13 ms·
I would say "more on theory than on empirical evidence". It's entirely reasonable; the way your eye "thinks" is entirely different from how your higher cognitio
by _bxg1 8y ago
I would say "more on theory than on empirical evidence". It's entirely reasonable; the way your eye "thinks" is entirely different from how your higher cognition "thinks", but you need both. If you want something more concrete, here's a recent experiment done by MIT in this realm:
https://news.mit.edu/2019/teaching-machines-to-reason-about-what-they-see-0402 https://news.mit.edu/2019/teaching-machines-to-reason-about-...
We aren't an ML shop ourselves; we don't claim to be. Given that we have around 100 people, we focus on what we have that's special instead of trying to compete in an overcrowded market. The idea of hybrid AI is something we see as a future part for us to play in the bigger picture of machine intelligence.
- _0ffh 8y agoWow, I should have read further ahead in the comments, before dumping my first thoughts [1] as a standalone. How do you interface between the distinct parts of your machinery? Do you use deeper level neural network representations/activities as symbol embeddings? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19717680
- brundolf 8y agoWe're beginning to run up against what I may not be allowed to talk about :) But I will affirm that Cyc is fundamentally symbolics-based. We don't position ourselves as anti-ML, because it's seriously good at a certain subset of things, but Cyc would still be fully-functional without any ML in the picture at all.