It's is too easy to claim that a synthesis of symbolists and connectionist approaches are necessary. This doesn't imply that it automagically gets you systems that developing understanding of the world. Are you claiming that it does? Care to explain how?
Yes!!! BOTH paradigms have something to offer, contra certain folks who want to treat one paradigm (symbols) as a dead issue (without having a replacement that yet works for conversation, domestic robots, etc). Progress will come when more researchers are versed in both.https://twitter.com/mpshanahan/status/1065658332512468992 …
-
-
-
Not automagic. Hard work, may take years
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I agree, a synthesis of different paradigms always does more good for a field. Fields like Cognitive psychology have benefited from a synthesis of many varying paradigms.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
BTW, ICYMI, Progress arrived 5-10 years ago:
$GOSY#OTC $.0037#ethics#SafetyFirst#datascience#machinelearning#bigdata#ml#tech#IoT#robots#Robotics#aiethics#eldercare#healthcare#healthcarebusiness#HealthTech#AI#human#NLP#MachineVision#DeepLearning#RPA#PwCpic.twitter.com/lA4HvsqVib
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Is there agreement yet on the goals or success metrics? Progress will come once we align on those, and by then people will not feel so attached to their favorite paradigms.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.