3 ms·
> but we aren’t going to understand intelligence this way The same argument holds for "AI" too. We don't understand a damn thing about neural networks. There'
by hotiwuer324234 2y ago
> but we aren’t going to understand intelligence this way
The same argument holds for "AI" too. We don't understand a damn thing about neural networks.
There's more - we don't care to understand them as long as it's irrelevant to exploiting them.
- lll-o-lll 2y ago> The same argument holds for "AI" too. We don't understand a damn thing about neural networks. Yes, which is why the current explosion in practical application isn’t very interesting. > we don't care to understand them as long as it's irrelevant to exploiting them. For some definition of “we”, I’m sure that’s true. We don’t need to understand things to make practical use of them. Giant Cathedrals were built without science and mathematics. Still, once we do have the science and mathematics, generally exponential advancement results.