4 ms·
The fact that a neural network isn't even able to calculate, even if only trained to do this show how limiting are neural network only AGIs.
by The_rationalist 7y ago
The fact that a neural network isn't even able to calculate, even if only trained to do this show how limiting are neural network only AGIs.
- Hitton 7y agoI'm not sure. Human is general intelligence, but has to learn basic maths too.
- j-pb 7y agoOf course you could train a NN to do arithmetic, but this is much more impressive. Training a NN network to solve problems with available tools means more abstraction, and is closer to AGI than just essentially learning a LUT.
- Sean1708 7y ago> Of course you could train a NN to do arithmetic Are we really capable of teaching a NN to parse and calculate an arbitrary arithmetic expression? Because that sounds incredibly impressive...
- laretluval 7y agoYes, it can be done. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=S1eZYeHFDS https://openreview.net/pdf?id=S1eZYeHFDS Natural language is harder.
- stestagg 7y agoHere’s one that does so using roman numerals: http://static.offd.es/numerals/ http://static.offd.es/numerals/ It’s unsurprisingly easy to implement
- The_rationalist 7y agoInteresting but can it do more than addition? Also it doesn't seems to have 100% accuracy.
- stestagg 7y agoYeah. I only trained addition. Actually exploring the impact of training a net to perform a range of operations on the minimum plausible neuron count would be quite interesting I don’t see any reason why it would be significantly harder to do, however You’re right about accuracy. I didn’t let the model train enough to push the error low enough to guarantee exact results over the input range. But then again this was designed as a toy experiment, not something people should rely on