5 ms·

Where would you categorize human minds in your taxonomy of learning algorithms?

by pjscott 12y ago

RA_Fisher 12y ago
Oh boy, good question. First, I'm not an AI expert, I don't even casually practice AI. I'm not a machine learning expert. I am a statistician that applies machine learning methods a handful of times per year. That to say --- I find Bayes rule to be eerily similar to the way I think a human mind learns. We operate with degrees of belief, we couple those beliefs with new information and update our beliefs. The word taxonomy is heavily loaded, ultimately I'd say if AI were taken to it's logical end it would actually produce a human brain. Let me explain. Consider a map of your city as a model. If that map contained every drain, street lamp, and stop sign --- it wouldn't be a very useful map. It would be so detailed that it would be overwhelming and a poor tool for navigating a city. That's why we use maps, lower-order abstractions. But imagine that a map were your city. That it was your city shrunk down so that you could hold it in your hand. Would it be a model? A map? Would it be your city? Of course this is a fantasy, but the way I see AI is the map. AI researchers are working to convert that map to the actual city with the goal of actually learning about the human mind. So I think rather than giving a glib answer about categorizing the human mind, I'll just say that the category is whatever 'map' AI researchers end up with when we agree that what they've created is a human mind. :-) Edit: for those interested, here are some slides that mention 'no free lunch': http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~mike/ml4as/11/l00-2x2.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~mike/ml4as/11/l00-2x2.pdf
- pjscott 12y ago
  What I was getting at is that any no-free-lunch objection you make to learning algorithms in general also applies to the specific learning algorithm in our heads -- and yet we manage to function well enough to have this conversation.
  - RA_Fisher 12y ago
    Very good point. :-)

Where would you categorize human minds in your taxonomy of learning algorithms?

by pjscott 12y ago

Where would you categorize human minds in your taxonomy of learning algorithms?

Oh boy, good question. First, I'm not an AI expert, I don't even casually practice AI. I'm not a machine learning expert. I am a statistician that applies machine learning methods a handful of times per year. That to say --- I find Bayes rule to be eerily similar to the way I think a human mind learns. We operate with degrees of belief, we couple those beliefs with new information and update our beliefs. The word taxonomy is heavily loaded, ultimately I'd say if AI were taken to it's logical end it would actually produce a human brain. Let me explain. Consider a map of your city as a model. If that map contained every drain, street lamp, and stop sign --- it wouldn't be a very useful map. It would be so detailed that it would be overwhelming and a poor tool for navigating a city. That's why we use maps, lower-order abstractions. But imagine that a map were your city. That it was your city shrunk down so that you could hold it in your hand. Would it be a model? A map? Would it be your city? Of course this is a fantasy, but the way I see AI is the map. AI researchers are working to convert that map to the actual city with the goal of actually learning about the human mind. So I think rather than giving a glib answer about categorizing the human mind, I'll just say that the category is whatever 'map' AI researchers end up with when we agree that what they've created is a human mind. :-) Edit: for those interested, here are some slides that mention 'no free lunch': http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~mike/ml4as/11/l00-2x2.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~mike/ml4as/11/l00-2x2.pdf

pjscott 12y ago
What I was getting at is that any no-free-lunch objection you make to learning algorithms in general also applies to the specific learning algorithm in our heads -- and yet we manage to function well enough to have this conversation.
- RA_Fisher 12y ago
  Very good point. :-)