3 ms·

Ah it's you again! It's quite funny seeing the dearth of knowledge you routinely insist on displaying whenever this topic comes up. Consider doing some reading

Ah it's you again! It's quite funny seeing the dearth of knowledge you routinely insist on displaying whenever this topic comes up. Consider doing some reading on the information theoretic view of cognition and neurobiology. You'll find leading theories for how our brains work have many similarities to NNs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding Another thing, you don't seem to understand that all physical processes can be modeled completely through matmuls. You should also read up on the definition of intelligence because you seem confused on what it means. Pretty much every assertion you make here is wrong and you don't even know it. You assert "it's common sense" something that does matrix multiplication in a loop can't be intelligent, yet get this, it's literally what your brain is doing. Please have some epistemic humility and consider refraining from forming strong opinions on topics you don't have a clue on.

throwaway465465 3y ago
[flagged]
- hnfong 3y ago
  > major in philosophy Yep, checks out.
- stevenhuang 3y ago
  Oh I've read and participated in so many variations of this topic. Nothing you said is new to me nor do I necessarily disagree with. It was a single statement to point out that similarities exist to someone who believed there were none. Unfortunately your giddiness to point out this false equivalence is misplaced as I was careful to make no such assertion. Ah and there is indeed not a universal agreed upon definition of intelligence, but the parent looks to be operating on a set of definitions that preclude them all (hint: general reasoning ability). The nuance you miss however is we do in fact have a pretty good idea what human intelligence looks like, and parent is excluding NNs of even that (general reasoning and problem solving, again). > Brains are embodied organs in an overall organism which lives in a dynamic changing world where ecology, cybernetics, control theory, complexity and dynamical systems theory, semantics and semiotics all will play a part in understanding it. Not just neural networks. All true, but guess what. There may be different roads to intelligence. Random walk through evolution and physical processes is one such pathway. Possibly an alternative pathway in a digital medium may reduce all these physical analogues to "mere" NN expression and matmuls. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theo... I'm interested in updating any of my priors if you have resources to point to. Also since you're a philosophy major I would hope you agree with me when I point out how undeveloped OP's understanding is about philosophical matters, when he says stuff like > Inference doesn't think about stuff but training does Like there's so much confusion there it's hard to unpack.
dang 3y ago
Please don't cross into personal attack, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- stevenhuang 3y ago
  Sorry, I agree. Will try to do better.

throwaway465465 3y ago

[flagged]

hnfong 3y ago
> major in philosophy Yep, checks out.
stevenhuang 3y ago
Oh I've read and participated in so many variations of this topic. Nothing you said is new to me nor do I necessarily disagree with. It was a single statement to point out that similarities exist to someone who believed there were none. Unfortunately your giddiness to point out this false equivalence is misplaced as I was careful to make no such assertion. Ah and there is indeed not a universal agreed upon definition of intelligence, but the parent looks to be operating on a set of definitions that preclude them all (hint: general reasoning ability). The nuance you miss however is we do in fact have a pretty good idea what human intelligence looks like, and parent is excluding NNs of even that (general reasoning and problem solving, again). > Brains are embodied organs in an overall organism which lives in a dynamic changing world where ecology, cybernetics, control theory, complexity and dynamical systems theory, semantics and semiotics all will play a part in understanding it. Not just neural networks. All true, but guess what. There may be different roads to intelligence. Random walk through evolution and physical processes is one such pathway. Possibly an alternative pathway in a digital medium may reduce all these physical analogues to "mere" NN expression and matmuls. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theo... I'm interested in updating any of my priors if you have resources to point to. Also since you're a philosophy major I would hope you agree with me when I point out how undeveloped OP's understanding is about philosophical matters, when he says stuff like > Inference doesn't think about stuff but training does Like there's so much confusion there it's hard to unpack.

dang 3y ago

Please don't cross into personal attack, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

stevenhuang 3y ago
Sorry, I agree. Will try to do better.