3 ms·
> This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation. I suggest you look up t
by anyfoo 4y ago
> This is missing the entire point of ML. ML is literally defined as not having to explicitly program responses in for every situation.
I suggest you look up the free lunch theorem of supervised learning.
> A calculator absolutely "understands" arithmetic.
I'm not sure how that's anything else than proving my point. Let's say a calculator "understands" arithmetic. It does not understand anything I would apply those calculations I make with it to. I cannot tell it "calculator, go do my taxes".
Your particular example is not even true: A calculator is able to perform calculations, it does not understand any of the axioms, theorems, and uses around it.
- feoren 4y ago> A calculator is able to perform calculations, it does not understand any of the axioms, theorems, and uses around it. It understands the axioms because they've been literally built into its tiny brain. It doesn't understand the uses of arithmetic because nobody programmed it to. Can you provide me a non-vacuous definition of "understand" that doesn't rely on human consciousness being extra-special and magic?
- anyfoo 4y ago> It understands the axioms because they've been literally built into its tiny brain. No they have not. Do you know what an axiom is? Do you know how a calculator is implemented? It’s not about metaphysics, it’s about the difference in the experience of a lifetime compared to a car on a road. „Training data“, if you like.
- jstanley 4y agoI don't think it's a question of knowing what an axiom is or how a calculator is implemented. I think it's a question of disagreeing on what "understanding" means. What does it mean to understand something? Obviously (to me and I presume to you) a calculator doesn't understand anything! It doesn't have the capacity for understanding. Obviously (according to, I presume, feoren and Dennett) "understanding" means something very different, and a calculator is perfectly capable of "understanding" arithmetic.
- hamburglar 4y agoThere is no math in a calculator. It’s a pile of logic gates assembled in a way to appear to perform mathematical operations. An ALU has no “understanding” of arithmetic, it’s just a canned, finite set of inputs and outputs. Not an axiom to be found.
- jstanley 4y agoI expect the argument would go like: The pile of logic gates is an encoding of the axioms. The fact that it evaluates mathematical expressions correctly is both necessary and sufficient to show that it understands arithmetic. Therefore the calculator knows the axioms and understands arithmetic.
- hamburglar 4y agoExcept it doesn’t implement the axioms of math, it implements a crude facsimile of them for a certain subset of numbers, because what it’s really doing is a non-mathematical physical process.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago> It’s a pile of logic gates assembled in a way to appear to perform mathematical operations In what way is Boolean logic not maths?
- hamburglar 4y agoIf you want to argue that an ALU is performing “boolean logic” just because it’s made of logic gates, be my guest, but in my opinion that’s a bit like saying a bucket is “doing math” because if you put 5 rocks in and add 7 rocks, it’s smart enough to contain 12 rocks when you’re done.