I am always in favour of dissenting views being constructively put forth, and for there to be debate about this subject. But to be clear: 1. My views bear no connection to DeepMind. 2. I'm not particularly keen for my friendly recommendation to be used as an argument against Yann
“Egregiously disconnected from reality” (@ylecun) or “quite balanced and very interesting/thought-provoking (@egrefen at DeepMind). Folks, you decide, read for yourself.https://twitter.com/egrefen/status/1068912398671728640 …
A quite balanced and very interesting/thought-provoking by the sometimes slightly inflammatory (but not this time!) and certainly inimitable @GaryMarcus 
. Definitely worth a read as you queue for your tickets at #NeurIPS2018. https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1068897657530138629 …
. Definitely worth a read as you queue for your tickets at -
-
-
All valid points. You probably aren’t for stifling discussion, either, though. Posted your tweet not as an endorsement per se for my arguments, but an endorsement for considering them. Totally agree that DeepMind has many people with differing views, just as Facebook does.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'm reminded of the exchange between Norvig/Chomsky on Google translate and natural language. I'm in sw and Norvig's jejune performance was embarrassing. It made zero contact w/ any substantive issue re biology's bafflingly complex implementation of human language.
-
They weren't even speaking the same language. It was ingenious toolsmithing masquerading as explanatory science.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.