3 ms·
They're apparently not. We can hypothesize without having seen a thing, using previous information. This is different from outputting random single value outpu
by AstralStorm 7y ago
They're apparently not. We can hypothesize without having seen a thing, using previous information.
This is different from outputting random single value output. Typically people tend to use generic or vague terms rather than mismatch, which is very different from what ML does.
We can also output that we're not certain. And we can use surrounding context on a way current ML cannot.
- anon1m0us 7y agoThose all still boil down to yes or no. Have you seen it? Yes or no? More than 50% sure? yes or no? More than 90% sure? Yes or no? The neuron either reaches a threshold to fire, or it does not. On or off.
- AstralStorm 7y agoThat's not how biology works, the spiking intervals matter, and when they occur, chemical state of the neuron at many moments, its shape and composition, and myelination. In comparison, DNN are an abacus level of simplicity.
- anon1m0us 7y agoJust because something is more complex than we currently can mathematically model, does not mean we cannot mathematically model it. If we can mathematically model it, then we can use 1's and 0's to do so. What you are suggesting is that how we think and observe the world with our brains is not mathematically possible. If that's the case, then Math is wrong, or at best: an approximation to the universe. Implication: Consciousness exists in the gap between the universe and math.