4 ms·
> Hence, the article linked to is probably right. Only if Penrose's argument is probably right, which you seem to have taken for granted here.
by balfirevic 4y ago
> Hence, the article linked to is probably right.
Only if Penrose's argument is probably right, which you seem to have taken for granted here.
- ozim 4y agoUgh... I don't need Penrose - you still have training set for AI. Humans don't have rigid specified training set, training human to live takes at least 20 years. Each human has really exceptional path and there is no way to train two humans in exactly the same way even if they are identical twins. Tell me how you do the same result with neural net that is trained in let's say 6 months, amount of data is not there. Mostly neural nets are trained on images or on sounds - humans are trained on images/sounds/touch/smell/taste/emotions for years.
- rbanffy 4y agoOur networks are continuously trained and never (major pathologies excepted) cease to be trained. OTOH, a digital network can absorb inputs at a much faster signalling rate than biological ones. Digital networks also don’t try to replicate all aspects of biological brains and are a somewhat crude approximation of their biological counterparts.