4 ms·
> Mathematically it appears to be just another neural network. What's the difference, broadly speaking? > IMHO, deep learning is probably more likely to give
by chestervonwinch 12y ago
> Mathematically it appears to be just another neural network.
What's the difference, broadly speaking?
> IMHO, deep learning is probably more likely to give systems approximating general intelligence.
If HTMs are just another neural net, why do you suspect deep learning will excel comparatively?
I don't know the first thing about HTMs - just curious.
- c54 12y agoHTMs are biologically accurate -- they do the same thing as the neurons in our neocortex! The most exciting aspect of Numenta's research is that they are building algorithms which think the way we do (albeit in early stages right now).
- dj-wonk 12y agoRe: "HTMs are biologically accurate": It depends on what you mean by accurate. Hawkins argues that HTMs capture the systems-level effect of a brain, even if software models of neurons are not the same as biological neurons. I can't personally comment on what others say about the accuracy, even at the systems-level. Re: "The most exciting aspect of Numenta's research is that they are building algorithms which think the way we do (albeit in early stages right now)." It is a stretch to use the word "think" in this way, since thinking suggests consciousness. One wouldn't say we "think" when we simply observe. You might argue that HTMs pass signals in an analogous way -- that might be a fair statement, from Hawkins' point of view. Yes, I realize that Hawkins says some interesting things about 'forward' and 'backward' processing even for 'low-level' processing such as edge detection.