3 ms·

> Why wouldn't we have already seen spiking networks contribute something by now? This presupposes we've explored this space thoroughly, and we haven't. When e

> Why wouldn't we have already seen spiking networks contribute something by now? This presupposes we've explored this space thoroughly, and we haven't. When everything you do with NNs improves results (how it mostly is now), that means not enough people are trying out ideas and new things. I don't think you can invoke EMH-like reasoning quite yet. Give us a nice long winter like physics has had, and then we can use this heuristic.

sdenton4 4y ago
It's not strictly a question of trying Everything and seeing what sticks. There's a hypothesis in the parent comment - better handling of the time domain will lead to better modeling - which is actually fairly independent of architecture. So, there's going to be a number of possible ways to build better time modeling, ranging from tweaks to existing architecture to completely rebuilding Rome. So, if better time modeling really is a limitation, you don't need to rebuild Rome to find out. In fact, I might argue that S4 layers already provide this improved time handling in the current world, and is proving very successful, which would again widen the moat for SNNs.