-rules-noisy-data/ https://deepmind.com/blog/learning-explanatory-rules-noisy-d... Note that the above overview of their paper is published on DeepMind's website (the two are DeepMind employees). You can rest assured that DeepMind in particular, would never support the publication of a paper that doesn't demonstrate impressive results.