3 ms·

Am I the only one who finds this to be a sort of wasteful experiment for one of the supposed top research labs in the country to be publishing in such a (suppos

Am I the only one who finds this to be a sort of wasteful experiment for one of the supposed top research labs in the country to be publishing in such a (supposedly) prestigious journal? The findings aren't super shocking although they would be interesting enough if they had managed to collect a large enough sample. Instead they barely grasp at straws and come to an obviously inflated conclusion that neural nets and human brains are similar in some way because of this (which _certainly_ isn't something they arrive at or even experiment for, in my opinion).

krisoft 3y ago
> findings aren't super shocking Aren’t they? Are you sure you understand what is the finding? > they would be interesting enough if they had managed to collect a large enough sample They did. The grand parent comment failed to read the right paper. > obviously inflated conclusion that neural nets and human brains are similar in some way But that is what they find. The human looks at two almost identical looking images of flowers. And yet when they are asked which one is more cat like they pick the one which the neural network thinks is cat-like too.(Or at least they pick it more often than if they were just selecting randomly in this seemingly nonsense task.) That is exactly “similar in some way”. Similar in which image they find more cat-like. That is the similarity.
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  > Aren’t they? Are you sure you understand what is the finding? Yeah, I got it. > But that is what they find. The human looks at two almost identical looking images of flowers. And yet when they are asked which one is more cat like they pick the one which the neural network thinks is cat-like too.(Or at least they pick it more often than if they were just selecting randomly in this seemingly nonsense task.) That is exactly “similar in some way”. Similar in which image they find more cat-like. That is the similarity. I'm saying the implication is that there is a not-yet-understood deeper connection illustrated by this discovery. I don't think they tested for that and I don't think it's hinted at. There are lots of reasons why this trick would work on both humans and neural nets that would amount to effectively no similarities in structure or process otherwise. That isn't to say it's not related somehow, just that their experiment simply shows the outcome is the same, but doesn't indicate why it's the same. Having said all of that, you're definitely correct to imply I haven't read the full study. And I'm happy to admit my original comment contains misunderstandings. Sorry about that.

krisoft 3y ago

> findings aren't super shocking Aren’t they? Are you sure you understand what is the finding? > they would be interesting enough if they had managed to collect a large enough sample They did. The grand parent comment failed to read the right paper. > obviously inflated conclusion that neural nets and human brains are similar in some way But that is what they find. The human looks at two almost identical looking images of flowers. And yet when they are asked which one is more cat like they pick the one which the neural network thinks is cat-like too.(Or at least they pick it more often than if they were just selecting randomly in this seemingly nonsense task.) That is exactly “similar in some way”. Similar in which image they find more cat-like. That is the similarity.

ShamelessC 3y ago
> Aren’t they? Are you sure you understand what is the finding? Yeah, I got it. > But that is what they find. The human looks at two almost identical looking images of flowers. And yet when they are asked which one is more cat like they pick the one which the neural network thinks is cat-like too.(Or at least they pick it more often than if they were just selecting randomly in this seemingly nonsense task.) That is exactly “similar in some way”. Similar in which image they find more cat-like. That is the similarity. I'm saying the implication is that there is a not-yet-understood deeper connection illustrated by this discovery. I don't think they tested for that and I don't think it's hinted at. There are lots of reasons why this trick would work on both humans and neural nets that would amount to effectively no similarities in structure or process otherwise. That isn't to say it's not related somehow, just that their experiment simply shows the outcome is the same, but doesn't indicate why it's the same. Having said all of that, you're definitely correct to imply I haven't read the full study. And I'm happy to admit my original comment contains misunderstandings. Sorry about that.