Numenta/Grok/Hawkins harps on this idea of "streams" of data and how traditional NNs don't work well because they lack recurrent connections. The whole "no recu

Numenta/Grok/Hawkins harps on this idea of "streams" of data and how traditional NNs don't work well because they lack recurrent connections. The whole "no recurrent connections" thing was not true in the first place because recurrent neural networks most certainly exist and did in 2005, they just weren't very effective. However, fast forward to 2013 and nearly a decade of new research, recurrent neural nets are more powerful than ever. I suspect they could go head to head with anything Hawkins is selling. The problem more generally ends up as a philosophical one: if we're trying to create a machine capable of intelligence, how much inspiration should we take from the brain? Perceptron based NNs loosely approximate the brain while Hawkins believes a more literal approach is the way forward. Still, even Hawkins' approach stops way short of something like the blue brain project. Personally, I suspect it's much like achieving flight: We need to build an airplane (a machine that takes advantage of the same phenomena as a bird does in order to achieve flight). Just like the bird is not the only way to fly, I don't think the human brain is the only way to generate intelligence. But until someone can prove it one way or another, I have a feeling it's a debate we'll be having for a while.