44 ms·
"What makes something a "cup"? A human saying it is one" And the human got their definition of cup by seeing a lot of things others called a cup and extrapolat
by jimmaswell 12y ago
"What makes something a "cup"? A human saying it is one"
And the human got their definition of cup by seeing a lot of things others called a cup and extrapolating rules, something that's already obtainable for some problems with solutions like neural networks.
- Epenthesis 12y agoTrue, but that doesn't really negate the hypothesis. What are those rules? Are they the same as the ones generated by a neural network? Or are they qualitatively different? (Diagnostic experiment: Is there a significant subset of "cups" that a naive neural network would always fail to include or only include when also including a significant subset of non-"cups"?)
- fit2rule 12y agoSo you're saying we can't have proper AI until we've had some semi-decent AI? That explains everything: what constitutes decent AI, versus good AI, versus superlative AI? The problem is: nobody knows. Its a bit like two cavemen banging rocks together until one says "hey, lets use these rocks to kill something" and the other one goes "eh? How?" and the first one says "I don't know, keep bashing until something dies.."
- Retra 12y agoI think, if you take Epenthesis' statement and shift up a meta-level, you're going to lose a lot of the clarity in what you're saying. A cup happens to have a fairly stable, consistent representation in a variety of relevant timescales. But if you want a computer to identify something like "an isomorphism," or "a useless activity," or "something to help a thirsty person not dehydrate," it is not so clear what the rules are anymore.