3 ms·
It seems like everyone says the problem is "lacking of understanding" but it doesn't seem like anyone "understands understanding" on the level that this seems t
by joe_the_user 7y ago
It seems like everyone says the problem is "lacking of understanding" but it doesn't seem like anyone "understands understanding" on the level that this seems to require.
>"Yes, we should embed programs with priors and reasoning beyond brute connectionism—and to that, most people agree;—but this understanding cannot live in the symbols, it must by necessity live in the structure of the computation."
I'd argue it needs to live in the computation and live in the symbols and be able transparently go between these. But how to make that work is still unknown.
- galaxyLogic 7y agoI'd argue neural networks need to evolve to a stage where they create symbolic representations and invent a language that allows neural nets to communicate and learn from each other. That would probably require that they also develop a symbolic representation of 'self', as in my knowledge vs. what is communicated to me by other neural beings via some language we all can use to exchange symbolic representations with.