3 ms·

>have nothing to show for it in terms of something resembling human-level intelligence, or even any sign of understanding how we think. Well of course they hav

>have nothing to show for it in terms of something resembling human-level intelligence, or even any sign of understanding how we think. Well of course they have no idea how we think. They're making no actual effort to study how we think. That's for cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, and AI people often sort of dismiss it as having too long a time-horizon or overly high compute requirements before it's applicable to "real world" problems.

eru 5y ago
'AI people' is a fairly broad term, and the field is so hot these days that there are plenty of people trying all kinds of different approaches. So there's plenty of scientists and engineers who are trying to understand how the brain works and how to combine that with eg deep learning.
- eli_gottlieb 5y ago
  On the one hand, sure, I'm one of those scientists. On the other hand, we're still considered a subfield whose work isn't always considered entirely relevant to the rest of the field, because we're measured by the yardstick of task-specific performance on benchmark datasets. I just reviewed a paper yesterday that was powerful and general, but wasn't really trying to hit SOTA on any one test task its architecture could perform. It was trying for generality. This likely got it dinged by the other reviewers.
  - eru 5y ago
    > On the other hand, we're still considered a subfield whose work isn't always considered entirely relevant to the rest of the field, because we're measured by the yardstick of task-specific performance on benchmark datasets. That attitude seems entirely reasonable to me. > I just reviewed a paper yesterday that was powerful and general, but wasn't really trying to hit SOTA on any one test task its architecture could perform. It was trying for generality. This likely got it dinged by the other reviewers. That seems like an interesting paper!

eru 5y ago

'AI people' is a fairly broad term, and the field is so hot these days that there are plenty of people trying all kinds of different approaches. So there's plenty of scientists and engineers who are trying to understand how the brain works and how to combine that with eg deep learning.

eli_gottlieb 5y ago
On the one hand, sure, I'm one of those scientists. On the other hand, we're still considered a subfield whose work isn't always considered entirely relevant to the rest of the field, because we're measured by the yardstick of task-specific performance on benchmark datasets. I just reviewed a paper yesterday that was powerful and general, but wasn't really trying to hit SOTA on any one test task its architecture could perform. It was trying for generality. This likely got it dinged by the other reviewers.
- eru 5y ago
  > On the other hand, we're still considered a subfield whose work isn't always considered entirely relevant to the rest of the field, because we're measured by the yardstick of task-specific performance on benchmark datasets. That attitude seems entirely reasonable to me. > I just reviewed a paper yesterday that was powerful and general, but wasn't really trying to hit SOTA on any one test task its architecture could perform. It was trying for generality. This likely got it dinged by the other reviewers. That seems like an interesting paper!