3 ms·

Since you seem to know this stuff, I had a couple of questions. > Not unless you teach it. Humans who grow up in the wild on their own are quite ape-like -- cl

Since you seem to know this stuff, I had a couple of questions. > Not unless you teach it. Humans who grow up in the wild on their own are quite ape-like -- clearly, human brain doesn't start working automatically on its own I find this very interesting. Are there some articles/papers that I can look in to? > also, as demonstrated by machine learning, you can teach a non-biological system just as efficiently as you can teach a biological one Is there something you can refer me to that compares the efficiency of learning in humans vs machines?

bluekeybox 15y ago
> Are there some articles/papers that I can look in to? There was little real science done because "real" science is when you do experiments, and a study of this kind would involve the so-called forbidden experiment, which would create a huge ethical stir. The most often-cited report is this one: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/2053957/genie-a-psycholinguistic-study-of-a-modern-day-wild-child http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/2053957/g... Here is a brief Powerpoint with an overview of interesting cases: http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LING411/ppt/d39-FeralChildren.ppt http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LING411/ppt/d39-FeralChildren.... While it is often said that it is hard to draw conclusions from the few reports that exist -- I think that the one conclusion that can be drawn is that nearly everything that makes us "human-like" is a product of learning and social interaction. No confirmed "feral" child has ever been reported to have acquired language in the full sense of the term. > Is there something you can refer me to that compares the efficiency of learning in humans vs machines? Just look up any introduction on machine learning. Nearly everything we do every day (recognizing objects, thinking in terms of goals, etc.) involves a classification problem, and every classification problem can be reduced to a regression on data. So there is nothing more fundamental to learning than fitting a model to data. Humans are pretty efficient learners, but they have their limits (your Bayesian spam filter is probably more efficient than you on recognizing spam, even though it may fail in a few cases because it doesn't quite "live" in the world you live in, meaning that its world model is not as deep/rich as yours). To acquire a deep/rich world model, you would need more training (provided you have a correctly balanced algorithm), which would ultimately be as expensive as raising a child. There is no reason though to think that it won't be done one day.
- yters 15y ago
  The no free lunch theorem has killed all such hopes for me.
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    Don't see an argument here. One could also use your theorem to arrive to the exactly opposite conclusion: AI will happen and will eat your lunch, therefore there will be no free lunch.
    - yters 15y ago
      Perhaps you are unaware of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_theorem

bluekeybox 15y ago

> Are there some articles/papers that I can look in to? There was little real science done because "real" science is when you do experiments, and a study of this kind would involve the so-called forbidden experiment, which would create a huge ethical stir. The most often-cited report is this one: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/2053957/genie-a-psycholinguistic-study-of-a-modern-day-wild-child http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/2053957/g... Here is a brief Powerpoint with an overview of interesting cases: http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LING411/ppt/d39-FeralChildren.ppt http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LING411/ppt/d39-FeralChildren.... While it is often said that it is hard to draw conclusions from the few reports that exist -- I think that the one conclusion that can be drawn is that nearly everything that makes us "human-like" is a product of learning and social interaction. No confirmed "feral" child has ever been reported to have acquired language in the full sense of the term. > Is there something you can refer me to that compares the efficiency of learning in humans vs machines? Just look up any introduction on machine learning. Nearly everything we do every day (recognizing objects, thinking in terms of goals, etc.) involves a classification problem, and every classification problem can be reduced to a regression on data. So there is nothing more fundamental to learning than fitting a model to data. Humans are pretty efficient learners, but they have their limits (your Bayesian spam filter is probably more efficient than you on recognizing spam, even though it may fail in a few cases because it doesn't quite "live" in the world you live in, meaning that its world model is not as deep/rich as yours). To acquire a deep/rich world model, you would need more training (provided you have a correctly balanced algorithm), which would ultimately be as expensive as raising a child. There is no reason though to think that it won't be done one day.

yters 15y ago
The no free lunch theorem has killed all such hopes for me.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  Don't see an argument here. One could also use your theorem to arrive to the exactly opposite conclusion: AI will happen and will eat your lunch, therefore there will be no free lunch.
  - yters 15y ago
    Perhaps you are unaware of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_theorem