2 ms·
My comment here wasnt aimed at the problem of understanding and improving DNNs; rather, of generalisation and 'comprehension' proper. 3d image reconstruction i
by mjburgess 6y ago
My comment here wasnt aimed at the problem of understanding and improving DNNs; rather, of generalisation and 'comprehension' proper.
3d image reconstruction is trivially possible, with the right data and with the right assumptions encoded into the right algorithm.
My target of attack here is the equivocation that 'compression is comprehension'.
In my view comprehension isnt about 'generalization via compressed archetypes' as in ordinary NNs.
And it isnt about 3d reconstruction given the relevant modification to data and approach.
Rather generalization is abduction. It is the ability to, via a single instance, form
law-like provisional universalising models which explain your environment. This process will lead to a 'compressed', 'representation', but nothing like the sense in which compression is here used.
It is this that intuitively is naively assumed of these systems. They do not, and cannot, abduct. Abduction isnt a statistical process; involving at the very least, counterfactual reasoning and hypothetical action.
This is the problem that such equivocations miss (ie. that c = c).
And in my view this is an engineering challenge; not something to be specified for a universal computer.
The relevant capacities missing arent better means of compression.
- wokwokwok 6y ago> In my view comprehension isnt about 'generalization via compressed archetypes' as in ordinary NNs... How is this helpful? Be specific. The point being made is that inductions can be made by a compressed representation of the data. No one is claiming this is a key insight to AGI; you’re just taking the word “comprehension” and arbitrarily assigning it some personal meaning. This is why mathematicial descriptions are useful; you’re personal view of what “comprehension” means isn’t relevant here. The article doesn’t discuss comprehension. That is something you’ve, as far as I can tell, meaninglessly brought into this discussion. How are your insights helpful for improving DNNs? Be specific.
- trap_chateau 6y agoSorry but I have to chime in here. His thoughts seem insightful and relevant to discussion. You are calling his contributions 'meaningless' and condescendingly telling him twice to 'be specific'. That's not how things are meant to be discussed around here and not how you get an answer out of someone.
- mjburgess 6y agoYip. I couldn't move myself to type the obvious: a person replying to my comment doesn't determine whether I am "on topic".
- wokwokwok 6y agoI’m comfortable, reading his comment history, that a blunt request to explain how the the comments are relevant to the OP (and the failure to articulate them when bluntly requested to do so) I indicates that what seems “insightful” is in fact, not falsifiable and therefore nothing more than armchair philosophy. I’m not into that, so if it terminates the discussion then so be it. There was nothing meaningful to discuss.